One of Grubbs' wedding trolleys. (Photo credit: Larson Photography.)

Distribution of same-sex marriage licenses just began in Maryland today, and already a Christian-owned business is complaining that it won’t be free to deny business to same-sex couples. Matt Grubbs runs Discover Annapolis Tours, which until now provided trolley cars to transport wedding parties and guests from churches to receptions. Because he refuses to provide this service for same-sex couples and their families, his lawyer has advised him to abandon this wedding service entirely, which will cost him $50,000 a year in revenue. Grubbs believes the government should grant him an exemption to discriminate:

GRUBBS: The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don’t have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don’t count for anything. [...]

We’re a Christian-owned company, and we just can’t support gay marriages. We’re not trying to make a statement. We’re not trying to make a point. We’re just trying to be faithful Christians.

Of course, the National Organization for Marriage was quick to claim that it had foreseen this “consequence” of marriage equality:

The ballot shown to Maryland voters used 25 words to described the redefinition of marriage but over 70 words claiming false religious exemptions for people and institutions who disagree with redefined marriage.

Sure enough, as we warned, citizens in Maryland who disagree with redefined marriage are now being forced out of the public square and are NOT protected under the redefining marriage law passed in Maryland.

There was nothing “false” about the exemptions for religious leaders and institutions, but as Jeremy Hooper points out, the law never promised a right for bus vendors to discriminate. In fact, if a same-sex couple decided to have a non-legal commitment ceremony before the marriage equality bill passed, it would have been just as illegal for Grubbs to deny them service then as it is now. Maryland law says that it’s illegal to for businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation, and the legality of marriage doesn’t change that.

Women were once prohibited from owning property. People of color were once denied use of the same facilities and services as white people. Now anti-gay Christians, led by NOM, are trying to use their faith to justify blatant discrimination against same-sex couples. If the discrimination is more important than the revenue to Grubbs, that is his choice, but it does not make him a victim.

RightWingWatch noticed this new meme image from the Liberty Counsel condemning homosexuality in quite astonishing terms. Here is the text printed on it:

We believe that those involved in homosexuality are created in the image of God and, because of that, deserve respect. However, their actions are damaging both to themselves and to society as a whole. Just like smoking or drug addiction, this behavior should not be encouraged or promoted by our government.

We believe that those involved in homosexuality are complete personalities who should not be confined to a label because of a sexual act. To do so is as superficial as labeling an adulteress wife or husband because of a sexual act. These actions are seeking the same love, validation, and acceptance that all of us seek, yet an answer will not be found in repeated unhealthy interactions or societal and governmental improvement of these actions. We believe this deep hunger can and will only be satisfied in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Just last night, the Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver was on CNN defending ex-gay therapy with polished talking points, claiming that neither LC nor the ex-gay profiteers they represent stigmatize people who are gay. This image demonstrates just how untrue that is and how much more candid anti-gay groups when not speaking to a mainstream audience.

This statement is stigmatizing in every possible way. It casts moral judgment by comparing loving committed same-sex couples to adulterers. It implies that all gay sex is uniquely “unhealthy,” when in fact the definition of safe sex is consistent across all sexual orientations. And it quite blatantly stigmatizes gays and lesbians by describing them as “damaging… to society as a whole.” The Liberty Counsel may claim that “those involved in homosexuality… deserve respect,” but they are wholly committed to casting the LGBT community as threatening pariahs.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has published a new resource addressing the issue of homosexuality that has some commendable changes, but many of the same stigmatizing problems as before. Framed under the title of “Love One Another,” the new collection of text and video testimonies advises the following important improvements to how Mormons understand and respond to gays and lesbians in their lives:

• NOT A CHOICE: “The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.”
• DO NOT SHAME OR REJECT: “We recognize in each other our common needs for intimacy and companionship and can discuss them without shame or rejection.”
• NOT A DISEASE: “Attraction to those of the same sex, however, should not be viewed as a disease or illness. We must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience.”
• GAYS SHOULDN’T TRY TO FAKE IT: “Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex.”

