In the September issue of Playboy, its founder Hugh Hefner has penned an editorial about the importance of supporting LGBT equality and women’s rights. Lashing out at those conservatives who would impose their religious beliefs on society, Hefner describes marriage equality as “a fight for all of our rights”:

HEFNER: The fight for gay marriage is, in reality, a fight for all of our rights. Without it, we will turn back the sexual revolution and return to an earlier, puritanical time,” he writes. “Today, in every instance of sexual rights falling under attack, you’ll find legislation forced into place by people who practice discrimination disguised as religious freedom. Their goal is to dehumanize everyone’s sexuality and reduce us to using sex for the sole purpose of perpetuating our species. To that end, they will criminalize your entire sex life.

[Conservatives continue] to assault the right of gays, whether by denying them to right to marry or, as in Kansas, by attempting to empower landlords, business owners and employers to discriminate against gays on religious grounds. [...]

This is a religious nation, but it is also a secular one. … No one should have to subjugate their religious freedom, and no one should have their personal freedoms infringed. This is America and we must protect the rights of all Americans.

Following up on guidelines generated by a report on transgender healthcare last month, the American Psychiatric Association has issued official position statements on the care and civil rights of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. The new statements reflect this year’s editions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-V) that will identify being transgender as “Gender Dysphoria,” removing the classification of “Gender Identity Disorder.” The APA explained the importance of standing up for the trans community, citing the “significant discrimination, prejudice, and the potential for victimization from violent hate crimes, as well as denial of many basic civil rights, protections, and access to health care, to the severe detriment of their mental health. Here are the new position statements:

APA POSITION STATEMENTS

The American Psychiatric Association:

1. Recognizes that appropriately evaluated transgender and gender variant individuals can benefit greatly from medical and surgical gender transition treatments.

2. Advocates for removal of barriers to care and supports both public and private health insurance coverage for gender transition treatment.

3. Opposes categorical exclusions of coverage for such medically necessary treatment when prescribed by a physician.

The American Psychiatric Association:

1. Supports laws that protect the civil rights of transgender and gender variant individuals.

2. Urges the repeal of laws and policies that discriminate against transgender and gender variant people.

3. Opposes all public and private discrimination against transgender and gender variant individuals in such areas as health care, employment, housing, public accommodation, education, and licensing.

4. Declares that no burden of proof of such judgment, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon these individuals greater than that imposed on any other persons.

A lot of public education remains to be done about transgender identities, but no longer designating them as a “disorder” is an important step. As with non-heterosexual orientations, affirmation is key to supporting the mental health of all members of the LGBT community.

During a meeting of the Republican National National Convention Platform on Tuesday, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach spoke out against an amendment that would have struck down the party’s longstanding support for the Defense of Marriage Act — which outlaws same-sex marriages — by comparing homosexuality with drug use and polygamy.

Pat Kerby, an RNC delegate from Nevada, introduced the amendment, arguing that “under the constitution, every American gets treated equally under the law.”

But Kobach, who is best know as the chief architect of Arizona’s xenophobic SB 1070 law and advises the Romney campaign on immigration issues, opposed the amendment by comparing LGBT people to drug users and polygamists:

Our government routinely judges sutuatons where you might regard people completely affecting themselves like for exmaple the use of controlled substances, like polygamy that is voluntarily entered in to. We condemn those activities even though they are not hurting other people at least directly. So this is worded way to broadly for inclusion in the platform.

The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.

Watch Kobach’s statement:

Judge James Gwin

In a relatively insignificant ruling denying summary judgment, Ohio Judge James Gwin made a significant argument in favor of recognizing discrimination based on sexual orientation under Title VII’s protections against discrimination based on sex. Plaintiff Jason Koren is suing his former employer, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, for unfair treatment because he is gay that ultimately led to his termination. Among his complaints was that his supervisor, Kim Miceli, refused to acknowledge that he had taken his husband’s surname when they married in Massachusetts, because she “did not recognize same-sex marriages.” Judge Gwin agreed that this was discrimination based on Koren’s sex:

Koren’s position is that changing his name upon marriage was a non-conforming “behavior” that supports his gender discrimination claim under a Price Waterhouse sex-stereotyping theory.  Ohio Bell disagrees and attempts to frame Koren’s claims as a simple attempt “to bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII” as prohibited by Vickers.

The Court agrees with Koren:  homosexual males do not “by definition, fail to conform to the traditional gender norms” by changing their surname upon marriage. And here, Koren chose to take his spouse’s surname—a “traditionally” feminine practice—and his co-workers and superiors observed that gender non-conformance when Koren requested to be called by his married name.  Vickers does “not suggest that [a plaintiff’s] claim fails merely because he has been classified . . . as a homosexual.  Rather, [the] claim fails [when the plaintiff] has failed to allege that he did not conform to traditional gender stereotypes in any observable way at work.”

Koren has alleged just such a failure to conform.  And he says that Miceli “harbored ill-will” because he changed his name but that she would not have done so if a female employee had changed her name. Koren testified that Miceli refused to call him by his married name, that Miceli went out of her way to call him by his previous last name, and that Miceli informed him that she did not recognize same-sex marriages. And that ill-will, Koren says, resulted in seven unexcused absences and, ultimately, his termination.  Accordingly, there is a “genuine dispute as to material fact[s],” and summary judgment is inappropriate on Koren’s sex-stereotype theory.

This is not a final ruling as to the merits of Koren’s case, but it’s still a worthwhile recognition of nondiscrimination protections under current law. Even though sexual orientation is not explicitly mentioned in Title VII, interpreting non-heterosexual orientations as a violation of sex stereotypes is an arguably fair interpretation of sexual identity. Indeed, Judge Gwin ruled similarly in a different case last year, arguing that the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution is not automatically constrained by what is stipulated under the law. Sexual orientation is an invisible identity, which is why it is often characterized by the behaviors associated with it, but it makes sense to understand it as a natural variation of how one’s sex expresses itself.

The hate-group branded Republican Party.

Though this year’s Democratic Platform is the most pro-LGBT in history, complete with full support for marriage equality, the Republican Platform is set to be as anti-LGBT as ever, according to drafts approved by subcommittees Monday. Despite Log Cabin Republicans’ hopes that the language would include at least an allusion to “dignity and respect” for gay people, R. Clarke Cooper conceded that the end result is “bad with a capital ‘B.’” Tony Perkins, of the anti-gay hate group the Family Research Council, took personal credit for drafting the anti-equality language, boasting that platform drafting leaders Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) were “friends of FRC.” Here is some of the hostile anti-equality language Perkins incorporated into the draft:

Marriage and the Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

Defense of Marriage

That is why congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. An activist judiciary usurps the powers reserved to other branches of government and endangers the foundation of our country. We oppose the Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts — makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and those State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so.

Marriage

The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, are less likely to engage in crime, and are less likely to get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also more government control over the lives of its citizens in all facets. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

The platform, as drafted, is not only an open attack on the lives of LGBT people, but a blatant distortion of reality. The social science about the value of marriage for children also applies to same-sex couples. Despite recognizing the courage of single parents, the GOP is content to disregard the very existence of the country’s one million LGBT families raising two million children. Instead, as per the kind of rhetoric that warrants FRC’s designation as a hate group, Perkins suggests that offering any dignity to gay and lesbian couples would be the undoing of society, an “assault on the foundations of society.” As a majority of Americans embrace marriage equality, the Republican Party continues to wholeheartedly embrace the most extreme anti-gay positions in the country.