Crosby Burns is out with a new report examining how the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and various state laws affect LGBT students applying for financial aid at colleges and universities:

How does this happen? Well, in addition to the federal government, nearly all financial aid providers rely on the federal government’s application for financial aid to determine a student’s eligibility for financial assistance. Due to federal and state laws, however, this application cannot fully recognize families headed by a same-sex couple and often renders them invisible. The application may discriminate against children with same-sex parents by discounting one or both parents as a part of that child’s application. Gay applicants themselves may not be able to include their spouses, children, or other dependents as part of their application. And homeless applicants who identify as gay or transgender also face unique obstacles in obtaining financial aid.

Excluding one parent’s earnings may at times demonstrate greater financial need by reducing the total household income. But it could also hurt the applicant by artificially lowering the household size. Burns lays out the following four recommendations for equalizing the application process and ensuring that “taxpayer funds and private dollars are being distributed based on need, not on arbitrary characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity”:

1) Congress should swiftly repeal DOMA. Should lawmakers repeal this act, the FAFSA would no longer be required to treat families with same-sex parents differently than opposite-sex families.

2) Federal and state lawmakers should enact pro-gay and transgender legislation so that all families are legally recognized, regardless of parents’ gender. Combined with DOMA repeal, full family recognition would allow the FAFSA to consider both same-sex parents’ income during the financial aid process

3) The department should replace “father/stepfather” and “mother/stepmother” with “parent/stepparent 1” and “parent/stepparent 2.”

4) The Department of Education should issue guidelines and training materials to financial aid administrators that outline the failure of the FAFSA to fully recognize families headed by a same-sex couple.

Read the full report here.

Time magazine reports that Rick Perry compared homosexuality to alcoholism in his 2008 book, On My Honor: “In a little-noticed passage in his first book, ‘On My Honor,’ a encomium on the Boy Scouts published in 2008, Perry also drew a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism. ‘Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,’ he wrote. ‘And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.’”

Perry went on to say that he was “tolerant toward those who have a different sexual preference,” but condemned “the agenda of radical gay rights groups that want to throw their sexual activity into the face of society, despite the decision by millions of families not to teach the gay lifestyle as an acceptable alternative.” Read it:

Two weeks ago, a the Family Research Council, along with MassResistance (both hate groups), released a video attacking the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) for distributing to minors the “Little Black Book,” a safe sex guide geared toward adults that GLSEN had nothing to do with. GLSEN responded with a cease-and-desist letter for the false and defamatory statements. Well, FRC has arguably complied, but not with any apology. The group dubbed the old video with a music soundtrack and instructed viewers to click through to an “updated video.” The new video still pairs GLSEN with the pamphlet, but clarifies that GLSEN did not approve of its distribution. To compensate, FRC head Tony Perkins rehashes several other long-since-debunked attacks against GLSEN, such as “Fistgate.” Watch:

GLSEN advocates for young LGBT people to find affirmation and understanding in their identities in resistance to a violent bullying culture in our schools. These groups’ attacks against GLSEN, combined with their smears of the “It Gets Better” project, are nothing short of a pro-bullying campaign. (HT: Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.)

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Karger is known for the fact that he’s gay, and likewise, he has some progressive positions on social issues. Karger owns his gay identity, and has used it to help people remember who he is. For better or worse, his media coverage has largely been about this aspect of his candidacy. On the rare occasion that he is interviewed about other issues like the economy or health care, he sounds like quite the legitimate Republican candidate. But despite his success at achieving poll numbers comparable to other contenders like Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich, he was excluded from the recent Fox News debate and is now being prevented from participating in the California state GOP convention next month.

But as conservatives argue that his exclusion has nothing to do with his sexuality, they manage to prove the very opposite. Jimmy LaSalvia of the gay Republican group GOProud epitomized this point as he tried to downplay Karger’s legitimacy as a candidate:

LASALVIA: Fred Karger is not a credible candidate. I would love for there to be an openly gay, credible candidate for president who was out there making a case for why they would be better than Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Fred Karger is playing a stunt, and his stunt has run its course. His whole schtick is … running around the country with a rainbow flag, saying ‘I’m the gay guy.” But he hasn’t made a case about why he should be president of the United States.

This is a catch-22 for the tokenized Karger: being “the gay Republican presidential candidate” has helped him gain notoriety, but now it seems to be the only aspect of his campaign conservatives are willing to mention. They dismiss him as “just the gay guy,” but simultaneously deny him any opportunity to engage with the other candidates about other issues in his platform. It’s political homophobia in action. Conservatives say they aren’t discriminating against him — he’s just not a “credible” candidate. But they don’t hesitate to say they think he’s not credible because he’s gay. If that’s not the reason he continually has to fight to be included in debates and conventions, what is?

Maybe it’s unrealistic for Fred Karger to win the Republican primary or beat President Obama in 2012, but he is surely not the only candidate who fits that description. We need to call out anti-gay discrimination when we see it, and that’s exactly what Karger is facing in his candidacy.