Twenty-seven members of Congress have signed onto a Change.org petition asking the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to lower the “R” rating it gave to the anti-bullying documentary Bully. Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) took the lead recruiting members of Congress to join the nearly 300,000 already petitioning to have the rating changed with a letter to former Senator Chris Dodd, who is now CEO of the MPAA:

Over 13 million American youths will be bullied over the course of this year alone, making it the most common form of violence experienced by young people in our nation. We cannot hope to control this epidemic and make our neighborhoods safer for our youth without discussing tough issues publicly and bringing them to the forefront of the consciousness of the American public.

The new documentary film Bully… offers an unprecedented look into the lives of youth being bullied and harassed…. I believe an R-rating excludes the very audience for whom this film is most important, and ask you to join us in calling upon the MPAA to reconsider their rating and allow access to those who need to see this film most – today’s youth and our future leaders.

The growing list of cosigners includes: Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Tom Cole (R-OK), Jared Polis (D-CO), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Jesse Jackson (D-IL), Hansen Clarke (D-MI), John Garamendi (D-CA), Joe Baca (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), Barbara Lee (D-CA) José E. Serrano (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Betsy McCollum (D-MN), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Jim Moran (D-CA), Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), Adam Smith (D-WA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Danny Davis (D-IL), and Edolphus Towns (D-NY), and Dels. Gregorio Sablan (D-MP) and Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU).

The film received a “PG” rating in Canada, which means that people of all ages will be free to see it there. Katy Butler, the high school student who started the petition, explained on MSNBC today the importance of making sure young people can see and discuss the film, saying, “no one goes into schools and edits out the language that kids hear.”

Watch it:

Our guest blogger is Jerome Hunt, Research Associate for LGBT Progress.

Last week, the Center for American Progress released a new issue brief on “Why the Gay and Transgender Population Experiences Higher Rates of Substance Use” and what can be done to reduce these rates.  Specifically, the brief mentions that an estimated 20 to 30 percent of gay and transgender people abuse substances, compared to about 9 percent of the general population.

According to the brief, there are three main factors that contribute to these higher rates of substance use in the gay and transgender population.  The first factor is minority stress that comes from social prejudice and discriminatory laws in everyday life such as employment, relationship recognition, and health care.  Second, the lack of cultural competency in the health care system not only discourages gay and transgender individuals from seeking treatment, but can lead to inappropriate or irrelevant service.  Finally, targeted marketing by alcohol and tobacco companies are exploiting the fact that bars and clubs are not only safe spaces for socialization for gay and transgender individuals but provide easy access to tobacco products and alcohol.

As a result, gay and transgender people turn to tobacco, alcohol, and other substances as a way to cope with the challenges. The data that are available about substance abuse show just how much of an impact this is having on the gay and transgender population.  For example, gay and transgender people smoke tobacco up to 200 percent more than their heterosexual counterparts.  Additionally, twenty five percent of gay and transgender people abuse alcohol, compared to 5 to 10 percent of the general population.

The brief also mentions a number of administrative and legislative recommendations that if employed could help to reduce the high rates of substance abuse within the gay and transgender population, including several outlined by the Center for American Progress last year that the Department of Health and Human Services could take.   The legislative recommendations included the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act, The Respect for Marriage Act, and the Health Equality Act.

 

 

 

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Friday, Rick Santorum defended Kirk Cameron’s recent remarks that homosexuality is “unnatural” and “detrimental and destructive to society,” suggesting that “both sides need to respect both sides.” Santorum believes that it’s just as offensive when LGBT activists suggest that individuals with beliefs like his are “bigots or haters”:

SANTORUM: I think both sides need to respect both sides… As someone who’s been very public about this, I respect people who disagree with me. I think they have a right to go out and make their case and sell it to the American public and try to change the law if they see fit. But, I don’t use language that, you know, calls them bigots or haters, and nor should they think that someone, because they simply disagree with them on that subject, should be treated the same. So I think rhetoric on both sides needs to be judicious and fair and respecting people’s difference of opinion.

Santorum then admitted he hadn’t even heard Cameron’s remarks. Watch it:

Cameron’s comments were hardly judicious, considering they defamed an entire population of people. Michelangelo Signoreli points out the double standard at play that counters Santorum’s plea for “both sides to respect both sides”:

Last time I checked, people characterized as bigots were not being bullied in schools or bludgeoned on the streets. Bigots can even get married in every state in America — even to other bigots, if they choose — and they can obviously be open about their bigotry, even on national television. But the sad truth is, it is still dangerous in much of America for people to be openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. And that’s because of bigotry of the kind espoused by Kirk Cameron.

Openly lesbian Michigan high school student Katy Butler has collected close to 300,000 signatures on her Change.org petition challenging the MPAA’s “R” rating for the new documentary Bully. She now has the support of Ellen DeGeneres, who discussed the controversy on her show last week. In an interview with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts today, Butler articulated how important it is that young people have the opportunity to see Bully, because the offensive language heard in the film is what bullies use in school every day:

BUTLER: I think we can definitely win. I think taking out the language in this movie is just taking away from the message. I mean, the message is so strong, and the language in this movie is the language that kids hear every day and the language that kids are bullied with. If we go in and take it out, it’s definitely taking away from that. No one goes into schools and edits out the language that kids hear in schools. It just doesn’t happen.

