It was no secret that George Washington was straight, at least as evidenced by having been married to a woman — whom most Americans can even name. The same could at least be superficially assumed for 43 of the 44 presidents. James Buchanan was a bachelor and is assumed by many to have been gay, and plenty of rumors persist about the actual sexual orientation of other presidents (including Washington). But the important lesson is that disclosing one’s heterosexuality has never been considered a violation of anyone’s privacy.

Today, Anderson Cooper disclosed publicly for the first time that he is gay. It wasn’t a particular surprise, because Cooper has lived in a so-called “glass closet.” He never denied that he was gay, and he’s been photographed with his boyfriend (who owns a gay bar) on numerous occasions at public events. Still, by taking the important step of coming out, Cooper can now be even more of a role model to LGBT youth and help people across the country become just a bit more familiar with people who are gay.

The Guardian is running debating stories today about the lead-up to Cooper’s admission: Was Cooper bullied to come out or was pressuring him to do so important for combating anti-gay stigma? The problem with the question is that it has a faulty premise — or at least it should. Sexual orientation is a basic dimension of a person’s identity, just like sex or race. In the absence of homophobia, a same-sex orientation ought not warrant any more “privacy” than an opposite-sex orientation. The problem is that for as long as the current understanding of homosexuality has been visible in society (a little more than a century), anti-gay activists have insisted that it be identified solely by behavior.

The reason Cooper and others might still feel that coming out is revealing too much of their “personal life” is because anti-gay stigma depends on reinforcing the “ick” factor. When people acknowledge that they are gay or lesbian, they are immediately identified by (and judged for) who they have sex with — and inherently how. The same is surprisingly untrue of heterosexuals, who often even produce proof of their sexual deeds in the form of children. As acceptance for the LGBT community continues to grow at its breakneck pace, this distinction should disappear. Gay people should no more be identified by their sexual behavior than anybody else.

As a result of societal progress already made, Cooper will likely not face any negative consequences from finally stepping out of that glass closet. The anti-gay people who attack everything gay will attack — and they have — but their impact is negligible. The excited media reaction today reminds us how prolific Harvey Milk was when he insisted that “every gay person must come out” over 30 years ago. Coming out as gay isn’t a disclosure of our personal lives or sex lives; it’s an admission that we as gay people have lives at all.

Back in March, Bishop Richard Malone of the Maine Catholic diocese claimed that the Church would not actively campaign against the state’s marriage equality initiative, despite leading the charge against the state’s same-sex marriage law through Question One in 2009. At the time, he released a pastoral letter introducing a new marriage “education” campaign that would allegedly focus only on church attendees. In a letter to the New York Times, Malone has now reasserted that the Church will be involved in this year’s ballot campaign:

I have not backed down in the church’s defense of marriage. Although not a member of the current political action committee, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland is playing a crucial role in November’s vote, launching a communication and educational effort based on my pastoral letter.

This document is intended to educate all people of good will about the truth and beauty of marriage as it has been preserved for millenniums by society and various religions.

Objectively, the essence of marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman open to the new life of children, whom they nurture in their irreplaceable roles as father and mother. Faithful Catholics will continue to defend God’s plan for marriage through its preaching and teaching and in the public square.

The Church seems to be playing some kind of PR game with this ballot measure that is very easy to see through. The documentary Question One portrays the malicious tactics the Church-run campaign utilized to turn people against marriage equality, and the activists leading the current anti-equality effort are using even more flagrantly demonizing tactics. Clearly Malone is trying to distance the Church from such language and responsibility in the fight, yet at the same time maintain its anti-gay principles. With a majority already supporting the measure and most lay Catholics disagreeing with Church leadership on LGBT issues, his wishy-washy efforts may ultimately fall on deaf ears.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has confirmed to Andrew Sullivan that he is openly gay. In a lengthy email describing his discretion, Cooper confirmed that he is gay, he always has been, he always will be, and proudly so:

COOPER: I’ve always believed that who a reporter votes for, what religion they are, who they love, should not be something they have to discuss publicly. As long as a journalist shows fairness and honesty in his or her work, their private life shouldn’t matter. I’ve stuck to those principles for my entire professional career, even when I’ve been directly asked “the gay question,” which happens occasionally. I did not address my sexual orientation in the memoir I wrote several years ago because it was a book focused on war, disasters, loss and survival. I didn’t set out to write about other aspects of my life.

Recently, however, I’ve begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle. It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something – something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true. [...]

The fact is, I’m gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.

Cooper’s sexual orientation has long been speculated and he has even been listed on Out magazine’s “Power 50″ list, but he has never publicly acknowledged the question until now. His prominent public trust and visibility in the media will surely help spur new conversations about the LGBT community across the country.

This weekend, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage and opposing discrimination or the denial of civil rights against any American. Jesse Garcia, LULAC member and co-founder of its first LGBT Council, explained the significance of the resolution:

GARCIA: Today the LULAC National Membership reaffirmed its commitment to equality for all by voting in favor of marriage equality. LULAC stands with great Latino leaders like Dolores Huerta, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who believe discrimination of same-sex couples should not be tolerated. This is a historic day for LGBT Latinos everywhere, plus this vote is another bond that reaffirms the partnership between the LGBT and Hispanic communities.

Huerta, as an example, wrote in May that the LGBT community and immigrants are “all in this together.” LULAC joins the National Council of La Raza, which also recently passed a resolution supporting marriage equality.

As one of the oldest organizations advocating for Hispanic rights, LULAC further obliterates conservatives’ efforts to sow divisions between people of color and the LGBT community. Opposing discrimination and supporting equality are values many communities can unite behind.

Next year, the Supreme Court will have its first opportunity to weigh in on same-sex marriage, as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has filed an appeal in one of the many cases in which the Defense of Marriage Act has been found unconstitutional. Though numerous cases are advancing, House Republicans appealed the pair of cases from the First Circuit: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. HHS. In the filing, Boehner’s attorneys continue to ignore the reality of same-sex families, arguing that Congress did nothing to harm or discriminate against them:

DOMA does not bar or invalidate any marriages but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage. Section 3 of DOMA simply asserts the federal government’s right as a separate sovereign to provide its own definition which “governs only federal programs and funding.”

Congress, of course, did not invent the meanings of “marriage” and “spouse” in 1996. Rather, DOMA merely reaffirmed and codified the traditional definition of marriage, i.e. what Congress itself has always meant — and what courts and the executive branch have always understood it to mean — in using these words: a traditional male-female couple.

In addition, the filing argues that Congress wanted to save money by simply not paying for the tax benefits same-sex couples would be afforded with marriage equality. Besides the blatant discrimination inherent in that argument, there 1,138 federal rights, benefits, and privileges that are denied to couples under DOMA. Republicans’ interest in “traditional marriage” ignores the millions of same-sex couples raising families who are denied the same securities and protections as their heterosexual neighbors.

This DOMA case may not be the Supreme Court’s only opportunity to weigh in on marriage next year. Proponents of California’s Proposition 8 have also promised to take their case to the Supreme Court, though they have not yet filed such an appeal. It is possible, though, that the Court could rule in favor of equality in both cases without mandating a right to same-sex marriage. For Proposition 8, the Justices could simply rule that it’s unconstitutional for a state to revoke a right like marriage equality after it’s already been granted. Similarly, the Court could overturn DOMA, requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage but not mandating that any state to do the same — navigating the so-called “Alabama Problem.” Regardless, it will be an interesting year for human rights jurisprudence.