Earlier this month, the American Family Association’s “One Million Moms” targeted JC Penney for partnering with the openly-gay comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, claiming that the store is undermining “traditional families.” “Degeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store,” the group announced in their call-to-boycott. “The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there.”

Thankfully, JC Penney has brushed off the group’s empty threats and is sticking by DeGenes. But at least one mother of a gay man, Deon Davis, was deeply offended by the boycott and has written a letter to the organization warning the “One Million Moms” that their hate speech may be hurting their very own children:

I can assure you that out of one million moms that’s a part of your organization a pretty good percentage of their children are probably suffering from the lack of comfort, understanding and trust to come out as an openly gay person, this situation causes depression, low self esteem, and even suicide. [...]

One Million Mom’s there are much more sufficient problems to address than focusing on Ellen Degeneres, and the only rejection is because she loves and married the same sex, and for the record Ellen and her family is exactly the perfect example of what shops at JC Penney’s.

We have a huge generation of our children destroyed, hurting, bullied, tormented and committed suicide because of non-accepting organizations such as yours; your group message portrays non-acceptance and hate. Being a mother myself my maternal instinct inside me would never risk the welfare of our children by the non-acceptance and public outcry for the termination of a gay person, what type of message are you sending? A message of HATE!

“Ellen DeGeneres is one of the most fun and vibrant people in entertainment today,” Michael Francis, president of JC Penney said in a statement defending the partnership. “The millions who watch her on television and follow her through social media relate to her and trust what she has to say. Importantly, we share the same values as Ellen. At J.C. Penney, we couldn’t think of a better partner to help us put the fun back into the retail experience.”

As marriage equality legislation advances in New Jersey, Washington, and Maryland, many conservative groups, such as the National Organization for Marriage and Family Policy Institute of Washington, are discussing the possibility of taking the issue to the ballot. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) even called a referendum “the bargain of your life,” suggesting there are no consequences to such an approach.

But Glenda Russell, a psychologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has published significant research on the negative impacts of LGBT-related ballot initiatives through the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (which merged to become part of the Williams Institute). In an unpublished letter to the editor obtained by ThinkProgress, she highlights how problematic Christie’s “bargain” is:

New Jersey’s Governor Christie offers a referendum on same-sex marriage as a way to simultaneously appear reasonable and avoid alienating conservative voters in a possible future national election. “Reasonable,” perhaps—until one considers the impact of such referenda. Decades of research have shown that these elections take a significant psychological toll on people whose lives and loves are objectified, dissected, and subjected to all manner of myths and lies. They divide families and communities and introduce vitriol into conversations among neighbors. Further, Christie is horribly wrong in his assertion that African-Americans “would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights …” Research demonstrates that when any group’s rights have been submitted to popular vote, they have usually lost those rights. Such outcomes have served as tragic reminders of de Tocqueville’s warning to beware the tyranny of the majority.

Here are some of the severe psychological consequences Russell and other researches have identified:

• LGBT people are stressed by being the focus and target of a “culture war,” having the way they their lives analyzed and debated, enduring the reinforcement of homophobic and heterosexist ideas and stereotypes, and resisting anti-gay rhetoric and pseudo-research.
• The children of same-sex couples also experiences these stresses, which can be compounded by stigma and bullying they may face in school.
• LGBT people face extra psychological risk if they actively engage in the hostile political campaign.
• Communities are divided as individuals “take sides” in the debate.
• Family members can become estranged if they intend to vote differently on these issues.
• The measures also increase stress for the family members of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who might be impacted by them.

In addition, ballot initiatives are huge financial drains for the community. For example, Minnesota’s marriage fight has already led to over $2 million in fundraising between both proponents and opponents of the discriminatory amendment and the vote is not for another nine months. This is money that could be spent supporting the social welfare rather than fueling a divisive and harmful debate.

To treat ballot initiatives like they have no consequences is foolish. They drain time, money, and morale from the LGBT community, using a plea for “democracy” as an excuse to delay the advance of civil rights.

Freedom to Marry’s Evan Wolfson effectively smacked down the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) standard talking points against extending marriage to gays and lesbians during a debate on a local news program this weekend. Wolfson reiterated that marriage rights and other civil liberties should not be put to a popular vote, but rather decided by lawmakers. “The people elected legislators. They elected legislators to do their job. If the legislators don’t do their job the people can vote them out,” Wolfson explained.

He also swatted away NOM’s charge that New York’s marriage law has undermined the religious liberties of conservative marriage clerks:

WOLFSON: The only example Mr. Brown can talk about is that people who receive government salaries to serve all the people in New York, take an oath to serve the people in New York in the performance of their job will be told they have to perform their job. That’s the only example he can give. By the way, that has nothing to do with marriage. That’s about nondiscrimination law. In America we have very settled principles that when you operate in the public sphere, when you take a government job, when you say as a government clerk or justice of the peace or somebody drawing a government salary you’re going to serve all New Yorkers, you have to serve all New Yorkers.

