(Credit: Ellen Kaufman/seniorphoto.tumblr.com)

The Virginia House of Delegates voted 80-19 today to approve HB1617, a bill that would invite any religious or political university student group to discriminate as they please and still require the campus to providing them funding and access to campus facilities. This would make LGBT students particularly vulnerable to discrimination because universities’ protections for sexual orientation are not enforceable under Virginia law. Under this bill, though, even a KKK chapter could hypothetically form, use campus resources, and openly discriminate against non-white and non-Christian students on campus.

Here’s the text of the bill:

To the extent allowed by state and federal law:

1. A religious or political student organization may determine that ordering the organization’s internal affairs, selecting the organization’s leaders and members, defining the organization’s doctrines, and resolving the organization’s disputes are in furtherance of the organization’s religious or political mission and that only persons committed to that mission should conduct such activities; and

2. No public institution of higher education that has granted recognition of and access to any student organization or group shall discriminate against any such student organization or group that exercises its rights pursuant to subdivision 1.

On most college campuses, student organizations must maintain a constitution that conforms to the university’s procedures, including its nondiscrimination policies. For example, James Madison University requires that all organizations obey the “policies, rules, regulations, and standards of the university,” such as its nondiscrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation. The College of William & Mary offers similar protections and requires student groups be open to all students.

Such policies are key because student organizations receive funding and use campus resources (like meeting spaces) that are funded by fees that all students pay; thus, all students deserve equal access to those campus clubs. Nondiscrimination policies have become a source of contention for conservative Christian student groups, like at Tennessee’s Vanderbilt University and New York’s University of Buffalo, who wish to exclude gay students from membership. In the 2010 case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly answered this question in favor of nondiscrimination policies, ruling that “all-comers” policies are viewpoint neutral, and thus are no more unfair to Christian groups than any other student groups.

Conservatives have argued, however that nondiscrimination policies allow for “hostile takeovers“ — in which students with opposing views infiltrate and assume power in the organization — but there’s no evidence to suggest that this is plausible, let alone that it ever happened. Members of an organization are still allowed to vote for their group’s leaders, even with discriminatory intent, if all students remain eligible. Any student group that can’t persist on its own merits probably doesn’t warrant use of student fees in the first place.

All 19 votes against the bill were cast by Democrats. It now advances to the Senate for committee consideration.

Our guest bloggers are Christopher Frost, intern for LGBT Progress, and Crosby Burns, Research Associate for LGBT Progress.

Earlier this week a bipartisan group of senators announced a sweeping proposal that would overhaul the immigration system and ultimately provide the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country a path to earned citizenship. On the heels of that announcement, President Obama announced a similar plan for immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented, establish a nationwide employment verification system, secure our border, and improve visa access for high-skilled workers.

The momentum on immigration reform from both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue is good news for the undocumented, including the hundreds of thousands who identify as LGBT. Allowing LGBT individuals to obtain legal status would offer them and their families the certainty and economic safeguards that citizenship confers. President Obama’s support for these families and for LGBT immigrants more broadly is reflected in many of the policies enacted during his first term. According to a column released today by the Center for American Progress, President Obama has taken the following steps to address the needs and obstacles of LGBT immigrants:

1. Putting an end to separating families headed by same-sex couples. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) incorporated families headed by same-sex couples in its guidance on what it considers to be “low-priority” for investigation and deportation (so long as they are not a threat to public safety or national security).

2. Facilitating humane and safe detention standards for gay and transgender immigrants. DHS released new standards aimed at strengthening the dignified treatment of gay and transgender detainees and decreasing sexual victimization of those detainees.

3. Addressing the needs of gay and transgender refugees. DHS has implemented a training module that requires all asylum officers to be trained on the appropriate terminology they should use and questions they should ask when interviewing gay and transgender refugees.

4. Lifting the HIV travel ban. Finishing a process started by President Bush, President Obama issued rules that overturned the 22-year old ban on travel and immigration of HIV-positive individuals to the United States.

5. Offering undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children a temporary reprieve from deportation. President Obama’s “deferred action” policy has granted greater peace of mind for up to 1.76 million aspiring young Americans who qualify for the program. Many of the youth in this demographic identify as LGBT.

Beyond administrative policies, LGBT immigrants have been part of the recent legislative debate over immigration reform. Included in President Obama’s proposal for reform — but notably absent in the senators’ proposal — is a provision that would allow citizens to sponsor a same-sex partner for residency, a right that different-sex spouses currently enjoy under existing immigration law. Obtaining spousal sponsorship rights for bi-national same-sex couples is important to equitable immigration overhaul that includes all immigrants. LGBT-inclusive language should be a part of any bill going forward.

A new Quinnipiac poll has found that a plurality of Pennsylvania voters support marriage equality, with 47 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. As has been the case in other states, support is stronger among women (50-40), Democrats (65-27), and independent voters (51-38). Currently, Pennsylvania does not offer any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

TN Sen. Stacey Campfield (R)

Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) has reintroduced his “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which not only prevents public school educators from discussing the existence of LGBT people, but now also would mandate teachers and counselors out LGBT students to their parents without their consent. Campfield’s views on homosexuality live up to the threat of his odious bill, according to Nashville Public Radio:

CAMPFIELD: I can’t speak from personal experience, but being homosexual in and of itself is not deadly or dangerous. The act of homosexuality is very dangerous.

He made similar comments in a video interview with The Tennessean, blaming the likelihood of getting AIDS for his “deadly” condemnation. Watch it:

Campfield is borrowing his narrative from the “love the sinner, hate the sin” motto adopted by the Catholic Church and other religious groups to sugarcoat their continued stigmatization of gays and lesbians. A person’s sexual orientation is a core part of their identity that transcends any sexual behavior they might engage in. To separate the two is to erase the community entirely.

But Campfield’s views are more absurd than that. He doesn’t just believe that homosexuality is “dangerous” because of the potential spread of HIV, he actually believes that AIDS “came from the homosexual community — it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.” He also believes that homosexuality is a “learned behavior” comparable to bestiality. Defending his bill, Campfield has described any teacher who might mention the existence of gay people as “radical,” because they ought to “spend more time on arithmetic.”

A new Public Policy Polling poll has found that 57 percent of Rhode Island voters approve marriage equality while only 36 percent do not. The poll also found that 31 percent prefer civil unions over marriage, but civil unions have not been successful in Rhode Island since they passed in 2011. Only 13 percent oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples. The most recent poll, from October, similarly found a majority support for equality, with a 56-36 split. Despite the broad support, it’s unclear how soon or swiftly Senate Democrats will act now that the marriage equality bill has passed the House.

The Colorado Senate Appropriations Committee just approved SB 11, the civil unions bill, with a 4-3 vote. It was previously advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. The bill now advances to the full Senate for consideration.

On Wednesday night’s Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert dedicated the opening segment to LGBT issues, notably the arguments in favor of continuing marriage inequality that Paul Clement has submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of House Republicans. After first highlighting a new study suggesting straight men experience higher levels of stress and depression than gay men, Colbert dug into Clement’s arguments, including the claim that gays are too powerful a group to deserve the Court’s justice. Applying that logic, Colbert suggested, “If you really want to help the gays, you need to ostracize them at work, mock them at school, make them feel like they have no place in our society, because according to Paul Clement, we can’t give them rights until we wrong them.” Watch it:

San Francisco 49ers defensive back Chris Culliver has issued a non-apology “apology” for his comments that he would not be welcoming of a gay teammate:

CULLIVER: The derogatory comments I made yesterday were a reflection of thoughts in my head, but they are not how I feel. It has taken me seeing them in print to realize that they are hurtful and ugly.

Those discriminating feelings are truly not in my heart. Further, I apologize to those who I have hurt and offended, and I pledge to learn and grow from this experience.

Apologizing for how something was said or how people felt about it is not the same as apologizing for what was actually said, so it’s hard to credit Culliver much for this “apology.” The comment offered by the 49ers did little more to indicate that Culliver was going to take full responsibility for his remarks:

The San Francisco 49ers reject the comments that were made yesterday, and have addressed the matter with Chris. There is no place for discrimination within our organization at any level. We have and always will proudly support the LGBT community.

GLAAD, Athlete Ally, and You Can Play, three organizations that advocate for LGBT inclusion in sports, condemned Culliver’s remarks for being “as marginal as they are misguided.” Even former 49ers player Kwame Harris, who was recently outed as gay after he was charged with assaulting a former boyfriend, rebuked Culliver for his abuse of the spotlight:

HARRIS: It’s surprising that in 2013 Chris Culliver would use his 15 minutes to spread vitriol and hate. I recognize that these are comments that he may come to regret and that he may come to see that gay people are not so different than straight people.

