A California Senate committee today advanced SB 1172, a bill that would help protect citizens from harmful, ineffective ex-gay therapy. The law does not outright ban all ex-gay therapy, but it does prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from undergoing sexual orientation change efforts. It also requires that any prospective patient sign an informed consent form that includes the following disclaimer:

Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.

Medical and mental health associations that oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts include the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

This is model legislation that applies scientific knowledge to the benefit of the general welfare. Ex-gay therapy has been debunked repeatedly and deserves the marginalization that this bill would implement.

Of course, groups that promote ex-gay therapy insist that the evidence supports their traumatic practices, but it’s an empty claim. One of the witnesses at today’s hearing speaking on behalf of NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) cited two studies that have been debunked and disavowed. The intention behind the therapy, as essentially admitted in NARTH’s alert email today, is to simply reinforce religious bias against homosexuality. (The same email also mistakenly described the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Lieu (D), as openly gay, in an apparent attempt to further bias the group’s followers.) SB 1172 is an important step forward to protect gay youth and limit the dangerous impact of such stigma.

Many of us know all too well that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population experiences significant health disparities. Discrimination, violence, and prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity routinely prevent LGBT people from accessing jobs, relationship recognition, housing, insurance coverage, and health care, making it difficult for LGBT people and their families to achieve their highest attainable standard of health.

In its 2011 National Healthcare Disparities Report, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at the Department of Health and Human Services has finally called out these disparities. AHRQ publishes this report every year to help policymakers understand and address the impact of racial, socioeconomic, and other differences on various populations.

The report focuses on priority populations such as racial and ethnic minorities, lower-income people, and people with disabilities—and, for the first time, it also includes the LGBT population as a priority population.

While the report discusses the disproportionate impact of HIV and AIDS on gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men, its strongest focus is on the disparities in health status and health care access that transgender people experience.

Drawing on data from Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the report emphasizes the enormous burden of discrimination, prejudice, and poor health that the transgender population bears.

According to the report, “transgender and gender non-conforming people bear the brunt of social and economic marginalization due to their gender identity…. Too often, policymakers, service providers, the media, and society at large have dismissed or discounted the needs of transgender and gender non-conforming people in their communities, and a paucity of hard data on the scope of antitransgender discrimination has hampered the struggle for basic fairness.”
Read more

Bryan Fischer, voice of the AFA

The American Family Association’s chief spokesperson, Bryan Fischer, is outraged that Mitt Romney hired Richard Grenell as his campaign’s national security spokesman. It’s not because of Grenell’s various offensive tweets, but simply because he is gay. Describing Romney’s choice as a “poke in the eye to the pro-family community,” Fischer chides the presumptive candidate for suggesting that homosexual behavior is healthy, not harmful as the AFA regularly claims. To compensate for this misstep, Fischer offers six anti-LGBT steps to help Romney “start pandering in a big, fat hurry”:

1. Publicly support the North Carolina marriage amendment.
2. Commit to a vigorous defense and implementation of DOMA.
3. Revoke federal spousal benefits for domestic partners of homosexuals.
4. Support reinstatement of the ban on homosexual conduct in the military.
5. Support right of chaplains to teach biblical view of homosexuality.
6. Publicly pledge to veto ENDA.

This encapsulated anti-gay, anti-trans agenda is particularly revealing. Fischer wants the odds to be stacked as much as possible against LGBT people in terms of their relationships, their right to serve their country, and their rights to employment. It’s a naked admission that social conservatives intend to discriminate. It seems doubtful Romney will walk back his support of maintaining the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or draw focus to any other social issues as he seeks to pick up moderates in his general election campaign. Nevertheless, Fischer has drawn a line in the sand for social conservatives’ expectations, which could create a challenging balancing act for Romney.

It’s unclear whether Mike and Ike are a married gay couple or merely business partners, but for now, they have split up, opting to pursue competing interests. The candy bearing their names has launched an ad campaign about the fictional invisible characters’ breakup, with Mike pursuing a career in music and Ike pursuing one in art. The Huffington Post chimed in that the two are heading for a “gay divorce” (language so far not found anywhere in the ad campaign), and now the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is very concerned about the “fruity pair” and their “sexualizing candy”:

PERKINS: These days, you can’t get a sugar high without experiencing a cultural low. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. There’s trouble in candy land. After more than 70 years together, Mike & Ike are calling it quits. The duo is staging a gay divorce as part of a new ad campaign to draw in younger customers. In this society, even candy has an agenda! From Facebook to Tumblr, the fruity pair says, “The rumors are true. We just couldn’t agree on stuff anymore.” Starting this summer, the company will spend $15 million on billboards and TV commercials that poke fun at the breakup. It’s just another subtle example of society chipping away at the value of marriage. And I don’t know what’s more disturbing–that advertisers think divorce appeals to kids or that sexualizing candy will make people buy more. After a year-long build-up, the company will reveal if the couple reconciles. Until then, look for Mike & Ike to have a distinctly liberal flavor.