Watch it:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan is still bitter that marriage equality passed in New York last year, telling the New York Daily News that Catholic leaders “got burned” by Senate Republicans they were convinced would oppose the law:

DOLAN: We got burned last year when we were told the redefinition of marriage didn’t have much of a chance — and of course it did. Our Senate leaders, we highly appreciated them being with us all along. When they kind of assured us it didn’t have much of a chance — not that we let up, but we probably would have been much more vigorous and even more  physically present if we knew there was a chance. We got a little stung, and it could be as much our fault as anyone else’s.

This is an incredibly smug attitude for Dolan to have, but it reflects the amount of influence the Catholic Church hierarchy expects to have over political discourse. Even though a majority of New York Catholics supported the marriage equality bill months before it came to a vote and continued to afterward, Dolan believes that the bishops could still have changed the outcome if they’d just applied more pressure. But this is a blatant rewriting of history, because Dolan admitted after the law passed that he saw it coming and was “not surprised” that it was successful. Considering the number of anti-gay screeds he published while the legislature was still debating the bill, one wonders what more he would have done had he been “much more vigorous.”

Fortunately, the New York legislature chose to represent all constituents when it decided to expand LGBT equality instead of catering to a select group of Church leaders who refuse to exist in the same universe as married same-sex couples.

On Friday, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) rejected a petition from marriage equality advocates seeking to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Though Ian James of Freedom to Marry Ohio submitted well over the 1,000 signatures necessary to have the ballot language considered, DeWine claimed he could not certify the summary of the proposed constitutional amendment because the summary was too long and described impacts of the amendment not actually found in the amendment:

After reviewing the submission, I conclude that I am unable to certify the summary as a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment for three reasons. First, the summary is longer than the text of the amendment… Second, the summary states that the amendment retains the rights contained in “Section 11 of Article XV for political subdivisions to not recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.” However, the text of the amendment does not indicate that political subdivisions would retain these rights. Third, the summary states that the amendment retains “the portions of Title 31 that codifies this Amendment.” However, the text of the amendment does not contain any reference to Title 31.

DeWine is an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage, having co-sponsored a federal marriage amendment as a U.S. Senator in 2006. He also has endorsed Rick Santorum for president. James was not surprised by the rejection, and not deterred either, promising, “We are going to continue to circulate petitions to his desk.”

Meanwhile, Equality Ohio and GetEQUAL Ohio are planning the “largest illegal mass wedding ever held” in Cleveland on March 24. About a dozen clergy will marry more than 200 same-sex couples, even though their unions are not recognized. In addition to raising publicity about anti-gay discrimination, it will serve as an opportunity to collect signatures for additional petition efforts.

Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, the group trying to overturn marriage equality in Washington state with Referendum 74, is not pleased that activist Paul Thomasson is reaching out to individuals who signed Referendum 71 in 2009. In a rant at the Faith & Freedom Network, Randall calls Thomasson a “hard core homosexual activist” and threatens equality opponents not to respond because Thomasson will reveal their identities:

He is posting every response on his website and now with KOMO reporting on it, more people will be directed to the site. I would suggest you not respond to him, however if you do, please know that your comments and probably your name will be further publicized to his readers. KOMO proudly reports, “Thomasson ‘s campaign may actually be working.” From what I’m seeing on the I-1192 petition reports, his efforts don’t seem to be working at all. The response is terrific. I am certain it will be on R-74 as well.

A quick visit to Thomasson’s site, where he has published the 66 responses he has so far received, reveals that he is only publishing first names, intentionally protecting the anonymity of the individuals who reply. Further, while Randall is generally correct that most of the responses maintain an opposition to marriage equality, Thomasson’s project already boasts two important achievements: 1) The fact that any of the petitioners have rethought their position and may decline to sign Referendum 74 represents successful progress. 2) The responses cast a sincere glimpse into the religious motivations and anti-gay animus behind those who would try to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry. These responses arguably reflect quite negatively on a campaign that claims to be “protecting” marriage, as opposed to depriving couples of it, and they could prove useful both in Washington and other states fighting ballot campaigns related to same-sex marriage.

(HT: Joe.My.God.)

Last month, Barbara Johnson made headlines by sharing her story that at her own mother’s funeral, the priest refused to serve her communion because she was a lesbian. That priest, Father Marcel Guarnizo, has now been placed on administrative leave. According to a letter from Bishop Barry C. Knestout obtained by the Washington Blade, Guarnizo’s priestly faculties have been removed while the Archdiocese completes an investigation into his actions:

This action was taken after I received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry. Given the grave nature of these allegations, and in light of the confusion in the parish and the concerns expressed by parishioners, Father Guarnizo is prohibited from exercising any priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington until all matters can be appropriately resolved, with the hope that he might return to priestly ministry.

The letter does not specifically acknowledge Johnson’ allegations for how Guarnizo humiliated her, nor will the Archdiocese confirm whether those are the concerns expressed in the letter. Given the “hope” expressed that he will “return to priestly ministry,” this may just be an attempt by the Catholic Church to save face until the controversy dies down. After all, priests found to be abusing children have habitually just been moved to new parishes, so it would be an extreme change in policy to actually punish a priest for much less harmful infractions.

Watch Johnson’s CNN interview about the humiliation she experienced at her mother’s funeral: