As Britain continues its conversations about advancing marriage equality, the Mormon Church has chimed in, requiring all its congregations to hear a message condemning same-sex couples for the “negative implications” and “deep consequences” from allowing them to marry.  The letter suggests that excluding them from marriage is “good for society” and somehow promotes the wellbeing of all humankind:

The promotion and protection of marriage – the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife – is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and humankind. We join together with others to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society.[...]

The interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage” – warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. We believe that changing the definition of marriage would have far‐reaching negative implications for the nation, both legal and social.

In case it needs repeating, there is nothing to validate the absurd fears the Mormon Church is stoking here. What’s at stake in Britain, as in the U.S., is making sure that same-sex couples have the same protections for each other and their families as all other couples do. As a new study points out, there are likely not unique benefits to having a mother and a father, but there are unique consequences to not having a stable and secure household.

One of conservatives’ primary objections to marriage equality is their belief that children receive some sort of unique benefit from having both a mother and a father. Both Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio justified their opposition to same-sex marriage this week with just that point. Groups like the Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage fraudulently conflate research on single-mom households with two-mom households, implying that both are equally problematic for children because both are “fatherless.” Plenty of evidence has shown that the children of lesbian couples are perfectly well-adjusted, and a new study suggests that there is, in fact, no unique benefit to having a male role model.

The Williams Institute worked with the adolescents from the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLFFS) to compare those who had a male role model (such as the biological father, an uncle, or a grandfather) with those who did not. (Note: Conservatives attack the NLFFS for being a convenience sample, but when it started in 1980, identifying openly as a lesbian couple raising children was hardly convenient.) The study found that neither boys nor girls differed in their psychological well-being or stereotypical gender roles regardless of whether or not they had a male role model. Researchers suggest this compromises the myth that fathers and sons and mothers and daughters have some sort of unique gender-specific connection:

The results of the current study raise several broader questions about the role of parents in the gender development of their children. Given that the adolescent boys with and without male role models did not differ in their masculine gender role traits, this finding challenges the notion that there are gender-specific behaviors that can be imparted only by mothers to daughters and by fathers to sons. The finding that the adolescent offspring of planned lesbian families do not vary in their gender role traits based on the presence of a meaningful male role model also suggests that parenting role behaviors may have shifted.

In many cultures, parental role behavior is now less constricted by gender than ever before. Many of today’s fathers braid their children’s hair, prepare family meals, and supervise homework, while contemporary mothers coach their children in sports and help them with their science projects and career choices. Parents of both genders foster integrity, inquisitiveness, compassion, kindness, thoughtfulness, morality, and motivation in their children. Likewise, the ability to love, nurture, groom, teach, inspire, and guide children from infancy to adulthood is shared by mothers and fathers alike. Most of the NLLFS mothers consider good role modeling more a matter of character than gender.

In other words, parents’ commitment is what matters, not their gender. There is nothing “ideal” about having both a mother and a father, because the roles that mothers and fathers play is interchangeable. What all studies have shown — even those that conservatives manipulate to oppose same-sex marriage and adoption — is that having a stable home with committed parents is what makes the difference for children. Any conclusion drawn to attack same-sex couples is supported only by anti-gay bias, not any of the actual data available.

Yesterday was a busy day for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. In the morning she spoke at Howard University Hospital for the release of the Human Rights Campaign’s 2012 Healthcare Equality Index, before joining a call at noon to highlight a report outlining her department’s LGBT health objectives for this year.

Numerous themes from the HHS list of LGBT health objectives for 2011 made a repeat showing on this year’s list, including LGBT cultural competency training for health care providers, equal treatment of LGBT youth and families, and funding opportunities that explicitly include LGBT communities. Happily, this year’s objectives are more specific and concrete than last year’s, demonstrating the department’s intention to make measurable progress on all of its commitments.

Still, significant progress remains to be made in several areas that were for the most part not explicitly addressed in the report:

1. Removing transgender exclusions from health insurance plans
2. Advancing gender identity data collection
3. Including LGBT communities in cultural competency standards
4. Formally designating the LGBT population as a health disparity population

Trans Health Exclusions

One of the most blatant examples of discrimination against members of LGBT communities is the persistence nationwide of health insurance policy exclusions targeting transgender individuals. These exclusions, found in many private plans and in the government-financed Medicare and Medicaid programs, deny transgender people coverage for health care services that are routinely covered for nontransgender individuals, including pelvic exams, mammograms, and mental health services.

HHS recently released regulations governing the health insurance exchanges, which are marketplaces that will sell affordable, comprehensive coverage in every state starting in 2014. These regulations prohibit insurers participating in the exchanges from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. However, forthcoming regulations regarding the benefits exchange plans must offer need to clarify that transgender exclusions violate these nondiscrimination protections and will unfairly restrict access for transgender people to the same standard of essential coverage other consumers will enjoy.

Gender Identity Data

Though the report recommits the department to its 2011 objective of increasing the number of federally supported health and demographic surveys that collect and report data on sexual orientation and gender identity, another area of concern is a lack of progress on the development of a gender identity question. Initially promising signs such as two roundtables of HHS officials and transgender health and research experts in 2011 and early 2012 have lapsed into silence, and it remains unclear whether HHS will achieve its self-stated goal of increasing the number of federally funded surveys that collect the data on gender identity needed to better understand the health disparities facing the transgender population.

Cultural Competency Standards

The department maintains a set of standards, the Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards, that guide health care organizations and providers in serving diverse communities. Some of the standards are mandatory for recipients of federal funds, while others are recommended for adoption as mandates by federal and other accrediting agencies. While the CLAS Standards describe general principles of respect for diversity in health care, they do not yet follow the example of national standard-setting bodies such as the Joint Commission in explicitly defining patient diversity to include LGBT communities. The updating of the CLAS Standards to define communities at particular risk of discrimination in health care settings would reinforce the report’s goal of promoting LGBT-inclusive cultural competency tools to make sure all patients are treated with the respect and care they deserve.

Health Disparity Designation

Finally, the report made no mention of LGBT inclusion in the health disparity population designation overseen by the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities. Despite evidence of LGBT health and healthcare disparities from nationally recognized sources such as the Institute of Medicine, Healthy People 2020, the Office of Minority Health, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the institute has not formally designated the LGBT population as a health disparity population.

Until sexual orientation and gender identity are formally recognized as factors associated with health disparities, researchers, service providers, and others working to address LGBT health disparities will continue to have severe difficulty building a robust research agenda and attracting the resources necessary to support their efforts. Designating the LGBT population as a health disparity population is an important part of promoting a comprehensive understanding of health equity for diverse disadvantaged communities and focusing attention on the additional investments needed in efforts to eliminate health disparities not just for LGBT communities but across the board.

2012 has been an exciting year for LGBT health so far. In their efforts to blaze new paths to health, well-being, and equality for LGBT people and their families, Secretary Sebelius and her team at HHS have much to be proud of. Continued leadership and progress on these objectives is something LGBT communities can look forward to.

Mitt Romney’s campaign may or may not be vetting Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for vice presidential consideration, but in the meantime, he continues to maintain space in the media spotlight. In an interview with Christianity Today published yesterday, he reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage, pointing out that the Bible opposes it, as do all of the faiths (Catholic, Mormon, evangelical Christian) he’s experienced. Though he qualified his answer in some ways, he also suggested that society shouldn’t “tolerate” less-than-”ideal” family structures:

RUBIO: In terms of the Bible’s interpretation of marriage, what our faith teaches is pretty straightforward. There’s not much debate about that. The debate is about what society should tolerate, and what society should allow our laws to be. I believe marriage is a unique and specific institution that is the result of thousands of years of wisdom, which concluded that the ideal — not the only way but certainly the ideal — situation to raise children to become productive and healthy humans is in a home with a father and mother married to each other. Does that mean people who are not in that circumstance cannot be successful? Of course not.

It’s not a discriminatory thing. I’m not angry at anyone because of it, but I also have to be honest about what I believe marriage should be in our laws.

In May, Rubio broke from Romney on the issue, coming out against a Federal Marriage Amendment — a resolution of his past “mixed feelings.” He told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that the regulation of marriage should be left to the states.