Last month, the YMCA in Tyler, Texas refused to offer a family membership to a lesbian couple, demanding they produce a marriage certificate if they expected to receive the discount. This was in spite of the fact that they actually had a family membership at the same YMCA 10 years prior. Suzy Sheridan created a Change.org petition on behalf of her family that received 8,00 signatures, and the YMCA has now adjusted its policies to be more inclusive.

The new policy is unfortunately now known as a “household membership,” implying that not all households are families, but it is at least fully inclusive:

Household Membership are 2 adults and children under 21 [24 if enrolled in college (full-time)-must submit proof of registration annually] Additional adults can be added for an additional monthly fee of $15.00 per month. Required documentation will be ID and proof of residency such as driver’s license with current address or bill showing name and matching address. This membership includes facility usage, fitness group classes and discounted programs.

The change represents a small but important victory in the struggle for same-sex families’ full inclusion in communities and society.

On Monday, the Defense Department released a new list of benefits that the same-sex partners of military servicemembers could access in spite of the limitations imposed by the Defense of Marriage Act. One spousal benefit that was not specifically mentioned was eligibility to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, but that didn’t stop the American Family Association from making that its primary complaint. In an action alert sent out after the Pentagon’s announcement, the anti-gay hate group warned that same-sex partners would violate the cemetery’s “hallowed grounds,” complete with the misspelled graphic pictured at right:

This means the military will recognize homosexual lovers as “married” and will give a full slate of benefits, including burial in Arlington National Cemetery.

Panetta, at every turn, has exposed the military to open homosexuality, which presents an unacceptable risk to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion – qualities essential for combat readiness.

Actually, the new guidance allows the military to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships specifically so it doesn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, AFA is encouraging supporters to send the following letter to members of Congress:

Under your watch, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has effectively devastated our nation’s military by allowing the “gay agenda” to take priority over national defense.

This week, his decision to grant “marriage” benefits to homosexuals in the military presents an unacceptable risk to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion – qualities essential for combat readiness.

Most disturbing is his decision to allow homosexual partners to be buried on the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.

I urge you to do your part in restoring sanity to the Department of Defense and stop social experimentation in the military.

Besides the fact that plenty of gay people are surely already buried in Arlington National Cemetery, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had no consequential impact on the military’s “good order, discipline, morale, and unit cohesion.” DADT was the social experiment, and all that came of it was the firing of soldiers. The social experiment of shame and discrimination is over.

The Associated Press stylebook guides most mainstream journalists’ practices, so the announcement of a new, changed, or even clarified rule has significant consequences. On Monday, an AP “memo for internal guidance” provided the following problematic suggestion for how to refer to married same-sex couples:

SAME-SEX COUPLES: We were asked how to report about same-sex couples who call themselves “husband” and “wife.” Our view is that such terms may be used in AP stories with attribution. Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.

Shortly thereafter, the guidance was subtly revised:

SAME-SEX COUPLES: We were asked how to report about same-sex couples who call themselves “husband” and “wife.” Our view is that such terms may be used in AP content if those involved have regularly used those terms (“Smith is survived by his husband, John Jones”) or in quotes attributed to them. Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.

The revision did not correct the problem with this style rule. The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association condemned the arbitrary decision to give same-sex marriages less recognition than other marriages:

I can see the distinction from an AP viewpoint when, for example, a man in a domestic partnership or civil union calls the other man in that legally recognized relationship “husband” that technically that person is not his husband, because “husband” is reserved for marriage.

But when two men in a legally recognized marriage call themselves husbands, it makes no sense to me that AP should make a distinction because that marriage is not yet federally recognized.

Marriages are marriages, so husbands should be husbands and wives should be wives. Arguably, “husband” and “wife” should even be used in civil unions and in states where same-sex marriage is not recognized, because many couples have nevertheless married in their faith tradition or otherwise held a commitment ceremony. Obviously, applying some context is important, but if a couple is married, there is no legitimate reason to discount that label except to placate those in society who refuse to recognize those unions.

Last November, AP issued a similarly controversial rule eliminating the use of the word “homophobia” along with other social “-phobia” words.

The National Organization for Marriage is boasting today about a new poll that it claims supports its case against marriage equality in Rhode Island, but the organization could not be more wrong. NOM’s big claim from the results is that a majority of voters —74 percent, then 78 percent after a push question — want to vote on the question of same-sex marriage. Not only did it take an incredible amount of distortion to arrive at that number, it’s what NOM doesn’t mention about the poll that is most incriminating.

Even with all the tactics employed to get responses that support NOM’s cause, the poll still found that nearly a third of voters (31 percent) believe that Rhode Island lawmakers should consider making same-sex marriage legal “while there is an economic crisis in our state,” as opposed to the proposed alternative of “the economic crisis [should] be dealt with first.” Obviously, the question presents a false dichotomy because approving same-sex marriage does nothing to interfere with fixing the economy. Indeed, marriage equality would support Rhode Island’s economy with an estimated $1.2 million in spending over the first three years the law is in effect. NOM’s best attempts at distortion simply cannot convince Rhode Island voters.

