Conservatives regularly use rhetoric about “religious freedom” in an attempt to substantiate discrimination against the LGBT community. Today, the American Family Association’s resident blowhard acknowledged as much in a rant comparing homosexuality to murder and theft, insisting that discrimination was valid:

FISCHER: We ought to discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior. I make no apology about that. We should discriminate! Yes! If you oppose civil unions, you are discriminating against homosexual behavior. We shouldn’t apologize for that. That’s what public policy and the law is all about — what the law is about is it’s about discrimination.

We discriminate in the law against people who commit murder. Why? Because that’s behavior that we don’t want to promote in a civil society. In our law, we discriminate against theft. Why? Because it’s counter to the kind of society that we want to build. It damages society. It hurts society. So we discriminate against people who steal from other people. We discriminate against people who kill other people. We discriminate against people who molest children. All of this is right; this is the right kind of discrimination.

The law is all about discrimination and I am saying absolutely, yes, we should discriminate against homosexual behavior. This is not behavior that ought to be promoted. It should not be legitimized. Relationships that are built on homosexual activity should not be glamorized, they shouldn’t be normalized, they shouldn’t be naturalized, they shouldn’t be given special protections in law. And I have no apologizes for saying yes we should discriminate against homosexual behavior.

Watch it (HT: Jeremy Hooper):

Fischer stops just short of calling for homosexuality to be made illegal, which he probably knows he can’t because such laws were found to be unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. But with comparisons to murder, theft, and child molestation, Fischer makes it quite clear that his desire to discriminate is not simply “religious” in nature. Indeed, his motives to discriminate are quite invidious in nature. His candor may be unique among conservatives, but his feelings likely are not.

The mayor of the tiny 2,000-resident village of Pomeroy, Ohio has resigned after allegations that she repeatedly harassed a gay police officer. According to Police Chief Mark Proffitt, Mayor Mary McAngus regularly referred to Officer Kyle Calendine as “a queer” and objected to his partner visiting him at the police station:

Proffitt wrote that McAngus called him into her office about two weeks after Calendine was hired. She said she heard “that Kyle was a queer” and asked what the chief was going to do about it. Nothing, he replied, because that would be discrimination.

“She stated ‘I don’t like a Queer working for the Village, I might be old-fashioned, but I don’t like it.’  ” Proffitt wrote in the statement.

The mayor persisted in making crude comments about the officer and his partner to police department employees, Proffitt said.

She asked a newly hired officer if he knew that Calendine was gay and whether that bothered him.When the officer said no, she asked him if he, too, was gay, and smiled and stared at him until the uncomfortable officer said he had to get back to work, Proffitt said.

In her short resignation letter, McAngus did not apologize or even acknowledge the accusations aside from saying she was quitting “due to circumstances.” It’s encouraging that Calendine’s supervisors recognized that his sexual orientation does not disqualify him from the job. In fact, it seems all of Pomeroy opposed McAngus’s remarks; before she announced her resignation Village Council President Jackie Welker defended Calendine, saying, “We as a village certainly don’t agree with any discrimination.”

The Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio is planning to fire the assistant principal at Purcell Marian High School for supporting marriage equality. On his personal blog last month, Mike Marosi wrote, “I unabashedly believe that gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry,” supporting his position with his Catholic faith. For that, he was placed on administrative leave on February 4, with the expectation that he would be fired if he didn’t recant the statements, which he has no intentions of doing.

Moroski has acknowledged that he violated the Archdiocese’s social media policy, but he denies that he has violated the terms of his contract, which require that he  ”comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” Though he knows the Roman Catholic Church does not approve marriage equality, he argues that speaking his conscience was in line with that obligation. He posted the following statement on his blog:

As a proud Catholic, I’m heartbroken that my belief that all committed, loving couples should be able to make a public pledge to take responsibility for each other for a lifetime has led to this ultimatum. The expressions of solidarity I have already received from Catholic priests, sisters and justice leaders in the community strengthen my faith during this difficult time. Due to my formation in Catholic grade school, high school and three Catholic universities – not to mention my marriage to the best Catholic I know, my relationship with numerous clergy and a devout Catholic family – I have firmly rooted my life in the Gospel principles of love and justice.

