Our guest bloggers are Kellan Baker, health care analyst for LGBT Progress and Josh Garcia, intern for LGBT Progress. This post was originally published by the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention.

Before he completed suicide at the age of 26 in 2010, Joseph Jefferson recorded his final words on Facebook: “I could not bear the burden of living as a gay man of color in a world grown cold and hateful towards those of us who live and love differently than the so-called ‘social mainstream.’”

Though LGBT suicide is frequently portrayed as a wholly youth phenomenon, Joseph was an LGBT activist who had built a life for himself as an adult after getting through what many people assume to be the only tough part of an LGBT person’s life — adolescence.

The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, the public-private partnership aimed at saving the more than 34,000 lives in the United States lost every year to suicide, has taken a lead in changing public misperceptions about LGBT suicide. In particular, the Action Alliance task force that concentrates on the LGBT population has changed its name from the LGBT Youth Task Force to the LGBT Populations Task Force, acknowledging the struggles with suicide ideation, suicide attempts, and death by suicide that many LGBT people confront at different points in their lives.

The reasons that suicide is a lifelong concern for many LGBT people are complex and dynamic. These risk factors include family rejection, lack of social support, lack of access to culturally competent healthcare providers, and the stress of living with discrimination and prejudice.

Because of family or employment obligations, many LGBT adults, like most LGBT youth, do not get to choose where they live and work—often leaving them trapped in hostile environments with family members, co-workers, or neighbors who do not accept them.

Certain protective factors may mitigate these risks. Such factors include family acceptance, affirming and culturally competent mental and behavioral health services, and policies that extend legal protections and promote acceptance.
Read more

Though their party’s presidential nominee is still pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality, a number of House Republicans oppose such a move.

ThinkProgress spoke with some House Republicans on Capitol Hill Thursday to discuss President Obama’s announcement that he supports marriage equality. While everyone we talked to personally opposed same-sex marriage, there was also surprising unanimity in their opposition to a constitutional amendment at the federal level. This is a far cry from the view of congressional Republicans circa 2004, when they voted en masse to ban same-sex marriage.

Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) said he would be opposed to a constitutional amendment because “it’s a state’s rights issue, not a federal issue.” Freshman Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) agreed, saying that “it should remain a state’s issue.” Similarly, fellow freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) told ThinkProgress that although the context could shift depending on how federal courts handle the marriage issue, he declared that “generally speaking, I think that states should be allowed to define marriage:”

MARCHANT: It’s a state’s rights issue, not a federal issue.

KEYES: So you’d be opposed to a federal constitutional amendment?

MARCHANT: Yes, I would.

MULVANEY: Generally speaking, I think that states should be allowed to define marriage.

CRAVAACK: It should be held as a state’s issue.

KEYES: If there were an amendment either way, a federal constitutional amendment, that’s not something you would support?

CRAVAACK: I don’t think… I think it should remain a state’s issue.

Watch it:

Marchant, Mulvaney, and Cravaack may not fully support marriage equality, but they at least recognize that rolling back rights that states have already implemented is wrong. This stands in stark contrast to Mitt Romney’s opposition to letting states decide their own marriage laws. The former Massachusetts governor signed a pledge last August to support “a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.”

A few other notable Republicans stand apart from Romney on letting statess decide the marriage question, including Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

With all the talk over Mitt Romney’s bullying of a presumed gay classmate, some have questioned whether it’s fair to judge someone on their actions in high school. But everyone agrees that anything from a recent political career is fair game.

So it’s telling that one doesn’t have to reach that far back to find other incidents of LGBT bullying from Romney’s close staff. Romney campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom (of Etch-a-Sketch fame) outed a transgender woman in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, effectively ending her political career, when he was a reporter for the Boston Herald.

America Blog reminds us of the incident, relayed in a GQ profile, which tells of Fernhstrom’s apparent “glee” when he found the representative’s birth certificate:

Fehrnstrom saved his cheap shots for smaller-time Massachusetts pols. When a political activist and gadfly named Althea Garrison was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, the fact that she was transgender was an open secret in Boston political circles. But Fehrnstrom was the first one to put that information into print—”I can remember his glee when he found the birth certificate,” says former Herald reporter Robert Connolly—thus bringing a swift end to Garrison’s future on Beacon Hill.

Romney himself also abolished a commission working against LGBT bullying in Massachusetts as governor.

President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality this week is a significant milestone in the inevitable arc toward its universality. Though conservatives have expressed outrage, their comments also reflect how much public opinion has shifted in even the last decade.

