ABC News may have invented the Kraft Foods boycott over the Pride Month Oreo, but One Millions Moms’ inevitable response doesn’t exactly change the story from fiction to fact. The hate-group affiliated organization lashed out at Kraft Foods today over the rainbow cookie posted on Facebook, urging supporters to write the company that they are “highly offended” that Oreos would claim to “Proudly support love!”

What’s telling is that though the response insinuates a boycott — “There are plenty of cookies on the market for moms to buy for their families that do not support liberal causes. We have a choice.” — it stops short of even using the word. Perhaps OMM knows that Kraft products are so ubiquitous that its already unsuccessful protest efforts would have substantial trouble gaining steam. It’s much easier to convince social conservatives to submit a form email than to empty out half their pantries.

It’s worth noting that the group conceded that having a “neutral” position on LGBT issues is, in effect, the same as having their anti-LGBT position:

One Million Moms will continue to support companies in the future with full understanding where they stand on principles and morality. We will choose to stay away from those who do not support moral decency.

Kraft needs to hear from you. Supporting the homosexual agenda verses remaining neutral in the cultural war is just bad business. If Christians cannot find corporate neutrality with Kraft then they will vote with their pocketbook and support companies that are neutral. Send your email letter to Oreo (Kraft Foods) now!

It’s true: “remaining neutral” and “standing on [conservative] principles and morality” are the same. Choosing not to recognize the diversity of the LGBT community is to help maintain its invisibility and exclusion from society. The Oreo ad didn’t testify before Congress, file an amicus brief, or take a position on a ballot initiative as many companies have — it merely recognized a community and its culture. For OMM, that alone was enough to “disrespect millions of American families by supporting the homosexual agenda.”

Oreo boasts that it is “America’s Favorite Cookie,” and it proved this week that it is a cookie for all Americans. OMM’s ideal version of the country is one where LGBT don’t even exist.

Our guest blogger is Andrew Cray, health policy consultant for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in the lawsuit challenging several key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The justices’ ruling, upholding much of the law, will bridge the coverage gap for gay and transgender people through the creation of health insurance exchanges and the option for states to expand Medicaid program eligibility.  But the decision doesn’t stop there – the justices also upheld all of the law’s key consumer protections, which will continue to serve as a lifeline for millions of Americans to receive the health care they need and deserve.

In particular, Court’s decision retains two key part of the law that were not front in center in the spotlight of the litigation, but that are of vital importance to the LGBT community: the extension of coverage to young adults, and the consumer protections incorporated in the Patients’ Bill of Rights.

Requiring that insurers offer coverage for young adults up to age 26 under their parents’ insurance makes it much easier for LGBT young adults to get access to necessary care. Through the requirement, the Affordable Care Act will continue to open up access to insurance for thousands of youth with gay and transgender parents, as well. In less than two years since this part of the law was implemented, over 80,000 young adults raised by LGBT parents have maintained access to insurance through their parents’ coverage – over one and a half times as many people as can fit into Yankee Stadium. That number will only grow after yesterday’s decision.

The second major victory following from the Court’s decision is the retention of the law’s Patient’s Bill of Rights. This provision creates new protections outlawing many of the insurance industry’s worst abuses by:

• Ending lifetime limits on coverage, starting in 2010;
• Phasing out annual limits on coverage by 2014, which is particularly important for people with long-term or chronic conditions such as HIV or cancer;
• Starting in 2014, prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, such as HIV or a transgender medical history;
• Preventing insurers from arbitrarily canceling a sick person’s coverage, starting in 2014.

These essential protections will continue to ensure insurance access for many gay and transgender people by prohibiting insurers from unfairly targeting those who need access to care the most. For example, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, one insurer denied a transgender woman coverage for routine treatments related to a cut on her hand and a deviated septum. When she appealed these coverage denials, she was told by the insurer that she was being denied coverage because of her “condition,” a reference to her gender identity.  The laws’ prohibition on unfair and discriminatory insurance practices will prevent this type of abuse.

Recognizing the great importance of these protections for LGBT people, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has stated, “the Affordable Care Act may represent the strongest foundation we have ever created to begin closing LGBT health disparities.” Having survived a trial by fire, we can look forward to a promising future with a revitalized health care system supporting healthier communities built on the foundation of healthcare reform.