Indeed, these improvements over blatant ostracization and condemnation could very well save the lives of many young people and help keep families together. However, with this approach, the Mormon Church has essentially only caught up to the “hate the sin, not the sinner” approaches of the Catholic Church and many evangelical Christians, which are still incredibly problematic.

According to the new guide, gay Mormons can only stay members of the Church if they practice chastity, forcing a choice between a life with love and a life with faith. The acknowledgment that sexual orientation is not malleable is worthless if individuals are still shamed by “sin” to repress that sexuality — often through ex-gay therapy — and spend their lives alone. There’s also something insulting about the Church’s suggestion that maybe gay people will be lucky enough to marry someone of the opposite sex in the next life:

We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.

This reliance on reincarnation does not take accountability for God’s inherent cruelness requiring such a “test.” Instead, the Church merely encourages individuals to have hope that “God will work out all the confusion and contradiction.” It is sadly ironic that the Church is using the frame of love to justify depriving individuals of love, and even sadder that this can be called an improvement over its previous position.

Watch a video introducing the new website:

Our guest blogger is Irene Morse, intern with LGBT Progress.

Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” Bill has been making headlines recently and has prompted a conversation about anti-gay laws and attitudes abroad.  There are 78 countries that criminalize homosexuality, and five of these use the death penalty as punishment for homosexuality.  For many LGBT individuals in repressive countries such as Uganda, leaving is the only viable option, and many turn to the U.S. for asylum.

Since 1994, refugees have been able to gain legal residence based on persecution for their sexual orientation.  A year ago today (December 6^th) President Obama issued a memorandum that required greater awareness of LGBT individuals seeking asylum and training for immigration officials.  This memo was a step in the right direction, but there is still much that could be done to improve the lives of those sexual minorities who seek asylum in the US.  The federal government must begin to:

Collect data on applications based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In 2011 the US received 56,384 applications for asylum and granted 24,988 (44%) of them, but has no data on how many of these cases related to sexual orientation or gender identity.  Collecting this data would make the international community more aware of the pervasive persecution of LGBT individuals and would help assess whether persecution of LGBT people is increasing or decreasing globally.

Create clear and inclusive legal standards for what it means to be LGBT.

Many asylum applicants run into problems if they fail to sufficiently prove that they are LGBT.  Applicants from countries like India that still define homosexuality in terms of specific criminal sex acts are less likely to gain asylum.  It is also nearly impossible for closeted individuals to gain asylum, because they are unlikely to join LGBT groups or activities out of fear of government reprisal.

Train civil servants on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

LGBT asylum applicants often have trouble completing the process when immigration officials rely on stereotypes of LGBT people or are homophobic.  For example, an immigration officer denied a gay Iranian man’s asylum application on the basis that he was “not feminine in any way.”  As a result, applicants are often encouraged to “flaunt” their sexuality, a standard which is obviously problematic.

Pass the Restoring Protection for Victims of Persecution Act (H.R. 2981).

Currently individuals who have lived in the US for longer than a year are barred from receiving asylum, a rule which has impeded the process for 21,000 refugees.  This is especially problematic for LGBT individuals who may have recently come out, undergone gender transition, or struggled with severe psychological trauma.  H.R. 2981 would eliminate the one-year application deadline, allowing more LGBT refugees to successfully gain asylum.

The US receives more requests for asylum than any other country.  President Obama took a positive step a year ago when he acknowledged the difficulties faced by these individuals, but more action must be taken before the US can truly be a refuge for LGBT individuals who have been denied a life in their home countries.

Canada’s Parliament is currently considering Bill C-279, which would add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), explicitly protecting trans citizens from discrimination. Conservatives are unsurprisingly deploying the “bathroom” meme, attempting to scare voters that the bill’s goal “is to give transgendered men access to women’s washrooms” so that they can sexually abuse children — claims without any compelling evidence.

