The ACLU has settled a suit with the federal government that will allow many of the military servicemembers discharged under the anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) to receive full separation pay. Because of the way DADT penalized homosexuality, many discharged under the policy only received one-half separation pay. As result of the suit, any of those individuals discharged after November 10, 2004 — the farthest back the statute of limitations allows — will now be entitled to receive the full pay they were denied.

Joshua Block, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBT Project, points out that this decision ends the penalization for those veterans:

BLOCK: It makes no sense to continue to penalize service members who were discharged under a discriminatory statute that has already been repealed. The amount of the pay owed to these veterans is small by military standards, but is hugely significant in acknowledging their service to their country.

The original case was brought on behalf of 181 honorably discharged veterans whose separation pay was cut due to DADT, which officially ended in September, 2010. As many as 3,300 could benefit from Monday’s ruling.

French Education Minister Vincent Peillon and President François Hollande

French Education Minister Vincent Peillon recently sent a letter to the nation’s 8,300 Catholic schools, urging them to remain neutral on the question of same-sex marriage as the government begins to advance equality legislation. Peillon noted that the Catholic school system, which serves about a fifth of France’s children, is state contracted, and that seizing an opportunity to preach the Church’s anti-gay beliefs could be very harmful to children:

It doesn’t seem appropriate to bring the debate over equal marriage rights into schools. I have the deepest respect for the Catholic school system. But, the institution, which is under contract with the state, must respect the principle that everyone has the right to a neutral and free thought… We must never forget that we are dealing with young people and that attempted suicides are five times higher among teenagers who realize they are homosexual than others.

Over the weekend, President François Hollande defended Peillon’s letter, pointing out that pupils in the nation’s Catholic schools are no less entitled to free thought:

HOLLANDE: Secularism is a Republican value. We have to make sure that all ways of thinking are respected and that all religions can be practiced. But, we also have to [respect] the fact that we all live in the same place, and that the state, as well as both private and public educational institutions, adheres to a principle called neutrality.

Peillon’s critics allege he’s creating different standards for public and private schools and defaming Catholic schools. Nevertheless, the Catholic leadership in France and even Pope Benedict himself have urged followers to oppose the marriage equality and same-sex adoption initiatives. A poll conducted last week found that 69 percent of French people would like the opportunity to vote on same-sex marriage, but a December poll showed that 62 percent support marriage equality.

Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, chair of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality.

Though Catholic leaders continue to attack same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, a group of over 100 religious leaders from 13 different denominations throughout the state has come together to support equality. The interfaith group outlines the following tenets in their endorsement of the freedom to marry:

• The most fundamental human need is the supportive love of other human beings, and that love is demonstrated in many ways.
• The arc of God’s universe is toward justice, and we are called from out of our faith to pursue civil rights and fairness for all people.
• The Divine, known by many names, does not ever side with expressions of hate or acts of discrimination.
• The misuse of sacred texts or traditions to deny justice is wrong.
• The freedom of religious belief and practice is paramount for a solid and healthy society.
• The individuals entrusted with civic authority should not impose their personal religious beliefs, or any one interpretation of religious beliefs, on society as a whole, nor use them to deny rights to peoples.

Indeed, the support for equality from people of faith highlights how fraudulent the “religious freedom” argument used by its opponents truly is. While the Catholic Church and others will be free not to solemnize same-sex marriages after a law passes, until then faiths that do celebrate those unions are not able to do so with any legal binding. If anything, a “religious freedom” argument benefits the pro-equality clergy, whose alliance is essential to achieving social justice for all same-sex couples.

Students and alumni at Emory University have been actively campaigning against the presence of a Chick-fil-A in the campus’s food court, protesting the anti-gay positions of company president Dan Cathy and the anti-gay donations made by the company’s foundation. A student committee for action formed in August with messages like, “Make Chicken, Not Judgments,” and in December, the Student Government Association approved a resolution opposing Chick-fil-A’s continued relationship with the university. Before the holiday break, Ajay Nair, Emory’s senior vice president for campus life, issued a statement with the university’s reflections after months of consideration of student concerns:

For several months, senior University administrators and other members of the community have deliberated and wrestled with the ethical points and principles related to the presence of Chick-fil-A at Emory University. Our principles and conclusions are:

• Emory University has a long history of creating access, inclusion, and equity for Emory’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer students, faculty, staff, and alumni. Public positions taken by Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, do not reflect these values of access, inclusion, and equity.
• Another value of Emory University, however, is open expression. Dan Cathy has the right to express his views freely.
• Members of the Emory community hold a variety of personal viewpoints about Dan Cathy’s public positions.
• Chick-fil-A has become a symbol of exclusion for some community members.
• Emory University will not ask Sodexo to exclude or retain Chick-fil-A on the basis of Dan Cathy’s public positions.
• Members of the community are free to express their opposition to Dan Cathy’s public positions in numerous ways, including not patronizing Chick-fil-A.
• To the best of our knowledge, Chick-fi-A does not engage in discriminatory practices against its customers or employees.
• Any decision by Sodexo to renew or not renew the contract with Chick-fil-A, or any other vendor, must be part of a dining vision to advance the purposes for which Emory has contracted with Sodexo.
• Opposing views must be acknowledged, recognizing that some differences are truly irreconcilable.

Emory has made it clear that it is not going to use Cathy’s positions or Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay giving to determine whether to maintain its contract, and yet this response spells out to students exactly how they can ensure Chick-fil-A does not return to campus in the future:

Typical brand selection and replacement considerations include, but are not limited to, preferential surveys, strategic planning processes, campus master planning, sales trends, contract requirements, and brand re-imaging. Nielsen customer preference surveys, conducted in 2008 and updated in the spring of 2012, revealed that global cuisine and flavors, health conscious offerings, and competitive market pricing are three key attributes students look for in dining options on this campus… Any brand changes in Emory Dining, which would being in the fall of 2013, will be consistent with this vision and the principles articulated above.