Mark Regnerus’ flawed paper on gay parenting has won the acclaim of hate groups and ex-gay therapists and its publication seems to have been politically calculated with marriage equality opponents like the National Organization for Marriage. A group of 18 anti-gay religiously-biased professors defended the paper, but now, a group of over 200 professors and therapists have written a “bombshell letter” critiquing its methods and publication.

Among the concerns are how quickly it was published, the validity of its peer review, and the merits of its methodology and conclusions:

We are very concerned about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit. We question the decision of Social Science Research to publish the paper, and particularly, to publish it without an extensive, rigorous peer review process and commentary from scholars with explicit expertise on LGBT family research. The methodologies used in this paper and the interpretation of the findings are inappropriate.

The publication of this paper and the accompanying commentary calls the editorial process at Social Science Research, a well-regarded, highly cited social science journal (ranking in the top 15% of Sociology journals by ISI), into serious question. We urge you to publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

Read the full letter for more detail about the professors’ concerns.

The data in this study clearly lacks the integrity to actually impact mainstream psychological thinking on the question of same-sex parenting, as exemplified by this letter and the American Psychological Association’s rebuke of the study. Whether its publication was politically intentional is irrelevant to the fact that the only purpose it serves is to add to the stack of invalid studies the anti-gay movement cites to defend its anti-equality actions.

Carl Siciliano

The White House has named Carl Siciliano as a “Champion of Change” for his work advocating on behalf of LGBT homeless youth. Siciliano is the founder and executive director of the Ali Forney Center, one of the nation’s few and largest shelters dedicated to create a safe refuge for LGBT young people with nowhere else to go. The champion responded to the announcement in a press release:

SICILIANO: It is thrilling that as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Ali Forney Center, we are also being recognized by the White House for our pioneering work on behalf of homeless LGBT youth. When we opened the Ali Forney Center, the challenges we faced were daunting; there was very little awareness of the plight of homeless LGBT youth, especially on the federal level, and it was difficult to obtain support for our work. I am very grateful to President Obama for recognizing the needs of homeless LGBT youthand incorporating their care into his vision of ending youth homelessness. I am also grateful to the White House for recognizing the quality, innovation, and  importance of the Ali Forney Center, which is a testament to all of the individuals who have served on the board, staff and as volunteers.

Because of family rejection, rates of LGBT youth homelessness are disturbingly high: as many as 40 percent of all homeless youth identify as gay or trans. Just this week, Cyndi Lauper launched the “Forty To None” campaign to add to the good work Siciliano and others are already doing to address this crisis. Unfortunately, efforts like the Ali Forney Center can only address the symptom of homelessness until family acceptance of LGBT youth becomes a societal norm.

Our guest bloggers are Andrew Cray, health policy consultant for LGBT Progress, and Kellan Baker, health care analyst for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the health reform law, popularly known as “Obamacare,” is a major victory for the millions of Americans who will have access to insurance for the first time under the Affordable Care Act. The law, which was a cornerstone initiative of President Obama’s first term in office, will serve as a lifeline for millions of people, including gay and transgender people, to the health care they need.

The Affordable Care Act is expected to extend health insurance coverage to more than 30 million people in 2014. Half of these people will be newly eligible for Medicaid, while the other half will be able to purchase affordable private coverage through new state health insurance exchanges.

The law requires each state to establish an exchange to make purchasing insurance simpler and more affordable for individuals and small businesses. The exchanges will function as marketplaces that allow consumers to easily compare and purchase health insurance plans, and individuals who make between $15,000 and $43,000 per year will receive subsidies to help them pay their insurance premiums.

This income bracket likely includes many gay and transgender people and their families, since discrimination in areas of everyday life such as employment and relationship recognition mean that gay and transgender people are disproportionately likely to be poor, unemployed, and uninsured.

Importantly for gay and transgender people and their families, the exchanges may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in any of their activities, and all exchange plans must offer comprehensive benefits across 10 essential health benefit categories. These categories include vital services needed by many gay and transgender people, including prescription drugs, hospital stays, and mental and behavioral health services.