After twelve years of working with teenagers whose respect I have earned, I simply can’t teach them the wrong lesson now and deny my convictions. I would not be able to look them in the eye. I have tried to instill a sense of faith and fortitude in all of them regarding issues of justice for my entire adult life. I did not turn down the Archdiocese’s terms in spite of my faith. I turned them down because of my faith.

A Change.org petition is calling on the Archdiocese not to follow through on firing Moroski. The Archdiocese has said it will not comment on a personnel matter.

One of the most famous players in the National Basketball Association, Kobe Bryant, took to Twitter on Sunday to tell a fan to stop using ‘gay’ as an insult.

After a man identifying as Michael on Twitter tweeted “you’re gay” at another person, the LA Lakers shooting guard called them both out on Twitter — in a tweet that elicited over 3,000 retweets and 2,000 favorites:

Just letting you know@PacSmoove @pookeo9 that using “your gay” as a way to put someone down ain’t ok! #notcool delete that out ur vocab

— Kobe Bryant (@kobebryant) February 11, 2013

Bryant has clearly come a long way from a few years ago, when he called the referee at a game a “fucking fag.” That action incurred a $100,000 fine from the NBA, and actually prompted the Lakers to film a Public Service Announcement about using ‘gay’ as an insult. Someone on Twitter called Bryant out on that during Sunday’s interaction, and Bryant jumped to point out how that experience informed his opinion:

@onepercentofone @pookeo9 exactly! That wasn’t cool and was ignorant on my part. I own it and learn from it and expect the same from others

— Kobe Bryant (@kobebryant) February 11, 2013

Compared to the hostility toward gay people in other sports, the NBA has been relatively progressive about LGBT issues. Just last week, Denver Nuggets player Kenneth Faried came out for marriage equality in his team’s state of Colorado. Major NBA figureheads, such as former All-Star Charles Barkley, have voiced support for same-sex marriage, acknowledging that, “I had gay teammates.” The NBA, of its own volition, even partnered with the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network to film a whole series of PSAs about not using ‘gay’ to insult someone.

With a final vote of 21-14, the Colorado Senate has approved its third and final passage of SB 11, the civil unions bill. There was no additional debate before today’s vote. The bill proceeds to the House, where its sponsor, openly gay Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D), is now the chamber’s Speaker.

It took 17 months, but the Defense Department has finally issued guidance about benefits that can be extended to the same-sex partners of military servicemembers now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” no longer requires that they hide their identities. The list does not address some serious issues of concern, including health care, housing, and survivor benefits because of the Defense of Marriage Act, but does allow servicemembers to designate specific protections to their partners, including some through the recognition of a domestic partnership. Here are a few of the new benefits:

Member-Designated Benefits

• Service Members Group Life Insurance Beneficiary
• Veterans’ Group Life Insurance Beneficiary
• Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiary for Retirees
• Casualty Notification
• Designation of Persons Having Interest in Status of a Missing Member
• Hospital Visitation Privileges
• Designation of Persons Authorized to Direct Disposition of Remains of Members of the Armed Force
• Presentation of the Flag of the United States

Additional Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners

• Dependent ID cards
• Commissary Privileges
• Exchange Privileges
• Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs
• Emergency Leave
• Youth Programs
• Family Center Programs
• Child Care
• Legal Assistance
• Joint Duty Assignments

The memo announcing the benefits notes that should the Defense of Marriage Act no longer apply to the department, policy will be to “construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents, will be granted full military benefits.” It also contains a new process for same-sex couples to declare to the military that they are, in fact, domestic partners, which presumably even couples that are already married would have to fulfill to receive the benefits.

OutServe-SLDN praised outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for “getting us a few steps closer to full equality.”