There may be something to learn from Culliver’s anti-gay comments. Arguably, from the context of both his original remark and his apology, he may seem to conflate the existence of gay people with the fear that gay people would come on to him. This sense of being sexually threatened reflects how conservatives are constantly arguing that gay people are only defined by their sexual behavior and that they are likewise prone to engaging in sexual abuse. Culliver thinks (but apparently doesn’t feel) that gay people “can’t be… in the locker room,” and that may well be because he’s been led to believe that he will somehow be affected by it.

Culliver is responsible for his own homophobic words and feelings, but society must also take responsibility for the homophobic messages it allows to permeate the culture. No doubt, he has not experienced the end of the fallout on this matter yet, as his apology is not resonating with LGBT groups. Hopefully he will have the chance to learn why his comments were offensive, which is because they simply didn’t reflect the reality of gay people’s lived experience. Ideally, he would then help others to understand the same.

Hopes for legal recognition of same-sex couples in Wyoming were dashed Wednesday, as the Wyoming House voted down a domestic partnership bill with a 24-34 vote. A House committee had similarly voted down a same-sex marriage bill earlier this week, but advanced the domestic partner bill to the full chamber.

Meanwhile, the Equality State’s Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-1 to approve Senate File 131, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Before its passage, an amendment was added that specifies that religious organizations would still be free to make hiring decisions according to their beliefs. Three of the yes votes were Republicans.

(HT: Box Turtle Bulletin.)

Last week, Baltimore Raves defensive tackle Brendan Ayanbadejo, an outspoken advocate for LGBT equality, said he hoped to use the Super Bowl as a platform to advocate for marriage equality and anti-bullying efforts. It’s no secret that there are players who don’t agree with Ayanbadejo’s advocacy, and one of his opponents this week is one of them.

During an interview with radio personality Artie Lange, San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver said he would not be welcoming of a gay player on his team, Yahoo! Sports reported:

“I don’t do the gay guys man,” said Culliver, whose Niners play the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday. “I don’t do that. No, we don’t got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.”

“Can’t be with that sweet stuff. Nah…can’t be…in the locker room man. Nah.”

Listen:

There are no openly gay players in the NFL or in the major American men’s sports leagues, but that obviously doesn’t mean there aren’t gay players in football. Kwame Harris, a former 49ers offensive lineman, was arrested this week after allegedly assaulting a man with whom he was in a romantic relationship, and multiple players have come out as gay after retirement.

San Francisco is, of course, an incredibly gay-friendly city, one that has been the site of much of the LGBT movement’s activism and history. The 49ers became the first team to film an anti-bullying “It Gets Better” video last August, and, in a moment Culliver probably wouldn’t enjoy, Sports Illustrated featured a picture of two male 49ers fans kissing in a bar as part of the magazine’s Super Bowl preview issue.

LGBT students at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia have been campaigning against the Chick-fil-A franchise on campus because of the company’s anti-gay policies and giving. The campus community has had a thoughtful conversation about what can legally be done in the immediate, but the students continue to advocate for the chain to leave campus. Earlier this week, Campus Pride executive director Shane Windmeyer took a somewhat ambivalent position on the company’s record because of his new friendship with its president, Dan Cathy. But the students in Emory’s LGBT alumni group, GALA, and LGBT student group, Emory Pride, are unfazed by the revelation:

GALA: We believe that the ‘Dan and Me’ article by Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride does not change the funding issue.  Winshape continues to fund anti-LGBT organizations, albeit, according to Mr. Windmeyer, less evil ones. Emory GALA continues to stand behind our previous statements and until Chick-fil-A and Winshape release a statement that they will no longer fund any anti-LGBT organizations, we will continue to push for and support the removal of Chick-fil-A from Emory University’s campus.

PRIDE: Shane Windmeyer and Dan Cathy have been very brave to sustain a respectful and trusting conversation despite knowing that both of their communities may be quick to dismiss them, and it is heartening to see that Chick-Fil-A’s WinShape institute did not contribute to the most divisive anti-LGBTQ groups in 2012. However, Shane Windmeyer does not speak for the entire LGBTQ community, nor do we. [...] Chick-Fil-A has already become a symbol of hate that causes active harm, and this symbolic meaning will not disappear because of one man becoming friends with another.

Campus Pride provides support and resources for LGBT college students and their allies, but suspended their campaign against Chick-fil-A back in September. It remains unclear to what extent Campus Pride will support students who continue to protest, like those at Emory, given this suspension and new friendship.

