Maryland Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D)

Maryland state Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D) has penned a column for the Washington Post in which he tries to drum up fears about the consequences of approving Question 6, upholding the state’s marriage equality law. His primary complaint is that people opposed to the freedom to marry will have to function at a most basic level with same-sex couples by not discriminating against them:

As has happened in other states, individuals — such as an innkeeper in Vermont or a wedding photographer in New Mexico — who decline to assist with celebrating unions contrary to their beliefs could face fines, lawsuits and infringements on their business. If Question 6 passes, there will be no legal protection for individuals, business owners and the everyday citizens of Maryland if their deeply held beliefs about marriage come into conflict with state law.

As for protections for religious institutions, voters need to know that the ballot language omits a significant piece of the law — the provision that takes away any such protection if the religious organization conducts social, educational or medical services under a contract with government and receives state or federal funds.

Further, the ballot language includes wording that is not part of the law. The question states that religious organizations do not have to provide “benefits” in violation of their beliefs. But the word “benefits” does not appear in the law. In fact, my colleagues in the Maryland Senate rejected an amendment to include the word “benefits.” In reality, the law provides no protection to religious organizations whose tenets would be violated by providing employment benefits to gay and lesbian married couples.

First of all, the two cases Muse cites both address nondiscrimination laws, not marriage equality. Though the innkeepers in Vermont are now portraying themselves as victims, they admitted that they broke the law in the court settlement. Courts have similarly ruled against the photographer in New Mexico, where same-sex marriage isn’t even legal. After losing in the state Court of Appeals in June, Elane Photography has appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Any individual operating a business open to the public is bound by a state’s laws not to discriminate based on sexual orientation — laws Maryland already has. It’s just as illegal to refuse to host a same-sex commitment ceremony today as it will be if voters approve Question 6 next month or when marriage equality takes effect in January.

As for the rest of his arguments, Muse believes that religion should be a sufficient legal excuse to blatantly discriminate against same-sex couples. If he had his way, even if same-sex marriage were legal, anybody who wanted to could just ignore those unions under law without consequence, whether it’s a business refusing health benefit coverage to a same-sex spouse or a Catholic-run hospital that doesn’t allow a same-sex spouse to make medical decisions. He is attempting to paint bigots as victims, without any recognition for how those actions might harm same-sex families and their children. Of course, the National Organization for Marriage has no problem promoting this argument.

It’s worth noting that Muse is himself a minister, though apparently not a very responsible one. Despite his 2,000 members, his church has gone bankrupt on two different occasions, including this past June. Though he is entitled to both his religious views and practices, it is unfortunate that they cloud his ability to appreciate what would be in the best interest of his constituents.

Following through on a July settlement, an Illinois judge approved a new decree yesterday allowing transgender people to obtain new birth certificates reflecting their identified gender without undergoing genital reconstruction surgery. This is important for the many trans people for whom the surgery is not medically prudent, particularly because it carries with it the consequence of sterility. According to the Chicago Phoenix, it does seem that the Illinois Department of Public Health will still require trans people to undergo at least some form of surgery, but the standard remains unclear:

The IDPH is now prohibited from denying applicants for new Illinois birth certificates who seek to change to change their gender marker solely because they have not had genital reconstruction surgery, but there is still a requirement for a different type of surgery to be performed. The specifics of the required procedures are left up to the individual’s physician, according to Melaney Arnold, Public Health Communications, Illinois Department of Public Health shortly after the agreement was reached in July.

This is a step forward for many transgender people who cannot afford the genital reconstruction therapy or do not feel the need to undergo such a procedure. However, the other procedures that may fit the state’s criteria may be just as invasive to some, including double mastectomy, hysterectomy, orchiectomy [removal of testicles], or facial feminization surgeries.

Ultimately, the decision will come down to the individual’s physician, according to IDPH.

This is more confusing than should be necessary. It makes sense for the state to entrust physicians to determine the best course of treatment that respects each trans person’s journey, but to still impose an unclear expectation of surgery is troubling. The entire purpose of the suit that led to this resolution was to challenge the expensive and invasive nature of surgery, and that burden hasn’t changed just because one form of surgery was ruled out. For some trans individuals, options such as hormone therapy and non-surgical cosmetic procedures may be sufficient to fulfill the needs of their transition, but the current parameters may create a situation where a physician has to lie that a surgery took place to affirm the patient’s successful gender transition. Such burdens respect neither transgender people nor the medical professionals entrusted with their care.

Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper

After the Log Cabin Republicans’ disappointing endorsement of Mitt Romney yesterday, media outlets speculated as to what would inspire them to abandon their principles in such a way. Ben Adler at The Nation noticed that LCR claimed it could “work with a Romney administration to achieve a desirable outcome” on workplace nondiscrimination, so he followed up with executive director R. Clarke Cooper. Cooper claimed that he was confident that Romney would support anti-discrimination legislation, because he “has been adamant” in opposing discrimination. Adler concluded that Romney must have secretly promised LCR support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in exchange for its endorsement. (Demonstrating conservatives’ distrust for Romney’s integrity, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association reacted quite negatively to the news.)

But BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner double checked, and suddenly Cooper was not as enthusiastic about these claims, clarifying, “I did not say Romney would sign the current form of ENDA,” but that the group is confident that they could “achieve desirable tangible outcomes on workplace discrimination.” Herein lies the obvious flaw with LCR’s endorsement: completely false hope. Mitt Romney certainly proved in the debates that he’s capable of sounding moderate despite how conservative his principles — or at least his campaign platform — remain. Even if there was no ENDA promise, any hope conveyed to LCR by the Romney campaign in regards to federal employment protections was surely a ruse.

There is absolutely nothing in Romney’s history to warrant optimism that he has any concern for LGBT people. In May, he flat-out said that he would not support ENDA because he believes states should get to decide whether it’s okay to fire people just for being LGBT. As governor, he ostensibly fired two of his employees for just that reason, in addition to demonstrating galling insensitivity to LGBT families. Ryan’s record is no better; though at one point he did cast a vote in favor of ENDA, he then said he could no longer support it if included protections based on gender identity, and he has refused to answer questions on the matter since Romney tapped him as a running mate. Arguably, LCR only claims to support equality for “gay and lesbian Americans,” so perhaps they are prepared to abandon the transgender community to achieve “tangible outcomes” that include only protections based on sexual orientation.

What’s most telling is how incessant LCR has been about spinning the endorsement since it was announced yesterday, including this ENDA confusion. It is clearly a departure from its past integrity and the days when endorsements were withheld from candidates that did not adequately support LGBT (or at least LG) equality. In fact, GOProud splintered off from LCR specifically to be a group for gay conservatives whose priorities are unapologetically not concerned with LGBT rights at all. Perhaps LCR is jealous of the media attention GOProud has received from making waves at the Conservative Political Action Conference, but it’s clear that what lines once existed between the groups are quickly diminishing.

The Log Cabin Republicans claim that they are making a difference within the GOP by being present and swaying conservatives to better understand LGBT rights, and this may well be true on the individual level. However, the group accomplishes nothing — and abandons what principles its work is built upon — when it praises candidates like Romney who have nothing genuinely supportive to say at all. In fact, LCR’s effectiveness was very much drawn into question when it was revealed that party leaders developed a particularly anti-LGBT platform specifically to rebuke the group’s efforts to participate in the Republican National Convention. If a group no longer stands by its founding values and is creating a backlash anathema to its stated goals, it’s hard to understand what relevance it has at all.