One of the many places Lattimore's photo could have appeared on Match.com.

Anne Read Lattimore is filing suit against photographer Roger Kirby for distributing a photograph he took of her without her permission. The picture was used by dating site Match.com and by HealthCentral for a resource about coming out as gay. As a heterosexual married woman, Lattimore complains that her reputation has been tarnished, and part of her lawsuit specifically states that the rumor that she is gay is particularly injurious:

64. The statement attributed to Mrs. Lattimore, that she has told people on multiple occasions she is homosexual, is false.

65. The statement that Mrs. Lattimore, a happily married heterosexual professional, is homosexual and has told lots of people this fact is likely to injure Mrs. Lattimore’s reputation and subject her to contempt and ridicule.

66. This statement is likely to injure Mrs. Lattimore professionally.

67. Because this statement is a falsehood, it could erode the trust Mrs. Lattimore’s clients have in her and hurt her ability to make sales and earn a living. her self-proclaimed homosexuality and the accompanying innuendos of infidelity could potentially ostracize her from clients as well as from society in general.

Though it is unfortunate her picture was used without permission, Lattimore’s suit serves as a reflection for the reality of the stigma that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals actually face. Perhaps when she is done fighting to end the contempt, ridicule, distrust, ostracization, and professional insecurity she’s afraid she’ll face for being perceived as gay, she can then work to fight the actual mistreatment that is part of many LGB people’s daily reality.

Anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Family Research Council are ramping up their effort to overturn California’s FAIR Education Act — which requires the schools to include the contributions of LGBT people to history and culture. Jeremy Hooper notes that the repeal campaign have issued a scare flier suggesting that students will be required to learn about Chaz Bono at the expense of historical figures like George Washington:

But the law doesn’t narrow the curriculum — it expands it. In fact, the state has successfully incorporated lessons about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Asian Americans all without sacrificing the contributions of the founding fathers.

If the groups gather 504,000 valid signatures by Oct. 10, voters will vote on whether to repeal the FAIR Act at the June 2012 ballot.

As Mitt Romoney prepares to address the Family Research Council’s Value Voters Summit to express his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, his campaign is celebrating the support of Paul Singer a financial titan whose endorsement “the candidate and his team had been intently focused on trying to win.” But Singer, a big booster of Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), was one of Rudy Giuliani’s top bundlers in 2007 and is a strong supporter of marriage equality — which Romney will undoubtedly condemn in his speech on Saturday.

Singer has a gay son who was married in Massachusetts and he “donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to New York’s same-sex marriage campaign” and the national effort. Below is a video of Singer describing why same-sex marriage “will be seen as a profoundly traditionalizing act” at a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) in 2010:

SINGER: The social arguments on behalf of gay marriage, I think, can be summed up this way: America, the writer Jonathan Rauch has said, needs more marriages not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. I believe a generation from now, gay marriage will be seen as a profoundly traditionalizing act. It will have channeled love into the most powerful social institution on Earth, marriage itself. There’s a lot of work that still needs to be done, but the wind is at our back, public opinion is increasingly on our side, and the law is opening doors of opportunity that used to be nailed shot.

Watch it:

Romney has sought to reassure social values voters of his opposition to equality for gay and lesbian people this summer by signing the National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) anti-gay campaign pledge, but he hasn’t always supported the priorities of social conservatives. During his 1994 challenge to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Romney argued, “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern” and promised to co-sponsor the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

While running for governor in 2002, Romney struck a similar note, saying that “all citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation” and argued that “domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.” His campaign even sent out a “Happy Pride” flier to the gay community.

Romney did emphasize his opposition to marriage equality while in office, but still insists that he is still in favor of “gay rights.” Asked if he believes homosexuality is a sin during a recent interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Romney simply said, “Nice try.”

The Minnesota Catholic Conference is one of the three large organizations pushing for an amendment to the Minnesota state constitution banning same-sex marriage, and its executive director, Jason Adkins, is using the spotlight to spout as much anti-gay nonsense as he can. Earlier this week, he joined the Archdiocese in saying that any Catholics who support marriage equality are “not in good standing” with the Church, and suggested the only way for gays to earn respect is to “exercise chastity.” Now, Adkins is arguing that same-sex marriage would allow bisexual people to marry more than one partner at a time:

ADKINS: It’s about preserving an important institution. When you’re talking about marriage and changing the definition of marriage, you’re not creating a separate institution called same-sex marriage. You’re in fact redefining marriage for everyone. There’s little reason why you’d limit it to two people at all. What if a bisexual wants a partner of each kind, a man and a woman? Are you leaving that group out?

Besides the fact that the fight for marriage equality has nothing to do with polygamy, Adkins’ comments completely misrepresent bisexuality by suggesting it has any connection to having multiple partners. A more appropriate understanding for bisexuality would be that people who are bi have the potential for sexual and romantic relationships with more than one gender — that their attractions are not limited to just men or just women. The number of people an individual wants to have a relationship with has no connection to the number of people that individual might be attracted to.