Yesterday’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act means that many states will soon be racing to catch up to the 14 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have already established health insurance exchanges. As states set up their exchanges, advocates will have significant opportunities to include and engage LGBT people in working to ensure better health for everyone in America. With the clear force of law on our side, there is no better time for each of us to take action to guarantee that gay and transgender people and their families can get the care they need to stay healthy.

Our guest bloggers are Andrew Cray, health policy consultant for LGBT Progress, and Kellan Baker, health care analyst for LGBT Progress.

The Supreme Court’s decision on health reform concludes a tense chapter in the life of the Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit decided today challenged the constitutionality of several important provisions of the law, including the expansion of the Medicaid program to cover lower-income people without insurance.

On the issue of Medicaid, the court’s decision was mixed. Overall the court held that while states can receive federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage to all Americans under the age of 65 who make less than $15,000 per year, they cannot lose all Medicaid funding as a penalty for refusing to do so. States that expand eligibility will receive increased federal funding to cover the vast majority of the costs of covering new beneficiaries — a 2010 report projected that the expansion of Medicaid in all fifty states would cost the states $21 billion between 2014 and 2019, while the federal government would spend $443 billion. States that don’t expand eligibility will forfeit this funding and could potentially leave millions of people still without coverage.

By upholding the Medicaid expansion as constitutional, the Court’s decision leaves the door open for states to extend lifesaving access to care for an additional 16 million currently uninsured people, including many gay and transgender people and their families. Despite common stereotypes, poverty and unemployment are higher among LGBT communities, particularly LGBT communities of color, than for the general U.S. population. For example, lesbians and bisexual women are 20 percent more likely to be poor than straight women, and a recent survey indicates that transgender people are twice as likely as the general population to make less than $10,000 a year.

Additionally, without the Affordable Care Act, people living with HIV must have had a disabling AIDS diagnosis before they could qualify for Medicaid coverage. The law eliminates this requirement for states that accept new federal funds to expand their Medicaid programs.

Many experts anticipate that most states will opt to expand their Medicaid programs with the new federal funds available under the Affordable Care Act. Sara Rosenbaum, a health policy professor at George Washington University, expects “the overwhelming number of states” to adopt the Medicaid expansion. “The pressure to participate will be enormous from health care providers and communities,” she says, and “the majority of states will not want to have [their] poorest residents without coverage.”

A recent study estimated that 26,000 people die every year because they do not have health insurance coverage. While today’s decision is a major victory for gay and transgender people, there is still work to be done to make sure our communities fully benefit from the Medicaid expansion. Advocates across the country will need to work hard to make sure that their state governments do not turn their backs on those who are literally dying for coverage.

All week, anti-gay activists are “dumping General Mills” outside the company’s headquarters in Minnesota to protest its opposition to the state’s marriage inequality amendment. The protests have been dismal, with only two or three dozen people bothering to show up — even less without counting  their children. Jeremy Hooper points out now that the Minnesota for Marriage protesters are pretending to be victims as an excuse for their small numbers. Andy Parrish, Deputy Campaign Manager for the anti-equality coalition, tweeted the following today:

@generalmills VP and Head of Security’s presence at our rally to intimidate their employees from joining us ‪#stribpol‬ pic.twitter.com/FCGs9aeM

It’s unclear from this random picture who the vice president and head of security are or what it is they are doing to “intimidate” anybody. Perhaps they are sitting on the bench — how very off-putting. A legitimate group of corporate protesters would be grateful for the access and opportunity to engage with individuals in leadership positions, but apparently not Minnesota for Marriage.

Further, General Mills employees have actually taken very good care of their dissenters, offering the best in Midwestern hospitality:

Employees of General Mills responded to protesters by offering them coffee or ice water with slices of lemon. There would have been cookies too, except the protesters said they’d accept them only to add to the smattering of ‘dumped’ food they had collected. “It’s the neighborly thing to do,” Tom Forsythe spokesman for General Mills explained the unexpected hospitality. “I was raised as a Minnesotan, and when people drop by your house, you put on coffee, so that’s what we did.”