But now, the conservative outlet LifeSiteNews is trying to offer a new rhetorical argument against the legislation. It reported yesterday that Ian Fine, a representative from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, testified that the bill “strictly speaking…isn’t necessary” because trans people have already been offered under the CHRA “sex” protections. Of course, LifeSiteNews neglected to include the full context of Fine’s remarks. Here they are:

FINE: Strictly speaking, I suppose the legislation isn’t necessary, but we see other reasons why it would be important to include these two grounds under our act, and we do support them.

For one thing, it would provide the clarity that I think we believe is missing at this point, because as much as it’s true that the commission and tribunals and courts do accept transgender issues as falling under the ground of sex, parties still debate that issue before those very tribunals and courts and question whether or not transgender issues fall under sex. In one case I know of, an issue was raised as to whether or not you could even raise the issue under sex and instead should raise it under disability.

There continue to be these debates, so for clarity reasons, we believe it would be a good thing to add these two grounds. Also, as I said at the outset, it would be a recognition of the discrimination that this group faces: the sometimes hostile and violent acts that this group faces in our society. So it would recognize the vulnerability of this group, of these individuals.

So even though technically trans people have been protected under the category of “sex,” they have to spend extra time and money fighting for that protection every time someone files a complaint. Specifically indicating gender identity and expression in the CHRA would prevent future confusion or doubt that they are indeed protected, and they would be relieved of the burden of having to advocate for themselves every time they are the victim of mistreatment.

It’s telling that an outlet opposed to the bill would even attempt to use such a weak argument against it. If trans Canadians are already supposed to be protected under law, nothing should be lost by ensuring that they are. Instead, conservatives would prefer to keep the CHRA weak so that it remains easier to discriminate and demonize the transgender community.

A series of new polls shows continued strong support for marriage equality nationwide. A Quinnipiac University poll shows equality fairly conservatively leading with 48 support and 46 percent opposition, with the opposition being led mostly by men (50 – 43 percent opposed) and White Protestants (62 – 32 percent opposed). Notably, Catholics are supportive at rates above average, with 49 percent endorsing equality. Young people continue to support equality by very high rates (63 – 35 percent in favor).

Meanwhile, a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage while 46 percent oppose. Similarly, those who were most likely to favor the freedom to marry were people who were young, Democrats and/or who did not attend church often.  The poll also invited respondents to explain why they oppose marriage equality, and the answers largely revolved around religious beliefs or the Bible specifically:

USA Today also conducted a separate poll of adults who identify as LGBT. Nine of 10 gay men and lesbians say anti-gay discrimination remains a problem, which two-thirds of all Americans agree with. Still 91 percent of gays acknowledge that acceptance has increased in recent years.

First couples to get licenses in King County (via Joe Mirabella).

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) certified the state’s election results Wednesday afternoon, and this morning at 12:01, same-sex couples began legally obtaining marriage licenses. Washington does have a three-day waiting period, however, so the first weddings cannot take place until Sunday. Many couples were on-hand at the King County (Seattle) and Thurston County (Olympia) auditors’ offices at the stroke of midnight to be among the first to get their licenses.

One of those couples was JP Persall and Diana Wickman, who have been together for 10 years. They both served 22 years in the U.S. Coast Guard, where they managed to meet and fell in love in spite of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The couple who received the very first marriage license, though, was Jane Abbott Lighty, 77, and Pete-e Peterson, 85, who have been together over 35 years. They met on a blind date in 1977 and believed they would die before they could legally wed.

Also on hand was Dan Savage. He married his husband Terry Miller in Canada in 2005, but decided to use the occasion to renew their vows now that it’s legal in the state where they live (in the country where they live). Here are a few more pictures from this morning’s historic milestone, courtesy of Joe Mirabella:

Jane Lighty and Pete-e Peterson

John Bretweiser and Stuart Wilber

Dan Savage and Terry Miller