Listen to it (via Right Wing Watch):

Perkins’ overreaction is humorous, but also telling. This silly anecdote speaks to two important tactics that conservatives employ. First, they promote the idea that any portrayal of characters that are gay is negative and “sexual.” Plenty of fictional opposite-sex couples have clearly been in romantic relationships for decades (Mickey and Minnie, Kermit and Miss Piggy, etc.), but no one is concerned that they are somehow “sexualizing” children. Secondly, Perkins insinuates that anything gay is “liberal,” which is far from the truth. Sexual diversity cuts across all races, religions, and political ideologies, regardless of how hate group leaders like Perkins try to relegate the LGBT community into some uniform “cultural low” category.

Last summer, Bradlee Dean of the You Can Run But You Cannot Hide Ministry — which was recently designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center — filed a $50 million lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, claiming she had distorted comments he made suggesting Muslims are more moral than Christians for supporting the execution of homosexuals. (It should be noted that though no suit was filed, Dean recently expressed similar legal concern about ThinkProgress’ reporting on the suit, as described in an update on that post.) Now, Maddow has sought a swift dismissal of the claim under anti-SLAPP protections, which ensure that frivolous suits do not stifle free speech with the threat of mounting legal fees. MSNBC’s court response outlines three reasons Dean’s suit should fail:

1. The broadcasts truthfully reported on Dean’s May 15th statements. Those broadcasts re-played original audio of Dean speaking on the May 15th radio show. Dean does not – and cannot – allege that he did not make those controversial statements. The fact that NBCUniversal broadcast the essence but not the entirety of what Dean said during that radio show, as he now protests, does not change this analysis. Dean bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his words, however much he may try to distance himself from the backlash.

2. The commentary or rebuke Maddow offered about Dean’s statements was classic opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, and thus, cannot be actionable as a matter of law. As Dean is entitled to his opinions, however objectionable, so too is Maddow entitled to hers.

3. The fair comment privilege protects Maddow’s commentary. The broadcasts featured Dean’s actual statements and clearly indicated the source of those statements. Viewers were free to make up their own minds as to whether they agreed with Maddow’s remarks.

The response goes on to explain that the judicial process does not permit Dean to use lawsuits as part of his mission to stop the “radical gay agenda.” Though Dean has backed away from the comments and explained he in no way endorses the execution of homosexuals, he has nevertheless repeatedly called for gay people to be persecuted and incarcerated because he believes they are somehow a threat to children. He may not wish to be known for supporting the execution of gays, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem with supporting their life imprisonment.

Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam

As the British government prepares to advance marriage equality, an Anglican bishop condemned religious leaders on Saturday who speak out against same-sex marriage, comparing their anti-gay rhetoric to the Church’s support of slavery as “God-given” in the 18th century.

“Experience might lead us to be cautious about the certainty with which moral positions are built with Biblical support,” Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, the Bishop of Salisbury, said. “Before Wilberforce, Christians in this country saw slavery as having Biblical support for what was the God-given in the ordering of creation”:

“In South Africa, Apartheid was seen in the same way by the Dutch Reformed Church. “Within the churches, Christians conscientiously disagree about the interpretation and significance of the six Biblical passages referring to homosexuality.” [...]

“Most people now see the Church’s avoidance of equality legislation as immoral and it undermines us,” he told the conference, organised by the Cutting Edge Consortium, a coalition of national bodies campaigning for sexual equality in religious organisations.

The bishop added: “It is a disaster that we have allowed the Church to be seen as the opposition to equal marriage.” He argued that by opposing the measure the Church had prompted the Government to create a “very disturbing” distinction between “religious” and “civil” marriage. “Some Christians might like to say there are more important issues than gay marriage but we are not connecting with our society and for the churches this should be a mission priority,” he said.

Holtam made his comments just days after the Archbishop of Wales embraced marriage equality and called on the Church to welcome “all life-long committed relationships.”