Last year, LGBT groups heavily pressured President Obama to issue an executive order protecting LGBT employees of federal contractors from discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Obama had made a campaign pledge to do so in 2008, but the White House announced in April 2012 that it would not be issuing such an order, arguing unconvincingly that lasting comprehensive legislation — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — should be the priority. Everybody from the Washington Post to faith leaders to Jon Stewart criticized the decision, but discussion of the issue largely went quiet after Obama endorsed marriage equality and the Presidential campaign kicked into high gear.

The activist group GetEQUAL has continued to apply pressure, and Sunday evening was again protesting in front of the White House to raise awareness for what they dubbed the “ENDA EO.” According to Sunday’s Washington Post, the White House hasn’t forgotten about the issue and may now be reconsidering issuing the order:

On social policy, Obama is reconsidering whether to issue an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. When he decided not to issue such an order last year, the White House said it would prefer to pass a law applying to gays and lesbians in the workplace.

But if Congress seems unlikely to act on the broader legislation — called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — officials have signaled to people working on the issue outside the administration that the president would likely consider issuing an executive order, which can only affect government contractors.

Because of Republican opposition, Congress was no more likely to pass ENDA in 2012 than it is in 2013, so it’s odd that this argument is any more convincing now than it was then. In fact, when Obama used his executive order power to stop deporting undocumented young people after Congress defeated the DREAM Act, the argument for prioritizing legislation was not present at all. Obama could use his State of the Union address this week to call for the passage of ENDA, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) “hasn’t thought much” about bringing to a vote, but that endorsement alone wouldn’t protect the gay people in 29 states and transgender people in 34 states who can be fired just for their identities. Though an executive order would only protect the employees of federal contractors, that would still protect a quarter of the American workforce in the meantime.

It’s still a bit early for prom season, but students, parents, and faculty at Sullivan High School in Indiana are already calling for a prom that bans gays from attending. Students believe that a “good prom” would be one where homosexuality is not allowed because “we don’t think it’s right nor should it be accepted.”

In addition to the basic homophobia at root in this story, what is quickly becoming a second story is the media’s attempt to cover up or tone down that anti-gay animus. Unsurprisingly, an invite-only Facebook group where proponents were publicly discussing the gay-free prom has disappeared, but not before plenty of screenshots were captured of the comments being made there. But even WTWO, the NBC affiliate that reported this story Sunday night, made numerous edits to the story since its first publication. For example, at one point, the video was removed from the story and the lede sentence (as was read by the anchor) was changed to soften its tone:

OLD: A team of Valley high schools and parents petition to ban gays from their prom.

NEW: A team of Valley high schoolers and parents rally for a traditional prom that bans gays.

Later Sunday evening, the odious testimony of special education teacher Diana Medley was significantly cut in a way that made her sound less anti-gay, though it has since been restored. Here were her comments to WTWO reporter Paige Preusse about how she believes nobody is born gay, as featured in the original news report that aired:

MEDLEY: I believe it was a choice that she made. I don’t believe that they were born that way. I think that life circumstances made them choose that. I think God made everybody equal.

PREUSSE: When a gay person, you know — do you consider them, maybe, that they have some sort of purpose in life?

MEDLEY: I don’t. I personally don’t, I’m sorry. I don’t understand it. A gay student, or adult, or person is going to come up and make some change unless they realize it was a choice and I’m choosing God.

The newly edited video featured with the article actually includes more comments from Medley than originally aired, but her comments about gays not having a purpose in life are not included in the printed version. Watch a clip of the original broadcast, which includes the anchor’s original lede — now cut from the posted video to reflect the change in the article:

It’s unclear what the fate of the prom is at this point, and school administrators have yet to weigh in. According to a Sullivan senior who contacted blogger Alvin McEwen, the proposed gay-free “traditional prom” would be a separate event not supported by the school, and not supported by all students. Two separate Facebook pages have been started calling for an inclusive prom, and a Change.org petition has been started calling for Medley to be disciplined for her offensive remarks suggesting gay people don’t have a purpose in life.