“Neutrality” is the new buzzword among groups opposed to same-sex marriage. The Family Research Council would prefer Target “take a position of neutrality on the redefinition of marriage” instead of selling Pride Month t-shirts. One Million Moms has called on JC Penney to “remain neutral in the culture war,” rather than include same-sex families in their advertisements. And last week, the National Organization for Marriage sent a vaguely threatening letter to Minnesota’s 50 largest corporations urging them to sit out the debate on the state’s marriage inequality amendment:

As a cultural matter that has little to do with your corporate mission to serve customers, earn profits, and provide good jobs for the people of Minnesota we would request that _____ adopt a neutral stance on the Minnesota marriage amendment. We do not request that you endorse our efforts to protect the age-old definition of what is a marriage, but only that you stay neutral and respect the conscience rights of your customers and employees who are on both sides of the issue.[...]

Wading into a culture war over an issue where _____ has no business interest is to invite public backlash, much like what Starbucks is experiencing in the DumpStarbucks.com campaign, with little upside. Polls have put support for the Minnesota marriage amendment at 56% – higher than polls in North Carolina had support for the marriage amendment there just prior to the 61-39% victory for marriage in that state.[...]

We are carefully watching what _____ will do on this important measure, with the expectation that you will not be engaged on one side or the other. Please let us know if this is not the case.

It’s unclear which poll NOM is referring to, because the latest survey showed the discriminatory measure losing 43-49. Furthermore, the DumpStarbucks threat is a joke — only 44,338 people have pledged to dump Starbucks, whereas nearly 15 times as many people (650,000) eagerly thanked Starbucks for supporting marriage equality. In the weeks after NOM first launched its campaign, the company’s stock climbed significantly in value. Today, Starbucks publicly endorsed marriage equality in Australia, clearly not intimidated by NOM’s paltry protest.

More importantly, there’s no such thing as a “neutral” position that doesn’t still hurt the gay community. The term as used by anti-gay conservatives seems to derive from Minnesota’s largest school district, Anoka-Hennepin, where a “neutrality” policy prevented staff from discussing LGBT issues and thereby created a toxic bullying-ridden climate for gay and trans students. A policy of neutrality is a policy of invisibility, disregard, and shame. NOM’s use of such a red herring is both a sign of the organization’s anti-gay malevolence and desperation for support.

Lastly, NOM’s rationale that supporting marriage equality has “little to do with” corporate missions is simply wrong. Businesses do better when their LGBT employees are treated fairly, because they can recruit and retain more talented staff and market their spirit of inclusion to customers. Minnesota’s businesses should call NOM on its bluff and do what’s right for both their profits and the thousands of same-sex families who might patronize them: embrace equality for all.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued North Carolina today, contending that the state’s ban on second-parent adoptions discriminates against same-sex couples and is unconstitutional. Second-parent adoptions, in which one partner adopts the child of another, can occur in gay and straight relationships, but have been banned in North Carolina since 2010.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of six same-sex couples, including Marcie and Chantelle Fisher-Borne, who each carried one of their two children. The couple was treated rudely by hospital staff during the birth of one of their children:

MARCIE FISHER-BORNE:We were treated as if our family was less than other families during what should have been one of the happiest occasions of our lives. We don’t ever want there to be any question as to who should care for our children. If something were to happen to either one of us, it could tear our family apart.

According to the lawsuit, the ban on second parent adoptions violates the constitutional rights of children, and denies them the permanency and security of a loving home. Protections that children lack without access to second parent adoptions include:

[E]nsuring that all children in the family are covered if one partner lacks health insurance, ensuring that families will stay together and children will not be torn from the only home they’ve known if something should happen to the biological parent, ensuring that either parent will be allowed to make medical decisions or be able to be by their child’s bedside if one their children is hospitalized.

–Alex Brown

This week, Ebony magazine’s Marc Lamont Hill asked, “Why aren’t we fighting for CeCe McDonald?”

