Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defense Fund are apparently organizing to again pursue a constitutional amendment in Colorado that would give religious groups free reign to discriminate against LGBT people and control what kind of health benefits women have access to. The so-called “Religious Freedom Amendment” asserts that a “sincerely held religious belief” cannot be “burdened” by the government:

(1) The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.

(2) A burden includes indirect burdens such a [sic] as withholding of one or more benefits, assessing one or more penalties, exclusion from one of [sic] more government programs, and/or exclusion from one or more government facility [sic].

Aside from the offense of writing numerous typos into the Colorado constitution, the amendment not-so-subtly demands that religious groups have more power over citizens than the government by essentially giving them veto power over all policy decisions. This language could easily be construed such that the government would be permanently tethered to subsidizing religious groups, no matter how exclusive the policies of that group would be.

For example, after civil unions legislation passed in Illinois last year, the state decided to stop subsidizing Catholic Charities’ adoption services with taxpayer funding because the agencies refused to serve same-sex couples. Were this amendment to pass in Colorado, the state could never back out of such funding if organizations claimed their discrimination was based on a “sincerely held religious belief.” (Incidentally, even though Colorado’s proposed civil unions law actually would create a religious exception, Catholic Charities announced they would nevertheless shut down all services if the bill passes.)

One Colorado, the state’s LGBT advocacy organization, has put out a call to action to oppose the amendment, highlighting its many consequences for all Coloradans:

Imagine a law that allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a birth control prescription. A law that permits an employer to refuse to hire people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. A law that gives protection to teachers who refuse to teach sex education or evolution. All for the sake of so-called religious freedom.

Conservatives failed to place a similar amendment on the ballot in 2010. Ideally, this proposal will meet the same fate.

Yesterday’s issue of The Rhode Island Catholic featured a specious attack on the rights of LGBT Rhode Islanders, penned by Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Providence Diocese. His “Five Problems with Homosexual ‘Marriage’ [sic]“ presents a laundry list of familiar arguments against equality: we’ve always done it the other way, we mustn’t endorse immorality, a “social experiment” might have unpredictable and scary outcomes, and even considering the idea would be a divisive distraction for the legislature. The Bishop pledges that, should the Rhode Island General Assembly consider any attempt to embrace full marriage equality, his diocese will be “fully engaged in the battle.”

Tobin’s concern is odd, given that Rhode Island has already granted many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples through civil unions and the state recognizes out-of-state same-sex civil marriages. An Ocean State couple may make the short trip to neighboring Connecticut or Massachusetts for a legally-binding wedding, but cannot hold their wedding in-state.

Most ironic, though, about Tobin’s screed is his attempt to couch his opposition to legal recognition of same-sex marriages in terms of religious liberty.

The establishment of same-sex marriage will pose yet another threat to religious liberty. This fear been constantly pointed out, and indeed already realized, even before the invasive Obama HHS Contraceptive Mandate was foisted upon us, a development that confirms that the full-frontal assault on religious liberty in our nation is well underway. We’ve already seen that if you oppose same-sex marriage, even for personal or religious principles, you’ll quickly be labeled an intolerant bigot. And while proponents insist that religious communities will not be required to officiate at same-sex ceremonies, there are other impositions upon religious institutions and private citizens that have already been realized. The truth is that the homosexual lobby that seeks tolerance for itself isn’t quite as generous in extending the same courtesy to others.

Indeed another top story on the publications website quotes Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, saying “The need to defend citizens’ rights of conscience is the most critical issue before our country right now,” and that “Religious freedom is at the heart of democracy and rooted in the dignity of every human person.”

But apparently, Tobin believes religious liberty should only apply those those who share his views. While no civil marriage law in the U.S. has ever required the Catholic Church or any other religion to marry any particular kind of couple. These include Episcopalians, the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutherans, Unitarian Universalists, Reform Jews and many others. Tobin does not address why the state of Rhode Island should discriminate against all of these religious groups by refusing to recognize the unions they bless, following their own consciences. And, despite the bishops’ concerns, a new poll shows most Americans do not believe that religious liberty is under any attack.

If there is a case to be made that religious liberty is under assault, it is conniving rhetoric like Tobin’s leading the attack.

While the British government begins accepting public comment on whether to let same-sex couples marry, two legal decisions from elsewhere in Europe today offer an interesting look at how countries are approaching LGBT rights at different paces.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that France did not discriminate when it prevented a lesbian couple from both becoming their daughter’s legal parents. The court simply upheld France’s laws, which prevent unmarried couples from adopting together, apparently disregarding the injustice that France does not allow for same-sex marriage. It’s unclear what “human rights” the court stands for, but in this case they did not seem to include family security.