Here are some of the other tactics the poll employed to get skewed results for NOM:

1. The poll didn’t ask whether voters support same-sex marriage. In a poll that is almost entirely questions about same-sex marriage, it never actually asked respondents specifically how they feel about the issue itself. At best, it found that 48 percent are “liberal when thinking about social issues.” The best way to avoid getting an undesired answer is not to ask the question.

2.The poll sample was incredibly low. This poll sampled only 401 voters in Rhode Island. Obviously Rhode Island is a small state and a lower sample can be used, but recent polls in Rhode Island have surveyed 614 and 501, still significantly bigger samples. Both of those polls found majorities support marriage equality.

3. The poll grossly over-sampled older voters. About 42 percent of Rhode Island’s population is over the age of 45, but 71 percent of poll respondents were over the age of 50. National and statewide polls have consistently shown that younger people are more likely to support marriage equality, so the over-sampling seems quite intentional.

4. The polling company is extremely conservative and has a poor track record. As other LGBT blogs have pointed out, NOM’s go-to push-poller QEV Analytics has a number of conservative ties, including the Catholic Church and the Republican Party. NOM had QEV do a similar poll in the lead-up to New York’s marriage equality vote and, using similar distortions, it found 57 percent opposed to the proposed same-sex marriage bill when every other poll showed similar size majorities supporting equality. QEV President Steve Wagner said in 1996, “Polling done for the purposes of publicizing results is meaningless, and I think the media are guilty of spending too much time on polls… People don’t vote based on polls.” Apparently NOM didn’t get that memo.

NOM is quite desperate to make a case against equality in Rhode Island, but apparently the only way to do that is to ignore reality.

The French National Assembly just voted to approve both marriage equality and same-sex adoption with a vote of 329-229. This is perhaps not surprising given the support for the bill’s most essential article earlier this month. It now proceeds to the Senate, which is similarly controlled by the Socialists that took power last year. A poll conducted last month shows that 63 percent of French voters support the freedom to marry. France and the United Kingdom are racing to be the 12th and 13th countries to legally recognize same-sex marriage. The British House of Commons advanced similar legislation last week with a 400-175 vote.

This morning at an event at the Center for American Progress, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) promised that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) “will move this year” in the Senate. ENDA would create national protections that prevent employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but has languished in Congress for decades.

Harkin did not further specify his plans, but as Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, he has the power to ensure it receives at least a committee mark-up and vote. Last year, the HELP committee held a hearing on the bill, which featured the first-ever transgender individual to testify before the Senate. Kylar Broadus spoke of the pain he suffered when colleagues he’d worked beside for years learned that he was trans and suddenly couldn’t remember which pronouns to refer to him by. In 34 states, it’s still legal for employers to fire or refuse to hire someone just for being transgender, and ENDA would help fix that. With bi-partisan support, the bill seems poised to advance — at least out of committee.

There is speculation that President Obama might mention ENDA or a similar executive order that would create protections for employees of federal contractors in tonight’s State of the Union address.

Higher education is becoming a growing front where conservatives are using claims of “religious freedom” to justify discrimination against the LGBT community. This month, the Virginia legislature approved a bill that would require state universities to continue funding student organizations even when they discriminate based on sexual orientation in violation of university policies. Those funds come from fees students pay into, inherently privileging religious groups to funding that all students should have access to. Now, a bill (HB 1046) introduced (and immediately withdrawn) in Tennessee’s legislature by Rep. Mark Pody (R) is raising the stakes: if universities don’t tolerate the faith-based anti-LGBT discrimination, they won’t be allowed to have police departments.

Pody has led this campaign for several years because he is particularly troubled by a conflict playing out at Vanderbilt University. Christian student groups on campus have objected to the requirement that they not discriminate based on sexual orientation, claiming they themselves are being discriminated against by having to allow gay students to attend meetings and run for officer positions. The Tennessee legislature passed another of Pody’s bills last year stripping funding for Vanderbilt and any other public university with such an “all-comers” policy, but Gov. Bill Haslam (R) vetoed it. (“All-comers” is shorthand for “all who come are welcome.”)

Unsatisfied by that result, Pody is now threatening the very safety of students on campus with his will to discriminate. Though he immediately withdrew his bill, he says he still intends to replace it with another version. A separate bill also introduced (HB 534) simply creates a new law requiring the universities to tolerate discrimination, as opposed to threatening to cut their police departments if they don’t.

Pody and his allies clearly do not understand university living or learning environments. The entire purpose of nondiscrimination provisions like Vanderbilt’s “all-comers” policy is to ensure that all students have equal access to all resources on campus that they pay into. This ensures a safe and efficient learning environment for all students. It is exactly the eagerness to discriminate exhibited by these Christian groups that makes a campus environment toxic for LGBT students or other affected groups, which quickly becomes a financial burden for the university because recruitment and retention rates decline. That Pody is considering holding campus safety forces hostage to enforce this discrimination shows his motivations are selfish and guided by animus, having little to do with the academic, social, or financial success of Tennessee universities.