This is how the anti-gay movement works. They attempt to intimidate a company, and then claim that they are the ones being intimidated because they didn’t want cookies. It doesn’t get much pettier.

Both the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud have responded negatively to today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act. GOProud claimed that Obamacare “hurts gay and lesbian families” — despite the fact none of their own position statements actually support LGBT rights. LCR went a step further, with its Deputy Executive Director Christian Berle blaming Democrats for stripping LGBT-specific protections from the legislation:

BERLE: Log Cabin Republicans also have not forgotten that Democrats in Congress stripped provisions protecting LGBT families out of healthcare reform when it was passed. We remain committed to ending the Internal Revenue Service’s discriminatory treatment of employer-provided healthcare for domestic partners. While the Court may have found Obamacare to be constitutional, that does not mean it has been carved in stone. Now is the time to go back to the drawing board and institute reforms that work for all Americans.

National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jerame Davis told ThinkProgress that LCR has lost touch with “both reality and history”:

DAVIS: The Log Cabin Republicans must have lost their minds today. They are ignoring both reality and history in their attempt to convince LGBT Americans that the Affordable Care Act is bad for them. The LGBT provisions they claim were removed from the ACA by Democrats were done at the demands of the GOP. Throughout the healthcare debate the GOP demanded concession after concession and dug in their heels threatening to filibuster the bill in the Senate if they didn’t get their way. Log Cabin Republicans are doing a disservice to LGBT Americans by intentionally mischaracterizing the history of the Congressional debate on the ACA for partisan gain.

Indeed, even without the explicit LGBT provisions, the ACA still benefits the LGBT community in many important ways, such as improved data collection and protections for people who affected by HIV. For the Log Cabin Republicans to attack this law and the Democrats who advocated for it is to abandon support for the LGBT community just to make a disingenuous partisan cheapshot.

In a huge victory for our families, our communities, and our country, the Supreme Court today upheld the Affordable Care Act. The finding that the law is constitutional includes the individual mandate, which is the requirement that every individual have health insurance coverage or pay a small amount of additional taxes.

The court’s decision also affirms numerous other provisions that are already helping to make the insurance market more fair, expand coverage to those who don’t have it, and make it easier for gay and transgender people to get the health care they need to stay healthy.

The three major components of the law upheld by the court today are:

1. The law itself: Because the law was found to be constitutional, the justices answered the question of whether the law should be struck down with a resounding “no.” Check out some of the great things the law is already doing for gay and transgender people and their families.

2. The individual mandate: The justices interpreted the law’s requirement that every individual secure a minimum level of insurance coverage as a tax, meaning that Congress had the right to include it in the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate pays for the law’s other health insurance market reforms – including the requirement that insurers can’t deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions such as HIV or cancer.

3. The Medicaid expansion: The law expands Medicaid eligibility in every state starting in 2014 to everyone who makes less than $15,000 per year. According to today’s ruling, states that do not want to expand to this level of eligibility do not have to, but they will lose the new funding the law makes available for running their Medicaid programs.

The ruling is a major victory, but the road ahead to making sure gay and transgender communities fully benefit from the law is still bumpy. In particular, the expansion of Medicaid will include many gay and transgender people and their families, since discrimination in employment and relationship recognition means that they are disproportionately likely to be uninsured and to make less than $15,000 per year. Advocates in every state will need to work hard to make sure that their states expand Medicaid eligibility up to the full level the law allows.

And on July 11, the House of Representatives will make another attempt to repeal the law. But this time, the law is really on our side.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, has introduced a new bill that would recognize benefits for the spouses of military servicemembers and veterans. According to the bill, any marriage recognized by a state would have to be recognized by the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments:

Notwithstanding section 7 of title 1, an individual shall be considered a ‘spouse’ if the marriage of the individual is valid in the State in which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place in which the marriage was entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State. In this paragraph, the term ‘State’ means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the territories and possessions.

The question of military benefits for same-sex couples is at the heart of the case McLaughlin v. U.S. brought by eight married couples. Republican leadership in the House is defending the Defense of Marriage Act against the couples’ suit, arguing they are not deserving of equal benefits for service.