Watch it:

(HT: Jeremy Hooper)

Opponents of marriage equality, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), have emphasized lately that they believe the issue of same-sex marriage should be put to a popular vote. Besides an excuse to completely cede responsibility for the matter, the argument also calls into question whether society benefits by advancing civil rights through referenda.

BuzzFeed took a look at where states stood on past civil rights issues to show how differently history would have played out if the same methodology had been applied to them. Here are maps that show how divided states were on slavery, women’s suffrage, integrated education, and interracial marriage before national decisions advanced those issues, and finally, where they currently stand on recognizing same-sex relationships (click each to see them full-size) (HT: Unicorn Booty):

LGBT equality activists in New Mexico protested a local pastor on Sunday for opposing Gov. Susana Martinez’s (R) appointment of Doug Howe, a gay man, to the Public Regulation Commission. Pastor Steve Smothermon of One Legacy Church told NMPolitics.net, a local political blog, last month that Martinez “looked me in the eye personally and said she’s socially conservative… she wouldn’t espouse the homosexual agenda.” He said Howe’s appointment “goes against that”:

“These aren’t the people we voted for you to appoint. We voted for you to appoint people who think like we do,” he said, adding that he is “not against the human being, but the lifestyle and the political power that the homosexual agenda has today, as a lobbying agenda, that’s what I begin to come against.” [...]

On Sunday, Smothermon, speaking to his 20,000-member congregation, drew applause for saying he wouldn’t apologize for insisting on “our right to hold a biblical world view,” the newspaper reported.

“Just like the mayor, if you campaign as a conservative, and you say you will govern as a conservative, I have an expectation when you say to me that you will do what you said, and hire and appoint people that are conservatives,” the Journal quoted Smothermon as saying. “I’m just a pastor of a church in this state that believes that people ought to keep their word,” he said.

Watch a local news report on the protest:

Martinez’ office is defending Howe, arguing that he “was the most-qualified applicant for the vacancy.” Meanwhile, at Sunday’s rally, One Legacy Church member, Michael Angel Gutierrez, told the protesters he had been gay for 25 years, but “because of the truth that God has revealed to me, I’m no longer a homosexual man.”

As the White House considers issuing an executive order prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors, the Williams Institute are out with a new report showing that 11 to 16 million additional employees would gain protections as a result of the measure.

The study, first obtained and published by Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner, argues that while many businesses and states have extended equal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, a good number of “federal contractors do not currently have those policies, and they employ millions of workers.” Therefore, if President Obama amends Executive Order 11246 — which establishes requirements for non-discriminatory practices — or issues a separate executive order, he would effectively shield the LGBT community from discrimination and establish a precedent for passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA.

The Williams Institute, along with the Center for American Progress, have laid out the case in a confidential memo to retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). In that document, the groups review the legal and political challenges the White House may encounter if it pursues the issue:

– WHAT THE ORDER SHOULD SAY: An executive order may require federal contractors to (1) adopt nondiscrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity; (2) actively recruit and retain LGBT employees and educate all employees to prevent workplace harassment and discrimination; and (3) extend benefits to domestic partners.

– AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Requiring numerical placement goals for sexual orientation and gender identity would communicate a strong commitment to diversity…However, doing so may be logistically, legally and politically problematic. An executive order could instead classify sexual orientation and gender identity with national origin and religion for purposes of affirmative action. Alternatively, the executive order could omit any reference to any form of affirmative action based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

– HEALTH BENEFITS: Such an order could require parity in benefits for both employees with a same-sex domestic partner and those with a different-sex domestic partner, or just those with a same-sex partner… Requiring private businesses to offer health insurance to employees and their same-sex partners when the federal government does not do so may prompt some resistance from the private sector. However, such a response would be in contrast with the positive assessments given by the employers that already have equalized their health insurance plans, and the government entities with such policies already in place.

– IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL: It is well within the president’s legal authority to issue either an amended or a new executive order to require that federal contractors not discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity… However, the lack of Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of nondiscrimination executive orders, as well as the lack of recent case law affirming the constitutionality of such orders, adds a modicum of uncertainty to the legal analysis. If a contractor were to challenge the proposed executive order, courts would most likely use two tests to determine whether the president had authority to issue it: (1) the “economy and efficiency” test; and (2) the conflicts test.

The Labor and the Justice Departments have reportedly approved the order and it is now awaiting White House approval. Last week, news broke that DynCorp International LLC — a military contractor that works closely with the federal government — has adopted an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy in response to a Change.org petition asking the company to embrace more inclusive standards.