In other words, the university cannot fairly kick out the franchise on principle alone, but students can still have an impact on Chick-fil-A’s fate. By continuing to express displeasure and boycott, the campus community can potentially impact Chick-fil-A’s sales and ostracize it out of the master plan of Emory Dining. This sensible resolution does not directly punish the company for its anti-gay positions, but empowers the students to abandon its support, leaving little reason for the franchise to remain. It’s an important opportunity for democracy and the free market to defend progressive, inclusive values.

Bishop Thomas Tobin

Another day brings another anti-gay condemnation from a Catholic bishop. Over the weekend, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island published his own screed attacking the proposed advance of marriage equality, claiming that same-sex marriage constitutes “immoral activity” and that the government should impose the Church’s beliefs upon all of society. In addition to raising familiar concerns about the “religious freedom” to discriminate according to individuals’ consciences, Tobin went on to attack the very notion that gays and lesbians exist, let alone deserve civil rights:

A final point. If we are in fact forced to discuss the nature of matrimony in our state, it should be placed before the general public in a referendum. The proposal to redefine marriage as a fundamental structure in our culture is a very serious issue with profound consequences. I suspect that people on both sides of the issue agree with that. On a question of this magnitude, then, the people of this state should decide as they have in many other states. Let us vote!

Some have argued that the “civil rights” of the minority should not be determined by the vote of the majority. I challenge that premise though. What is the source of this so-called “civil right?” Where is the moral or legal “right” to marry a person of the same gender found? It certainly has not been part of the human experience, of human history. Is it simply the personal happiness or fulfillment of individuals, the “right to do whatever I want to do?” If that’s the argument, it opens up all sorts of other social experiments for us, doesn’t it?

Indeed, this is the archaic view through which opponents of equality view the lived experiences of people with same-sex orientations. According to the Catholic Church, people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual don’t have real identities and are not entitled to real lives; they are simply selfish hedonists trying to corrupt society who should be condemned to chastity. The Church and its hierarchy refuse to acknowledge the millions of individuals who have committed to a same-sex life partner to build a life together, raise children, and participate in a community like all of its other families, a point of view lacking in any sense of compassion, charity, or good will.

But of course, Tobin doesn’t see it that way:

It’s important to emphasize once again, however, that while rejecting homosexual activity, the Catholic Church has consistently promoted respect and pastoral care for individuals with same-sex attraction. They are children of God and our brothers and sisters. They are invited to be members of our churches. It is our very concern for their spiritual welfare, however, that motivates our rejection of the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage.

There is no “respect,” “concern,” or “pastoral care” offered in declaring that an entire community of people is destroying society simply for loving.

AMERICAblog has been raising awareness over the past week about a problematic Internet filtering problem at the Pentagon, and rightfully so. Apparently, a preponderance of LGBT news sites have been blocked by the DOD, including AMERICAblog, Towleroad, Good As You, The Bilerico Project, Pam’s House Blend, The Advocate, and the Human Rights Campaign’s blog. (According to our sources, ThinkProgress and our LGBT vertical remain available.)  Though the filtering itself is a problem, the Pentagon’s response has been that much more troubling.

On Friday, the DOD released a statement on its Facebook page completely obfuscating the situation:

We’ve received some questions/comment recently about DOD’s web access policies, and wanted to provide this statement:

The Department of Defense does not block LGBT websites. The pages referenced in several recent articles were denied access based on web filters blocking the “Blog/Personal Pages” category, not the specific sites themselves. While individuals on a DoD system may visit portions of the main websites (i.e., www.towleroad.com, www.AMERICAblog.com), certain additional links/pages – to include personal blogs – are blocked. Personal pages and blogs are blocked in accordance with DoD policy allowing military commanders the option to restrict access to personal pages for operational security reasons.

As AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis points out, this statement does not withstand scrutiny on multiple counts. First of all, the filtration software specifically identifies the sites as “LGBT” as a reason for being blocked. Secondly, this doesn’t explain why plenty of anti-gay conservative blogs and personal pages are not blocked, including RedState, Breitbart, the Family Research Council’s blog, the National Organization for Marriage’s blog, and Ann Coulter’s and Glenn Beck’s personal sites. There is also no explanation how LGBT content could threaten national security, though of course the filters could predate the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell when this question was considered controversial.

Read more

Last month, the Oregon Insurance Division of the state’s Department of Consumer and Business Services quietly issued a bulletin that constitutes a monumental new protection for transgender people in the state. In 2007, Oregon passed a law prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, and the new bulletin dictates that as such, it is illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to trans people or refuse to cover their medically necessary health care. Here is a list of actions that could constitute discrimination based on gender identity (actual or perceived) for all private insurers in Oregon, via PQ monthly:

• Denying, cancelling, limiting, or refusing to renew an insurance policy.
• Requiring different rates or premiums.
• Classifying “gender identity disorder” or “gender dysphoria” (GI/GD) as a disqualifying pre-existing condition.
• Denying coverage for a procedure that is provided for the treatment of other conditions of illness (such as hormone therapy, mastectomy, or vocal training).
• Categorically denying coverage of GI/GD.
• Denying mental health coverage for GI/GD-related issue in adults.
• Denying sex-specific care (such as pap smears and prostate exams).

In a 2010 study, 19 percent of trans people reported being refused medical care, 28 percent postponed medical care due to discrimination, and 48 percent reported that they simply could not afford treatment. Bridging this inequity is essential for helping members of the trans community access the same basic level of health care as the general public.

Read the full bulletin, or learn more about filing a complaint.