Today, the Pan American Health Organization, the Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization, condemned ex-gay therapy in a new position statement, calling it a “serious threat to the health and well-being — even the lives — of affected people.” Not only does the PAHO statement identify the therapies as ineffective and a threat to personal autonomy and personal integrity, but concludes that those who offer such therapies are reinforcing stigma and should be penalized:

Health professionals who offer “reparative therapies” align themselves with social prejudices and reflect a stark ignorance in matters of sexuality and sexual health. Contrary to what many people believe or assume, there is no reason — with the exception of the stigma resulting from those very prejudices — why homosexual persons should be unable to enjoy a full and satisfying life.

The task of health professionals is to not cause harm and to offer support to patients to alleviate their complaints and problems, not to make these more severe. A therapist who classifies non-heterosexual patients as “deviant” not only offends them but also contributes to the aggravation of their problems.

“Reparative” or “conversion therapies” have no medical indication and represent a severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons. They constitute unjustifiable practices that should be denounced and subject to adequate sanctions and penalties.

PAHO also offers numerous recommendations to limit the impact of ex-gay therapy:

• Governments should ban ex-gay therapy for its violation of human rights and sanction clinics that offer it.
• Schools should train health professionals about sexuality and sexual diversity to combat stigma.
• Professional associations should reject ex-gay therapy and continue to educate members about it.
• The media should expose homophobia as “a threat to human dignity and human rights” and reject any positive publicity for ex-gay therapy.

This condemnation for ex-gay therapy is appropriately bold and unwavering. Ex-gay therapy is a stain on society that serves no purpose but to encourage internalized stigma and perpetuate falsehoods about the nature of sexual orientation. PAHO should be applauded for its defense of LGBT health and human rights.

Today marks the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), a worldwide day of activism against anti-LGBT prejudice. Last year, activists in over 80 nations got involved, according to the Arcus Foundation. This year, prayer vigils and parties are planned all over the world, with Burma marking a milestone by holding its first ever gay pride celebrations.

Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, not all of the response has been positive. Despite the global show of support, anti-LGBT activists and government officials have tried to stymie some of these events. Here are a few examples:

-A gay pride march in Georgia was attacked by several Christian activists, including some Orthodox priests. About 20 people marched through the streets of Tbilisi, but were blocked by an “improvised cordon” of activists who threw punches and smashed signs. Police arrested at least three people.

-LGBT activists in Malaysia announced they would not be holding a march, citing security reasons. One organizer of the march claimed “a rising wave of threats made against the LGBT community by the government and certain religious organizations” since the government banned a sexual minorities festival, Seksualiti Merdeka, last year.

-Police in Fiji canceled a gay pride parade despite granting a permit the month before. According to one rights activist in Fiji, police “said we cannot march today because they did not realise they had given a permit for gays to march.” Homosexuality in Fiji was decriminalized in 2010, but homophobia is still prevalent, according to activists.

-Government officials in Belarus rejected requests to hold three separate demonstrations in the capital Minsk. The officials cited “technical” issues and repair work being done near the sites, according to the owner of an online portal, who also said he found the explanations “far-fetched.”

Responses like these show just how important an event like IDAHO is. Despite the remarkable progress that has been made on LGBT rights over the past several years, strong homophobia still exists across the world, whether it is religious activists attacking peaceful protestors in Georgia or a government minister in Zimbabwe urging tribal chiefs to “banish” people who support marriage equality. A lot has been gained, but a lot more is left to do.

-Zachary Bernstein

Our guest blogger is Ben Harris, intern for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed legislation that extends health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.  Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the bill, called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which if passed into law would extend health insurance and a number of other workplace benefits to federal employees and their same-sex partners.

Because of discriminatory laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gay federal employees do not have full access to benefits currently afforded to straight federal employees and their spouses. Without access to health insurance through their partners, many gay individuals must either purchase costly insurance plans in the private market or forgo health insurance, a considerable financial risk should be they become seriously ill. Yesterday, the Senate committee advanced a bill that would significantly alleviate that risk and bolster economic security for gay couples in the federal workforce.

Passing this bill out of committee is long overdue. Not only does this mean equal treatment for gay employees in the federal workforce, it also ensures that we attract the best and brightest workers into public service. When it was introduced back in November, Senator Collins remarked :

COLLINS: This change is both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare.

She’s right. Eighty-six percent of Fortune 100 companies offer equal health care benefits to employees with same-sex partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign. And research shows that when you treat gay workers equally on the job, what results is a happier, healthier, and more productive workforce.

Some, like Governor Rick Snyder (R) of Michigan, who recently vetoed a bill to extend domestic partner benefits to state employees, oppose equality in the workplace because they say it costs too much. They’re wrong . The take-up rate for domestic partner benefits is extremely low and it is likely that the boon from attracting a more talented and productive workforce outweighs any costs of providing equal benefits to gay couples.

What’s more, passing laws that extend workplace benefits to gay employees is politically popular. A whopping 8 in 10 Americans believe gay employees should be given equal benefits on the job. Even Mitt Romney agrees. Just last week, after restating his opposition to marriage equality, he voiced his support : “My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate.”

Conservatives and corporations should take a cue from the American people: workplace equality is critical to fostering a more efficient and effective government.

While African Americans are generally less supportive of marriage equality as a whole, a growing number of black leaders and community members have come to embrace the issue since President Obama endorsed the freedom to marry last week.

As Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) explained during an appearance on MSNBC Thursday afternoon, “Dr. [Martin Luther] King took a simple position. When people would ask him about interracial marriage, he would simply say races don’t fall in love and get married, individuals fall in love and get married.” “So if two men or two women want to fall in love and get married it’s their business,” he added:

LEWIS: My position is very, very simple. That I fought too long and too hard against discrimination based on race and color, not to stand up and fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation. If you’re going to provide civil rights and equality for everybody, you cannot draw a line, you cannot build a wall. We must respect the dignity and the worth of every human being whether they are gay or straight.

Watch it:

African Americans are agreeing with Lewis in greater numbers:

– 54 percent of African Americans support Obama’s position on same-sex marriage: A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that since Obama declared his support, “54 percent express a favorable view of his position on the issue,” compared to “just 41 percent of African-Americans supported gay marriage in ABC/Post polls in mid-2011 and early 2012.”

– 11 point shift in support for marriage among African Americans in NC: A Public Policy Polling survey found “a noticeable shift in the attitudes of African Americans in North Carolina toward rights for gay couples in the wake of President Obama’s announcement last week that he supports gay marriage. Our final poll before the primary last week found only 20% of black voters in the state favoring gay marriage, with 63% opposed. Now 27% express support for gay marriage with 59% opposed, for an overall 11 point shift on the margin.”

– Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) comes out for marriage equality: The highest ranking African American in Congress told MSNBC earlier this week, “I, like the president, have evolved to a point of marriage equality. I have not always been there. I grew up in a parsonage, a fundamentalist Christian parsonage, and I grew up with that indoctrination. And I have grown to the point that I believe that we have evolved to marriage equality.” “If we consider this to be a civil right — and I do — I don’t think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach,” Clyburn said. “I think that we should have a national policy on this.”

– African Americans say Obama’s support did not change their opinion of him: A Pew Research Center survey concluded that “most African Americans, on the other hand, say the announcement did not alter their opinion of Obama.”

More black than white people oppose marriage equality, but since 2008, “the proportion of African Americans favoring gay marriage has increased from 26% to 39%, while opposition has fallen from 63% to 49%.”

Former Senator George Allen (R), who is now running to reclaim his seat, said he disagreed with a recent decision by the state’s House of Delegates to reject the confirmation of a judicial nominee because he is gay. The House rejected the appointment of Tracy Thorne-Begland, one of the state’s top prosecutors, because “his lifestyle is exactly contrary” the the state’s anti-marriage equality law, Delegate Bob Marshall (R) said.

But Allen said he does not think sexual orientation should be a consideration for judges. “What I’d look at as far as judges is, I’d look at their qualifications. As far as judges are concerned, sexual orientation is not one of their criteria for being a judge,” Allen said during a campaign stop in Prince William County, according to Inside Nova.

Allen is hardly an LGBT-friendly lawmaker. He’s said that gay rights are not civil rights, co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality, and often used to raise the specter of same-sex marriage in stump speeches.

A slew of polls have surveyed voters’ beliefs about marriage equality since President Obama’s endorsement last week, but the data collection is quickly becoming lazy and the interpretation sloppy. Monday’s CBS/New York Times poll has been roundly criticized for its incredibly small sample size (615) and the odd framing of its questions. Fox News unsurprisingly conducted a poll of its own in the same fashion and eagerly spun the results to accommodate its anti-equality agenda:

A majority of voters don’t support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, yet at the same time a majority also opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

According to a Fox News poll released Wednesday, 37 percent of voters believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married legally. While that’s unchanged from 2010, when the question was most recently asked, it’s nearly double the 20 percent who felt that way in March 2004, the first time it was asked.

There is actually nothing in the data that supports this conclusion. What the Fox News article doesn’t mention until its fourth paragraph is that it asked its question the same way the CBS/NYT poll did: forcing a choice between same-sex marriage, legal unions not called marriage, or no legal recognition. The true result of this poll is that 70 percent believe there should be legal recognition for same-sex couples, which was actually 8 points higher than what Monday’s CBS/NYT poll found.

But the problem with both polls is that they never force respondents to choose between same-sex marriage and nothing, creating an incomplete picture of where voters stand. Consider the recent polling from Colorado, which found that 62 percent support civil unions, but that 53 support full marriage equality as well. Forcing respondents to make an either/or choice about marriage and civil unions instead of allowing consideration for both separately creates a distorted view of where voters actually stand.

The Times’ Ross Douthat attempts to spin the interpretation the other way, suggesting that because so many “prefer” civil unions, their support for  marriage equality when not provided with an alternative is “reluctant.” And it’s because of that reluctance, he believes, that the results of ballot measures don’t match the polling. This, of course, is a conclusion that can only be drawn from the strange construction of the question in these polls, and it also ignores the reality that many complex factors impact these plebiscites. In North Carolina, the most current example, polling showed that voters were largely uninformed (or misinformed) about the actual impact of Amendment One, and thus did not realize they were voting to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to marriage — against their wishes. Plus, as Nathaniel Frank points out, polls on social issues are simply “notoriously bad at predicting [voter] behavior.”

Fox News wants to be able to claim it has data opposing the conclusion that a majority of Americans support the freedom to marry, despite consistent national polling over the past two years that shows otherwise. Any poll can be structured and framed to deliver a certain bias to the results, but the true momentum for marriage equality cannot be disregarded so easily.