Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson (R) has attacked gays on his Facebook wall, calling homosexuality a sin and citing Leviticus 20:13, which calls for people who are gay to be put to death. In a follow-up post, he defended his remarks, adding claims that homosexuality is “unnatural behavior which results in disease,” harms children, and undermines marriage:

Been a lot of press on Obama’s opinion on “homosexual marriage.” The only opinion that counts is God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13. Anyway you slice it, it is sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.

Sorry I’ve been busy and not had a chance to reply. David, in addition to the basic principal that it is morally wrong, here are three social reasons it’s horrific social policy: 1) Unnatural behavior which results in disease, not the least of which is its high association with the development and spread of HIV/AIDS; 2) Confusing behavior which is harmful to children who have a deep need to understand the proper role of men and women in society and the important differences between men and women, and fathers and mothers; and 3) Undermines the longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, a definition which has been key to all aspects of social order and prosperity. Anytime that definition is weakened our culture is also weakened. And yes, that is also true for other conduct which weakens marriage’s importance in society.

Gipson’s comments seem to suggest that he believes disease is actually the by-product of gay sex, as if even two monogamous gay men without STDs who have sex will still end up with an ailment or HIV. Not only are these remarks wholly offensive and ill-informed, but they contribute to the harmful stigma against gay men and lesbians and their families.

Last week, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress that he opposes LGBT nondiscrimination protections, like those that would be afforded by the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because he believes it should be legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. He explained that he believes being gay is a choice that is simply “behavior-related and preference-related.” Since then, Lankford has embarked on a press tour attacking ThinkProgress for misrepresenting him, choosing to ignore video that confirms his position was quoted and described accurately.

He continued that effort today in two radio interviews with anti-gay hate group leaders, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon. Perkins described provisions like ENDA as “special protections” and Lankford maintained that employers should have the legal right to fire someone for their “sexual behavior”:

PERKINS: The idea there is they’re looking for special protections; your point is that everybody should be treated equally. No one should be fired or denied employment based upon their sexual orientation — in the ideal world we won’t even know about it, why would we even ask that question?

LANKFORD: Right. But neither should you have a situation where no one can fire you because of your behavior outside of the workplace. We also should not be in a situation where there are special protections extended to say ‘if I have a certain sexual behavior then you can no longer fire me, I’m a protected class and I can do whatever I want in the workplace.’ That’s not true either. So we are trying to be able to keep that balance. When you say you create special rights you also create special privileges and protections to say that they are untouchable in the workplace and they can have any kind of work conduct they choose to on that, that’s not correct.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Lankford seems to believe that policies like ENDA would create an invulnerability, preventing people who are gay or trans from ever being fired for any reason, as opposed to merely protecting them from anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination in the same way race, sex, and other dimensions of identity are already protected. But it’s also clear that despite Perkins’ claim that “everybody should be treated equally,” both he and Lankford are building a misleading pro-gay narrative around their distorted understanding of sexual orientation.

Lankford and Perkins both believe that sexual orientation is a choice, but more precisely, that it’s defined only by behavioral choices. Neither comprehends (or acknowledges) that sexual orientation is an innate identity that individuals experience regardless of how or if they act upon it. From this discussion, they make clear that they don’t have any problem with somebody saying they’re gay, but if they “act” on their identity — whether it’s starting a family with a same-sex partner, campaigning for marriage equality, or even attending a drag show at a gay club — then they’re in violation of moral principles and shouldn’t be protected. What they are essentially promoting is a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mentality for the workplace, which they believe would be the same as being “treated equally,” not unlike what Rep. Steve King (R-IA) recently proposed.

Groups like FRC and AFA defend ex-gay therapy for a reason: it’s part of the foundation for all their anti-gay positions. Only if sexual orientation is voluntary can they justify the discrimination they promote, and they ignore over 35 years of science to believe just that.

LGBT advocates in Australia are calling a clip from the debate show Q&A a “watershed moment” in the nation’s struggle over marriage equality. In the short clip, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey responded to a question about his opposition to same-sex marriage and why he believes he and his wife are better parents than Finance Minister Penny Wong and her female partner. After Hockey’s response, Wong, clearly a bit shaken by the unexpected question, reacted with quiet confidence, “I know what my family is worth”:

HOCKEY: I must confess my views have changed since I’ve had children… I think in this life we’ve got to aspire to give our children what I believe is the very best circumstances, and that’s to have a mother and a father. [...]

WONG: Well there’s almost nothing I can say… It is sad, I think that some families have to feel that they have to justify who they are. Because when you say those things, Joe, what you’re saying to not just me, but to people like me, is that the most important thing in our lives, which is the people we love, is somehow less good, less valued. If you believe that, you believe that, but I have a different view.

MODERATOR: Is it hurtful?

WONG: Of course it is. But, you know, I know what my family is worth.

Watch it:

Wong’s office has been overwhelmed by calls and messages of support, and the clip is quickly going viral. While this may have more direct political ramifications in Australia, the calm, quiet pride Wong expresses in her family will no doubt resonate across the globe.

After many years of deliberation, the Department of Justice has finally released final guidelines for implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act. According to the White House’s executive summary, the new rules include important specific protections for those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming:

The standards account in various ways for the particular vulnerabilities of inmates who are LGBTI or whose appearance or manner does not conform to traditional gender expectations. The standards require training in effective and professional communication with LGBTI and gender nonconforming inmates and require the screening process to consider whether the inmate is, or is perceived to be, LGBTI or gender nonconforming. The standards also require that post-incident reviews consider whether the incident was motivated by LGBTI identification, status, or perceived status.

This is a huge win for the health and safety of LGBT people, particularly people who are trans or gender non-conforming. In many prisons, standard practice has been to simply organize inmates by their anatomy, which often put trans inmates in very unsafe situations — in particular: trans women placed in men’s prisons. Trans women are thirteen times more likely than others to be sexually assaulted while incarcerated. In addition, those unsafe situations were often rectified by placing the inmate in isolated lock-up, also an unfair circumstance targeting their identity. Under the new rules, individuals will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to provide the safest placements, and they’ll also have to be offered accommodations like separate showers for situations when they might be most vulnerable to assault.

It’s important to also note that the effect of these guidelines is to require training about working with LGBT people for all employees in the corrections system, from federal prisons to halfway houses to police lock-up. There will be mandatory audits and reporting to ensure the guidelines are being followed, with the potential for federal funding cuts if they are violated.

Unfortunately, the guidelines will not currently extend to other agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security, so immigration detention facilities will not immediately be covered. Those agencies will have 120 days to work with the Attorney General to propose their own rules. While there is little reason for them not to include the same protections, there is nothing that guarantees or requires that they do.

(Thanks to Harper Jean Tobin at the National Center for Transgender Equality for helping to inform this post.)