Consider the four comparisons below. In the left column is how various social conservative spokespeople responded in November, 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. In the right-hand column, see how they (or their successors) responded this week to Obama’s announcement:

Marriage Equality – Massachusetts	Marriage Equality – President Obama
Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins (2003): “We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction.”	Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins (2012): “From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) to giving taxpayer funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the President has undermined the spirit if not the letter of the law.”
Focus on the Family’s James Dobson (2003): “The dire ramifications of what is happening in the United States and other Western nations cannot be overstated.”	Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly (2012): “President Obama’s announcement that he has changed his position and now personally supports same-sex marriage is disappointing.”
Maggie Gallagher (2003): “To lose the word ‘marriage’ is to lose the core idea any civilization needs to perpetuate itself and to protect its children.”	Maggie Gallagher (2012): “On the one hand, morally this is good because lying to the American people is always wrong. President Obama has come clean that he is for gay marriage. Politically, we welcome this. We think it’s a huge mistake.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie (2003): Gay advocates are practicing “religious bigotry” and “intolerance” by demanding Americans condone same-sex marriage.	Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus (2012): “While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that.”

The players may not have changed much, but the rules have. There are certainly some conservatives whose anti-gay screeds continue to be explosive, but in general, it seems that changing public opinion has forced them to tame their rhetoric. Less than a decade ago, marriage equality threatened the survival of society, but now it’s just “disappointing” and “a mistake.” It won’t be long before even these timid responses alienate voters who understand that marriage equality is good for communities, good for families, and good for everybody everywhere.

Rep. Allen West (R-FL), no stranger to controversy, declared on Thursday that gay people are never fired because of their sexual orientation in the United States.

“That don’t happen out here in the United States of America,” West told ThinkProgress during an interview on Capitol Hill.

When we pressed the Florida congressman for clarification, he dismissed the importance of protecting LGBT people from discrimination. “I don’t see that as being a big issue with small businesses,” West said.

KEYES: What about something like a law that say that it’s illegal to hire or fire people because they’re gay?

WEST: That don’t happen out here in the United States of America.

KEYES: You don’t think people get fired because they’re gay?

WEST: Well, I don’t see that as being a big issue with small businesses. I sit on the Small Business Committee. You know what they’re concerned about? They’re concerned about onerous tax policy, regulatory policy, and lack of access to capital because Dodd-Frank is absolutely decimating small community banks.

Watch it:

 

Though West may not like to acknowledge it, workplace discrimination against LGBT people is very real. In 29 states, it is perfectly legal to fire you for being gay. (In 34 states you can be fired for being transgender.) This is not a mere prospect. Between eight and 17 percent of gay and transgender workers have been fired or not hired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity; that rate more than doubles for gay and transgender people who have experienced workplace discrimination.

This is not the first time he has made offensive statements regarding the LGBT community. He called talk of equality and fairness “divisive” and “contrary” to American principles, opposed repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because he reasoned that gay soldiers “can change behavior,” and called LGBT opposition to a speech of his “intolerable.”

Few elected Republicans have been willing to go on the record this week about President Obama’s support for marriage equality, which has created an opening for religious conservatives to speak out to media news outlets. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, has made numerous appearances, including at least three on CNN over the past few days. GLAAD’s Herndon Graddick took CNN to task for ignoring the vitriol Perkins stands for as the leader of an anti-gay hate group:

But when Perkins gets interviewed, a responsible journalist needs to tell the audience exactly who Perkins is speaking for. Based on his own statements — Tony Perkins represents people who believe supporting LGBT equality is akin to being a terrorist. Who believe marriage equality is the same as bestiality. Who say that gay people are “vile,” “hateful,” “spiteful” “pawns of the enemy.” Tony Perkins does not represent people who oppose marriage equality. Tony Perkins represents those who oppose LGBT people — period.

If CNN wants that side represented in this discussion, then Perkins is absolutely the right man for the job. But they need to make it clear to the audience that that’s what he’s there for. And by not doing so, they have not told the whole story.

GLAAD created the Commentator Accountability Project for exactly this reason, to make sure that anti-gay voices are properly identified and contextualized when they’re amplified by the media. After several appearances in which Perkins’ views went unchallenged, he finally faced his comeuppance in an appearance on MSNBC’s Harball yesterday evening. Both Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and host Christ Matthews took Perkins to task for teaching his children that being gay is wrong and for preventing children in need from being adopted by same-sex couples. Watch it: