The nation’s major mental health organizations have filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act stigmatizes against gays and lesbians and should be overturned. The brief recounts the scientific evidence that explains the nature of sexual orientations, but also takes time to debunk Mark Regnerus’ flawed study that attempts to draw negative conclusions about gay parents. Proponents of DOMA have already used the paper to defend their arguments, but the medical professionals explain why it should be ignored:

Amicus American College of Pediatricians — not to be confused with amicus herein, the American Academy of Pediatrics — seriously mischaracterizes a recent study (“the Regnerus study”) as having compared children of married heterosexual parents with those “raised by same-sex couples.” The Regnerus study placed participants (individuals between the age of 18 and 39) into one of eight categories, six of which were defined by the family structure in which they grew up — e.g., married biological parents, divorced parent, divorced but remarried parent, etc.  There was no category for “same-sex couple.” Instead, the final two categories included all participants, regardless of family structure, who believed that at some time between birth and their 18th birthday their mother  or their father “ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex.”

Hence the data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner.  Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.” Hence the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples  — as Regnerus himself acknowledges — and thus it is gravely misleading to say, as the American College of Pediatricians does (p. 6), that the study involved 175 participants who “were raised by two women and 73 by two men.”

Accordingly, the conclusions by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect a consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents.

So says the American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its California chapter, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychoanalytic Association.

Last week, ThinkProgress identified how the National Organization for Marriage’s boycott of Starbucks has absolutely no momentum and has had no impact on Starbucks’ business. Since then, NOM’s Jonathan Baker countered that the coffee company’s stock has technically declined a bit — from $53.81 to $51.97 — since the launch of the boycott, boasting that the organization’s paltry efforts have been “part of the equation.” But David Badash points out that Baker doesn’t know the first thing about assessing how a company’s stock is performing against the rest of the market:

The DOW is down 3.29% since March 21. The NASDAQ, on which Starbucks is listed, has performed worse: down 4.05%. Starbucks (SBUX) is down less than half of both: 1.34%. So despite Dump Starbucks’ 45,578 people, Starbucks is performing much better than the market. Yes, Starbucks stock has dropped slightly, from $53.81 to last night’s closing of $52.39. A drop of $1.42 is hardly cause for NOM to celebrate.

There is no victory here at all. If anything, NOM’s campaign might be credited for the stock’s surge to $61.67 in April before its leveling out after the media attention dissipated. To try to claim success for such a façade is desperation at its most obvious.

On Monday the Global Commission on HIV and the Law released its first report: Risks, Rights, and Health. This landmark report details the role human rights violations and discriminatory laws play in driving the HIV epidemic in countries around the world, particularly for marginalized populations such as gay and transgender people, migrants, and sex workers.

The report acknowledges that the practice of writing, passing, and enforcing laws can seem abstract and distant. But as many people living with HIV know all too well, the law is neither abstract nor distant; it directly shapes the circumstances in which people live their daily lives, and it too often hurts more than it helps.

The authors of the report, who include U.S. Representative Barbara Lee, the most pro-LGBT member of Congress, describe being frequently overwhelmed by how “archaic, insensitive laws are violating human rights, challenging rational public health responses, and eroding social fabric.” The commission heard from more than 1,000 people in over 140 countries, including many of the 78 countries that criminalize homosexuality and many countries with laws that prohibit and punish gender nonconformity.

Laws that dehumanize and criminalize gay and transgender people, men who have sex with men, sex workers, and people living with HIV cannot stop AIDS. The report emphasizes that the most effective laws for combatting the spread of HIV are not based on repression and discrimination. Rather, they are laws that explicitly protect the human rights of people living with HIV and groups of people at high risk of contracting the virus.

Among other evidence of the link between discriminatory laws and the continuing spread of HIV, the report cites two opposing cases involving gay rights: Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned America’s remaining sodomy laws, and the proposed Ugandan law that punishes same-sex sexual contact with death. According to the report, countries must recognize that decriminalizing homosexuality is an essential step in fighting the HIV epidemic.

Other major recommendations include:

• Amend nondiscrimination laws to include protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Remove legal barriers to the formation of community groups by or for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and men who have sex with men.
• Ensure that transgender people can access identity documents that affirm their gender without requiring medical procedures such as sterilization or sex reassignment surgery.
• Ensure that all people have access to comprehensive, affordable, and affirming health care services, including HIV prevention, testing, and treatment services.

The report also directly addresses the role that religion and faith communities must play in helping to end discrimination against people living with HIV, gay and transgender people, and others who are driven to the margins of society by stigma and prejudice:

Religious institutions must be inspired by their best spirits and their ideals of love, compassion, and service to others — common to all of the world’s spiritual traditions. If they do not, they will stand on the side of what can only be called evil: condemning others to illness and death because of their sexualities or identities, their occupations, or even their frailties.

In the fight against HIV and the struggle to secure the right to health and other human rights for all people, religion may yet be able to change some hearts and minds. And in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous phrase regarding those whose hearts will not be changed, “The law may not change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.” By cutting through taboos and unflinchingly describing the human consequences of legal marginalization, this report provides a powerful tool for creating laws that both protect public health and promote human rights.

A new lesbian super PAC called LPAC has launched to support pro-lesbian candidates and play a role in same-sex marriage ballot initiatives. The group will be led by Laura Ricketts, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, whose father, billionaire Joe Ricketts, has raised sizable funds to oppose President Obama’s re-election. With a modest (by super PAC standards) goal of raising $1 million this year, the effort will support candidates like Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), who is hoping to become the first-ever elected openly gay Senator, as well as any other Democrat or Republican who warrants endorsement.

LPAC spokewoman Sarah Schmidt talked to the Huffington Post about the importance of a lesbian-specific fundraising effort:

SCHMIDT: Women’s voices get lost a lot and get overshadowed in almost all settings. So I think there’s a real opportunity here to engage women who haven’t been engaged before — for lesbians, in particular, to speak for ourselves about the issues that are important to us and to define those issues in our own words. It’s a chance to really have a seat at the table when these critical issues are being discussed and the policy is being developed. We want to be there. We want to be in the middle of the conversation.[...]

Part of the reason why we’re mobilizing right now is because of what’s been going on in the political conversation and what we’ve been hearing coming from the Republican Party around these issues that’s been so disheartening. We would really hope that we can find some Republican candidates to support. I’m not sure that’s going to happen this cycle.

LPAC has already secured some high-profile supporters, including actress Jane Lynch, sports icon Billie Jean King, LGBT leader Urvashi Vaid, and former Provincetown Banner published Alix Ritchie.