A new report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) finds an increase in intimate partner violence (IPV) within the LGBTQ and HIV-Affected communities. Here’s a look at some of the troubling data collected for 2011:

• NCAVP documented 19 intimate partner violence homicides within the LGBTQ/HIV community, the highest yearly total on record (compared to 6 in 2010).
• LGBTQ/HIV people under the age of the 30 were more than 50 percent more likely to experience physical violence in their relationship.
• People of color within that group were nearly 4 times as likely to experience physical violence.
• NCAVP documented a decrease in reports of intimate partner violence, but largely because the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center (LAGLC) lost its funding for reporting. Without factoring in LAGLC numbers, there was an 18.3 percent increase in reports of LGBTQ/HIV nationwide.
• Among survivors of IPV who sought shelter, well over half (61.6 percent) were denied access to shelter, disturbingly up from 44.6 percent in 2010.

Members of the LGBTQ/HIV community have less access to resources and education, such as IPV prevention initiatives, including survivor-led programs. The report adds that cultural competency training is important for victim service providers so that shelters are more accessible. In addition, the LGBTQ-inclusive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would ensure that IPV victims are more visible and would recognize under law that the LGBTQ community is currently under-served and has unique needs.

Yesterday, the New York Times profiled Frank Schubert, mastermind strategist behind most of the anti-marriage equality campaigns over the past five years, including California’s Proposition 8 in 2008 and Maine’s Question 1 in 2009. He is now coordinating all four of the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-equality campaigns — Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington — for which he is making a small fortune. His PR wheels were clearly spinning as he was interviews, as all of his quotes seek to downplay the harm of his messaging:

For his part, Mr. Schubert, who has a lesbian sister raising two children in a domestic partnership, says, “It’s hurtful to know that many people think I dislike gays and lesbians and wish them harm.” [...]

Mr. Schubert said that while he tailors messages to each state, certain themes have proved effective: that marriage between a man and a woman is the tested foundation of a stable society, that children do best when raised by a married father and mother, and that “it is possible to respect the rights of gays and lesbians without redefining marriage.”

“This is a difficult argument,” he said, “because it sounds as if we’re saying gay couples can’t have loving relationships or care for children, which is not the case.”

Inherent in this argument is Schubert’s true agenda against the lives of gays and lesbians. He acknowledges that they can (and are) raising children, but he’s still working to prevent those families from having the same legal security as others. Indeed, the ads he designs — like the infamous Prop 8 “Princess” ad — specifically demonize same-sex couples as being inferior and attempt to scare voters that there is inherent harm in children even learning such family diversity even exists. Schubert does not like gays, he does not respect their rights, and he clearly is not acting in their best interests.

Maggie Gallagher has long denied that the National Organization for Marriage has ever endorsed ex-gay therapy, claiming that the anti-gay organization only focuses on the definition of marriage. But plenty of evidence contradicts her, including the presence of ex-gay therapists at a recent NOM conference. Last week, Jennifer Roback Morse of NOM’s Ruth Institute said she believes gay people can find “relief from some of the symptoms” of same-sex attractions, and in a new speech, she blatantly endorsed forcing gay people into a lifetime of celibacy:

MORSE: One group of people that I particularly want to call your attention to is the group of people who experience same-sex attraction as a permanent part of their personalities. Some of those people choose to describe themselves as “gay” and identify with that attraction, but what I want to say is that that is a decision, to identify with the attraction. In effect, it’s a very momentous decision, but I am sure in a room this size there are people who know people who are struggling with same-sex attraction.[...]

What the Catholic Church teaches is very simple, that they can be saved, but they have to live a life of chastity — and that God does want them to be saved. In fact, their same-sex attraction can be their personal path to holiness. That can be the thing that gets them to Heaven: dealing with that, dealing with it in a good, and decent, and wholesome way.

Morse goes onto explain that the Catholic plan of celibacy is a good alternative for Mormons and evangelical Christians who are trying to “cure” gays. Watch Morse’s entire speech on the “Problems with Same Sex Marriage.” The above comments begin at the 17-minute mark:

Any distinction between celibacy and embracing an ex-gay identity is negligible. It’s not surprising that Morse went out of her way to describe gay identities as a “decision” as a set-up for her chastity plan. Just like ex-gay therapy, Morse’s approach is a plan to deny and reject a person’s identity, to deprive them of ever experiencing romantic love or sexual pleasure for their entire lives. It’s harmful, and it’s stigmatizing.

Morse makes over $100,000 from NOM to spread these kinds of messages ($116,667 in 2010). This is NOM’s true intention: not a campaign to “defend marriage,” but one that directly targets the lives and well-being of gays and lesbians.

Kirk Cameron is playing the victim card for all that it’s worth. Following up his new partnership with the National Organization for Marriage, Cameron spoke at Liberty University last week about the comments he made in an interview with Piers Morgan in March. Choosing not to reiterate his belief that homosexuality is “unnatural,” “detrimental,” and “ultimately destructive” to society, Cameron simply said that his words constituted “love speech,” and that liberals tried to “crucify” him for these remarks:

CAMERON: Will you speak the truth in love? Because the truth is always “love speech,” it’s not “hate speech.” The truth, communicated with compassion, with a desire to see people in a right relationship with God — helped, and healed, and whole — is the most genuine form of love speech you can give to anyone. Am I right?

But you know, I also learned a lesson from that. And that is that blasphemy laws are still alive and well in America. And I seem to have blasphemed the God of political correctness and they tried to drag me out into the public square and crucify me.

Watch it (via Right Wing Watch):

Condemning an entire group of people as a bane on society can hardly be considered “love speech,” nor does accountability for such harmful remarks constitute crucifixion.

Mark Himes and Frederic Deloizy risk separation because their California marriage isn't recognized under federal law.

As promised, the Department of Homeland Security has issued written guidance for how to consider deportation cases involving same-sex binational couples, whose relationships are not recognized under federal law because of the Defense of Marriage Act. According to the memo, there are three criteria that must be met in order for same-sex relationships to be treated as “family relationships”:

Same-sex relationships that rise to the level of “family relationships” are long-term, same-sex relationships in which the individuals —

• are each other’s sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;
• are not in a marital or other domestic relationship with anyone else; and
• typically maintain a common residence and share financial obligations and assets.

When these simple criteria are met, immigration officials should apply prosecutorial discretion, treating these families as “ties and contributions to the community.” As in all cases, family relationships may be outweighed by other circumstances such as criminal history or prior immigration violations.

This is the first time that same-sex binational couples have been protected in writing. Previous oral guidance had not been thoroughly implemented, resulting in uncertain limbo and continued confusion for many couples. It is unclear if this new policy will rise to the same level of protection opposite-sex marriages have in immigration law, though it is an important step forward from the previous lack of clarity. Most likely, however, same-sex couples will not be fully secure until DOMA is repealed or circumvented by legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act.