The Italian Supreme Court took a slightly different position when it ruled that a same-sex couple married in another country could not have their marriage legally recognized in Italy. Nevertheless, the court said the two men still had the “right to a family life,” which could open future possibilities for gay rights in that country.

The European Union has been increasingly committed to LGBT rights, but these decisions suggest that it is still leaving room for individual countries to work toward recognizing same-sex families in their own ways.

GLAAD’s new Commentator Accountability Project (CAP) has one goal: ensure that the dastardly anti-gay comments social conservatives have made in the past are not ignored or forgiven when they make mainstream media appearances. Blogger Jeremy Hooper, a significant contributor to CAP, has pointed out that many of these individuals have been allowed to play “split roles,” railing against the LGBT community on conservative talk radio, then playing the part of “buttoned-up conservative” pundit on cable or local news. And in the day since the project launched, many of its targets have proven exactly why this accountability is necessary:

• The Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber called CAP an “Orwellian blacklist” established by “homo-fascists” trying to “silence Christian warriors.”
• Focus on the Family claimed that GLAAD was trying to “intimidate the media into forfeiting their constitutional right to freedom of the press.”
• Kevin McCullough railed against CAP as a guest host on American Family Association radio and told Politico that GLAAD is trying to “shut people’s voices down.”
• The Alliance Defense Fund claimed that CAP “targets free speech.”
• Ex-gay activist Randy Thomas defended the several individuals on the list, claiming they “would never say anything offensive for the sake of simply being offensive.”

In every case, these anti-gay voices are claiming to be victims, but they are only victims of their own quotes. In a way, the Commentator Accountability Project represents a culmination of the work LGBT bloggers have been doing for years, capturing the vitriolic rhetoric of equality opponents for all to see. The mere fact that they feel the need to respond by condemning GLAAD’s effort validates the value of this project. Now there is an accessible hub for these quotes — albeit not a full archive (by design) — to ensure that pundits don’t get away with being conservative standard-bearers without taking responsibility for the many dangerous lies and offensive values that define them. The jig is up.

The genius of CAP is that it creates a lose-lose situation for these would-be pundits. They can try to compensate by doubling down on their most offensive talking points and how loudly and widely they share them. Or, they can proceed with their typical media appearances and attempt to use the victim mentality to obfuscate responsibility for their own views. Either way, they stand to lose public favor, and no matter how they condemn GLAAD, that’s surely why they’re so perturbed.

Father Marcel Guarnizo has finally spoken out about a recent incident in which he denied communion to Barbara Johnson, a lesbian woman, at her mother’s funeral. Guarnizo has since been suspended, and in his statement, he clarifies that the suspension was entirely related to the incident with Johnson and defends his actions:

But I am going to defend my conduct in these instances, because what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.

I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld.

Otherwise any priest could-and many will-face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve the Catholic Church in Washington D.C.

Considering he blatantly humiliated a woman at her mother’s funeral and continues to call her sinful in public statements, it seems doubtful Guarnizo understands exactly what it means to “hurt or embarrass” somebody.

Nebraska blogger AKSARBENT continues to analyze this week’s decision to advance LGBT non-discrimination protections in Omaha. Councilman Franklin Thompson was one of the most vocal opponents of the measure, and during the final debate on Tuesday, he struggled quite a bit with protecting “perceived” gender identity:

THOMPSON: Perceived sexual identity is bothersome to me. It’s sort of like someone saying “You and I can perceive ourselves to be black this week, but next week we’ll be white.”[...]

What if the individual decides that one week, “I perceive myself to be male,” and then a month later, “I perceive myself to be female,” and then the smaller companies—

My point is that the perception can go both ways. Perception is so vague and ambiguous that it’s hard to quantify. You’re asking Omaha businessmen to take a shot in the dark.

Watch Thompson’s arguments:

First of all, it’s obvious that Thompson does not have the most basic understanding of gender identity. Transgender individuals do not haphazardly change their gender from month to month — gender identity is enduring and consistent, not so different from how individuals experience race. But more importantly, the entire point of including the language of “perceived” identities is to ensure people are protected from discrimination regardless of what their identities actually are. An individual might be mistreated because she is perceived to be a lesbian, even if she actually isn’t, but she deserves to be protected under this law either way. Fortunately, the provision passed despite Thompson’s opposition.

There may be one glimmer of wisdom to be derived from Thompson’s offending confusion. As our society becomes increasingly multiracial, perhaps “perceived race” should be protected too.