Robert George helped found the National Organization for Marriage, but one of his projects since then was The Manhattan Declaration, a document calling on Christians to openly violate any law that conflicts with their consciences. He has now filed an amicus brief on behalf of those Christians calling on the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, lest the Christians be forced not to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

The Declaration’s core argument is that Christians will be “ostracized and themselves targeted for discrimination,” citing primarily Catholic Charities, an organization that has time and again chosen to stop providing adoption services when their public funding is cut if they willingly discriminate against same-sex couples. In Washington, DC, Catholic Charities also cut spousal benefits for all couples rather than provide them to same-sex partners. For both cases, the brief claims Catholic Charities was “forced to close” its programs and “forced to stop providing benefits,” when in reality it simply chose to discriminate.   It also cites the Massachusetts parents who objected to their kids learning that gay couples exist, though he’s also forced to note that they lost their suit.

Because of these anecdotes, George argues that the “religious liberty” must be protected:

Religious freedom is our first, most cherished liberty, and its guarantee is threatened today by the redefinition of marriage. Such redefinition in practice would bring a new orthodoxy that circumscribes the ability of the Christian faithful to put their beliefs into practice. Examples of Christians unable to live integrated lives of work, faith, and service as a result of overzealous attempts to redefine marriage are many, but a few should suffice reveal the pernicious threat that the adoption of same-sex marriage poses to religious liberty. [...]

This crisis of religious liberty, documented in the most cursory of fashions above, would multiply should this Court strike down DOMA and thus effectively declare as irrational the views on marriage of the more than half million signatories of the Manhattan Declaration — not to mention the countless other Christians who share their religious convictions.

The examples provided are trite and reflect blatant attempts to either discriminate or stigmatize gays and lesbians. While it might be easier for George and the 535,037 signatories of the Declaration to carry out their faith without having to recognize the millions of same-sex families that surround them, that’s simply not the reality in which they live.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has filed amicus briefs in the two marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court, encouraging the Justices to rule in favor of discrimination. At the foundation of the Conference’s argument is the claim that gays don’t deserve any legal protections because the only thing that defines them is their “voluntary actions,” just like polygamists:

In contrast to the classes for which this Court has applied heightened scrutiny, what lower courts have understood to be a homosexual “orientation” is not a trait attributable from conception or birth. Rather, particularly as framed by Respondents here, it involves a species of conduct. Indeed, with this distinction in mind, this Court has recognized that a finding of a suspect or quasi-suspect class for equal protection purposes is  simply  inappropriate when the distinguishing characteristic is  a product of “voluntary action.”

Disregarding the “voluntary action” limit on “distinguishing traits” would yield absurd results, as it would threaten to expand dramatically the range of legislative categories triggering  heightened scrutiny.  In particular, any “voluntary action” that is now or has ever been illegal would readily satisfy the factor of having suffered government disfavor or a history of discrimination based on the distinguishing trait.  Where the conduct is still illegal, those with the trait could just as readily claim political powerlessness or the inability to attract the attention of lawmakers.  Finally,  if the current or former illegality of the “voluntary action” can be discounted as reflecting mere disapproval or discrimination, then it is a small step (if any) to conclude that the “voluntary action” bears no relation to the ability to perform or contribute to society.

The example of polygamists—a class that is defined in part by conduct—illustrates the point.  One can substitute “polygamists” for “homosexuals” as that term is used in the  Windsor opinion and arrive at the same conclusion for the former as the Second Circuit did with respect to  the latter. Our point, of course, is not that the two are morally equivalent, but simply that the Second Circuit’s logic leads to absurd results, and  that the absurdity originates with the decision to  ignore this Court’s “voluntary action” limitation on “distinguishing traits” that may trigger heightened scrutiny.

Unsurprisingly, the word “gay” is not to be found in the brief except when citing case law. It’s telling that the brief even uses scare-quotes around the term “orientation,” implying that the concept of a sexual orientation doesn’t even exist. Indeed, British Archbishop Vincent Nichols admitted earlier this month that the Catholic Church refuses to identify anybody by their sexual orientation. All the Church sees is sex — no identities.

The goal of completely erasing the lives of gays and lesbians is obviously apparent. Despite claims of protecting children’s well-being, the Church refuses to acknowledge that the many children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents could marry. In the brief, the Bishops admit these families exist, but nothing more. Instead, they cite the problematic Mark Regnerus study and irrelevant “fatherless” studies to suggest that same-sex parents are inferior, when none of the data actually indicate that. In the name of protecting children, families, and society, they are doing the exact opposite.