McDonald, a trans woman of color, was out with some friends when they were assaulted with racist and transphobic epithets (“n*ggers,” “faggots,” and “chicks with dicks”) by two white women and a man. One of the women escalated the confrontation physically by striking McDonald with a cocktail glass that punctured her cheek and salivary gland. Fearing for her life, McDonald sought to defend herself, but at the end of the ensuing fight, it was the white man, Dean Schmitz, who was dead. McDonald was arrested, left with little choice but to plead guilty, and ultimately sentenced to 41 months in a men’s prison for second-degree manslaughter.

Hill painstakingly documents the many ways McDonald was unfairly treated from the moment the fight ended through her sentencing last week. Here are some examples from Hill’s retelling:

• McDonald was the only individual arrested after the fight, and her claims of self-defense were ignored. As Hill writes, “McDonald was legally punished for surviving a transphobic hate attack.”
• “Throughout the trial, the judge and prosecution consistently and intentionally misgendered McDonald, referring to her by masculine pronouns.”
• McDonald’s claim of self-defense was dismissed despite medical evidence, toxicology reports, eyewitness accounts, and unrefuted testimony that Schmitz initiated the altercation — not McDonald.
• The court refused to consider Schmitz’s past criminal record or the swastika tattooed on his chest, fairly obvious confirmations of his hateful intent.
• Given the incredibly high rates of trans abuse in the prison system, “CeCe McDonald has been sentenced to 41 months of sexual violence.”

McDonald’s case exemplifies the worst biases in the criminal justice system, and in particular the many ways the Black trans community is criminalized for their identities, as Hill concludes:

In the final analysis, CeCe McDonald is a transgender Black woman who had the courage to “stand her ground” and defend herself from a hate attack. As a punishment for surviving, she has been sentenced to 41 months of torture inside of a men’s prison.

Though McDonald’s case is substantially different from Trayvon Martin’s, Hill’s allusion to “stand your ground” laws is a reminder that the criminal justice system continues to disfavor members of minority groups.

There are still ways to help CeCe, such as writing her letters of support or donating to her support fund. The biggest imperative is to share her story and call out the blatant injustices that she has suffered. The Black trans community faces some of the highest rates of discrimination of any population, as documented in a large study last year:

• 34 Percent of Black trans respondents lived in extreme poverty, with yearly household incomes under $10,000.
• 20 percent of Black trans respondents were HIV-positive.
• 49 percent of Black trans respondents reported having attempted suicide.
• 15 percent of Black trans respondents had been physically assaulted in the workplace.
• 32 percent of Black trans respondents had lost a job due to bias.
• 48 percent of of Black trans respondents were denied a job due to bias.
• 41 percent of Black trans respondents had experienced homelessness.

By not identifying and correcting egregious mistakes like those committed against CeCe McDonald, society is doomed to repeat them.

In April, the removal of Ohio mom Jen Tyrrell from her position as a Cub Scout den leader purely because she is a lesbian, created a national outrage. Last week, the Boy Scouts of America agreed to consider a proposal to end its nationwide ban on LGBT people and leave the decision up to local chartering groups.

Yesterday, Tyrrell launched a Change.org petition encouraging the CEOs of AT&T and Ernst & Young — both members of the national board of Boy Scouts of America — to endorse ending the group’s long-standing ban on LGBT Scouts and leaders.

Last night, Ernst & Young CEO and Global Chairman James Turley told CNBC that he supports ending the ban:

TURLEY: Ernst & Young is proud to have such a strong record in LGBT inclusiveness. As CEO, I know that having an inclusive culture produces the best results, is the right thing for our people and makes us a better organization. My experience has led me to believe that an inclusive environment is important throughout our society and I am proud to be a leader on this issue. I support the meaningful work of the Boy Scouts in preparing young people for adventure, leadership, learning and service, however the membership policy is not one I would personally endorse. As I have done in leading Ernst & Young to being a most inclusive organization, I intend to continue to work from within the BSA Board to actively encourage dialogue and sustainable progress.

The petition has now been edited to continue to push AT&T Chairman, CEO, and President Randall Stephenson to follow suit.

For more context on the proposed change, check out the ThinkProgress interview with Eagle Scout Zach Wahls.