In a piece at The Atlantic, Lindsay Miller suggests this week that she is “queer by choice,” making the case that whether or not she was “born this way” shouldn’t be the deciding factor for whether she deserves to have her same-sex relationship recognized. As Equality Matters pointed out, the National Organization for Marriage  lifted one sentence from the column to promote the idea that homosexuality is chosen. The Family Research Council and American Family Association (both hate groups) also pounced on it earlier this week for the same reason. Miller’s argument is problematic and confusing because she completely discounts her bisexuality — a word she never even uses:

In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way. I have dated both men and women in the past, and when I’ve been with men, I never had to lie back and think of Megan Fox. I still notice attractive men on the street and on television. If I were terrified of the stigma associated with homosexuality, it would have been easy enough to date men exclusively and stay in the closet my whole life.

Miller’s argument isn’t totally invalid. As someone with attractions to both men and women, it is true that she could have chosen not to ever act on her same-sex attractions. That, however, doesn’t mean she chose any of her attractions. Her rhetoric actually sounds reminiscent of many ex-gay narratives, such as that of Janet Boynes, “friend” of Michele and Marcus Bachmann. Boynes claims she is “a former lesbian,” despite acknowledging she has always had attractions to men. Miller similarly argues that she “chose” to have a lesbian relationship, essentially coming out the other end from Boynes.

But bisexuals who commit to a monogamous relationship don’t suddenly stop being bisexual. That’d be as absurd an idea as assuming that anybody who enters a monogamous relationship suddenly stops having attractions for any other people. By claiming that she “chose” her orientation (as opposed to simply choosing her partner), Miller is fueling the fire of ex-gay ideology that is at the root of all opposition to gay rights. Why else would NOM, AFA, and FRC all cite her column? Her goal is admirable — it shouldn’t matter where a person’s attractions come from — but by erasing bisexuality she is doing as much harm is good.

A person’s sexual orientation, regardless of its breadth, is enduring and cannot be chosen. Anybody who suggests otherwise is distorting reality.

In the days before the North Carolina General Assembly voted to add a question to the May ballot asking residents to approve a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, Sen. James Forrester (R) — a co-sponsor of the measure— called homosexuality an “unhealthy lifestyle” and urged gay people to “change their lifestyle” back “to the normal lifestyle we can accept.” During a forum in a Gaston Country church, Forrester also described Asheville, North Carolina as a “cesspool of sin” because of its high concentration of gay people.

After the measure’s passage on Tuesday, Forrester doubled down on his “cesspool” remarks, saying that he used the term because gay people “were all out barring their breasts“:

“It was kind of brought up in a church meeting we had and I don’t know what prompted me to say that, but I distinctly remember a couple of weeks ago they were all out baring their breasts and everything up in Asheville,” Forrester said. “They have a lot of very liberal people. They have a lot of homosexuals that live in the Asheville area.”

Forrester continued: “I think, it used to be you think of Wilmington with all the movie people down there would be the worst place in the state or Chapel Hill where they have a lot of liberal people and so forth. But Asheville is just doing a lot of things that I don’t like and I don’t think a lot of people in the Asheville area like.”

Forrester has also claimed that the gay “lifestyle” is responsible for decreasing longevity by at least 20 years and predicted that if the state doesn’t adopt his constitutional amendment, “homosexuality will be taught into public school as the norm.” “Do you want that? No. The homosexuals want to have their lifestyle considered normal,” he said.

Effective immediately, Australia will now allow people who are transgender or intersex to obtain passports that do not force them to identify with the gender binary. Rather than being “M” or “F,” they can simply be “x.” More importantly, rather than requiring they actually undergo sexual reassignment surgery — a requirement that Human Rights Watch told the Netherlands this week is a violation of transgender human rights — individuals merely need a note from their doctor to establish their “indeterminate” status.

While this decision may sound trivial to some, it could be revolutionary for the way it protects transgender people when they travel. When a person’s gender marker on their passport does not reflect their perceived gender, security personnel see the “mismatch” as suspicious. Trans people are disproportionately selected for invasive screenings like full-body scans and pat-downs.

But this decision also speaks volumes about how to respect trans people. A key goal of transgender equality is teaching society to trust and appreciate a person’s self-proclaimed gender identity. Australia’s new policy accomplishes this by not requiring people who are trans, genderqueer, or intersex to “prove” their gender or fit it into one of two boxes. Encouraging the authenticity of transgender identities counters the intense stigma and injustice they face throughout their lives.

Australia has not yet established full equality for LGBT people, but this is a significant step forward. Governments the world over should follow Australia’s lead by making it so easy for transgender people to self-identify their gender — not just for passports, but all forms of legal identification. Trans people will be safer and society will be better off.

In a last ditch effort to prolong Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), who chairs the Military Personnel subcommittee, have written a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta asking the Pentagon to postpone the scheduled repeal of the ban against open gay and lesbian service, set for Tuesday, Sept. 20.

The pair argues that the government’s decision to certify the end of the policy on July 22 was “inaccurate” because the House has “not received copies of the revised regulations and a summary of all the specific policy changes.” From the letter:

[W]e now understand that certain regulations and policies necessary for implementation will have to undergo a review and comment period before they can be effective and that this period is not scheduled to begin until September 20th. Ne need for review and comment before these regulations and policies can be effective directly contravenes the July 22 certifications. The Department is not ready to implement the repeal because all the policies and regulations necessary for the transition are not yet final. [...]

Mr. Secretary, we trust that you will see the risk of moving forward with repeal without giving service members and their leaders adequate time to study, understand and prepare themselves to implement the revised policies and regulations that they will need to be successful.

The Pentagon has denied the request, saying, “The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will occur, in accordance with the law and after a rigorous certification process, on September 20. Senior Department of Defense officials have advised Congress of changes to regulations and policies associated with repeal. We take that obligation seriously.”

Yesterday, Gen. Carter Ham, who co-chaired the Pentagon’s study group examining the consequences of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, predicted that lifting the ban against open service is likely to prove “pretty inconsequential.” Ham told the Associated Press that conservative groups may still speak out in support of the policy, but those inside the military will adopt a business-as-usual attitude.