On Tuesday night’s The Daily Show, Jon Stewart dedicated a segment to a few advances in cultural acceptance for gays and lesbians, notably the potential that the Boy Scouts will soon change their anti-gay policy and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo’s plan to use the Super Bowl spotlight to advocate for marriage equality. Stewart suggests the gay rights movement is beginning to “enter ares of national life previously thought closed off” and calls out opponents of equality like Frank S. Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, for claiming to be “respectful” in their condemnation.

Watch it:

Tennessee’s so-called ‘Don’t Say Gay‘ bill died with the adjournment of the state assembly last year. But now the measure is back — with new, harsher requirements.

The bill, SB 234, still bars Tennessee teachers from discussing any facet of “non-heterosexual” sexuality with children in grades K-8. But the newest iteration also includes a provision requiring teachers or counselors to inform the parents of some students who identify themselves as LGBT. State Sen. Stacey Campfield (R), who authored the bill the first time around and again introduced it this time, calls out students who might be “at risk,” but leaves the interpretation of that behavior to the teacher:

The general assembly recognizes that certain subjects are particularly sensitive and are, therefore, best explained and discussed within the home. Because of its complex societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications, human sexuality is one such subject. Human sexuality is best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp its complexity and implications [...]

A school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal from counseling a student who is engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and well-being of the student or another person; provided, that wherever possible such counseling shall be done in consultation with the student’s parents or legal guardians. Parents or legal guardians of students who receive such counseling shall be notified as soon as practicable that such counseling has occurred

Family rejection is a serious risk for LGBT youth. Kids who are LGBT often face alienation, if not outright abandonment, because they come out. Forty percent of homeless youth are LGBT, and many of them report that the reason they left home was to escape an environment hostile to their sexual orientation. LGBT youth who experience family rejection are at high risk for depression and suicide.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) dismissed questions about same-sex families during a discussion about immigration reform on Wednesday morning, saying that questions about whether or not protections should be extended to binational gay and lesbian couples represent a “red herring.”

The United States is home to at least 28,500 same-sex couples in which one partner is a citizen and the other is not, but federal law does not recognize these relationships and prohibits gay and lesbian couples from seeking visas on the basis of same-sex unions. The Obama administration’s framework would allow couples to apply for visas on the basis of their permanent unions, while the bipartisan senate principles do not.

“I think it is a red herring. I think then, do we want to guarantee a tax payer free abortion?” McCain asked in response to a question about the provision from Politico’s Mike Allen. “I’m telling you now, if you love this up with social issues and things that are controversial, the it will endanger the issue. ”

He added, “I’ll be glad to talk about, discuss it, what the ramifications are, but if someone does that as the most important aspect of comprehensive immigration reform, then we just have a fundamental disagreement.” “Which is more important, LGBT or border security?” McCain finally said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a member of the bipartisan group of Senators who are pushing for immigration reform, said that lawmakers must agree to a broad framework before tackling the equality amendment.

The Catholic Church in England and Wales has once again weighed in on the pressing question of legalizing same-sex marriage with surprising new concession. In a document submitted to members of Parliament, the Church leaders actually admit that same-sex couples make great parents, but same-sex marriage still somehow threatens the “existing legal link between the institution of marriage and sexual exclusivity, loyalty, and responsibility for the children of the marriage”:

We recognize that many same sex couples raise children in loving and caring homes. Nevertheless, marriage has an identity that at its core is distinct from any other legally recognized relationship, no matter how much love or commitment may be involved in these other relationships. [...]

We recognize that there is an alternative view of what constitutes the ‘good’ of marriage, and we understand that proponents of same sex marriage often adopt this alternative view, in good faith. Under this alternative view, the ‘good’ of marriage is that it fosters intimacy and care-giving for dependents, builds trust, and encourages openness, and shared responsibilities.

The basic argument that is advanced in favor of same sex marriage is one of equality and fairness. But we suggest that this intuitively appealing argument is fundamentally flawed. Those who argue for same sex marriage do so on the basis that it is unjust to treat same sex and heterosexual relationships differently in allowing only heterosexual couples access to marriage. Our principal argument against this is that it is not unequal or unfair to treat those in different circumstances differently. Indeed, to treat them the same would itself be unjust.

In other words, the Church understands that same-sex couples want to participate in marriage for the very reasons the Church believes marriage to be an important institution, and yet it would still be “unjust” to allow them to marry. In fact, there isn’t one description of marriage in this document that could not equally apply to same-sex couples except the ability to conceive a child. If this is the only argument the Church has to defend its opposition to equality, it’s unclear how it justifies providing the service of adoption to opposite-sex couples who also cannot conceive.