In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico ruled in favor of a law preventing gay couples from adopting children together. The majority essentially ceded responsibility to the legislature, writing that the Court “does not have a constitutional obligation to award this relationship the same rights that other relationships have when it comes to adoption procedures.”

The couple that challenged the ban has been together 20 years, and the petitioning mother has fought for the past eight to adopt the 12-year-old daughter they are raising together. The daughter proudly proclaims, “I have two mothers,” but she could not benefit from her one mother’s medical insurance or a possible will, nor could she stay with her second mom if her birth mother dies. Chief Justice Federico Hernandez Denton dissented from the ruling, invoking President Obama’s inaugural address calling for equality for gays and lesbians:

DENTON: Both (women) have ideal emotional skills, intuition and protective instinct to guarantee the girl’s full and healthy development. In addition, tests showed that (the girl) is mentally stable, does exceptionally well in school and gets along very well with children her age. [...]

While the rest of the world keeps opening its doors to the legitimate complaints of human beings discriminated against for their sexual orientation, the majority of this court refuses to declare the law in question as unconstitutional.

On Monday, over 200,000 Puerto Ricans protested against LGBT equality, suggesting the legislature may not have a lot of motivation to protect families like the couple in this case.

Ex-gay therapist Joseph Nicolosi, a plaintiff in this case, encourages parents to reject their children.

The Liberty Counsel has filed its final brief in its challenge of California’s ban on ex-gay therapy (SB 1172) on behalf of NARTH. In it, the group reiterates its claims that encouraging young people to change their sexual orientation is simply a “viewpoint,” and thus protected by the First Amendment. Despite the dearth of evidence supporting its effectiveness and the research that shows not only that it’s ineffective but that it can also be harmful, the conservatives stand by their claim that same-sex attractions (SSA) can be changed:

The APA Report admits SSA is “fluid,” which, no matter the debate over “enduring” change, it is clear that SSA can change. Studies reveal that sexual orientation is “not static.” “Contrary to the theoretical notion that one becomes fixated in childhood, the sexual orientation of the individuals in this study often changed remarkably.”

SB 1172 prohibits any counsel under any circumstance to change SSA. If SSA is fluid, then it is changeable. Given that SSA is capable of change, then why does the law prohibit change therapy? If an unhappy homosexual client engages the counselor because he wants to be bisexual, does the counselor violate SB 1172 by providing counsel that helps the client develop sexual attraction for both sexes? Or does the counselor violate the law only when the counsel offered seeks to change the client to be exclusively heterosexual?

SB 1172 prohibits any counsel to change SSA.  What are Appellant-Counselors to do when clients return  after hearing their opinion that SSA can change and asks the counselor to help them meet their self-determined objective to change their SSA? If the clients seek change, and if the Report admits SSA is fluid, and thus changeable, then why are counselors and clients prohibited from pursuing change? Where is the line drawn? What is permitted and what is not? The licenses of the Appellant-Counselors are on the line. They and thousands of other counselors and clients have no idea how to avoid these landmines.

NARTH and Liberty Counsel are twisting words beyond reproach in an attempt to make their case. There is a difference between the fact that sexual orientation naturally changes over time and the claim that it can be manipulated by therapy. Further, just because an individual has a “self-determined objective” to accomplish any bizarre outcome in therapy doesn’t mean it’s healthy or valid to work toward that objective. Indeed, the reason that professional psychological groups have established that affirming an individual’s sexual orientation is a best practice is because that is what has been determined to help patients regardless of what they’ve been taught to believe about homosexuality.

It’s important to keep in mind the mind-game at work. In the original complaint, these ex-gay therapists argued that the treatment was important for bringing families together. In other words, parents with a bias against homosexuality claim they can only love their child if he rejects his same-sex orientation, but the therapists then blame this situation on the patient — as they are wont to do. The young person is convinced to participate in the treatment to appease his family, implying an ultimatum that he can be gay or he can be loved, but he can’t be both. Thus, the “benefits” of ex-gay therapy are often a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in which young people claim to be happier because they’ve managed to placate their family’s homophobia. This artificial construct is self-serving, caters to parents’ demands instead of children’s well-being, and speaks nothing to the actual validity of ex-gay therapy.

Convincing young people to reject their identities is harmful on its face, and the animus behind defending the practice is not particularly well hidden in these arguments. These counselors can claim that they have an opinion about homosexuality, but they can’t claim to have any truth.

Today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agencies charged with implementing the Affordable Care Act, released final rules on Essential Health Benefits standards, which will benefit millions of Americans who will have increased access to comprehensive insurance coverage.

Starting in 2014, small group and individual market health insurance plans – including plans sold inside and outside of Health Insurance Marketplaces — will be required to cover items and services in 10 “Essential Health Benefit” categories. These categories include vital services needed by many gay and transgender people, including prescription drugs, hospital stays, and mental and behavioral health services.

Standards for Essential Health Benefits will benefit everyone who buys small group or individual insurance plans by guaranteeing a comprehensive level of coverage. In addition, the rules provide key protections for gay and transgender people through the unprecedented protections against discrimination in benefits coverage, including on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and health condition.  This means that insurance companies cannot use limitations or exclusions for benefits that discriminate against gay and transgender patients — potentially ending a long history of discrimination by insurers.

The federal rules will provide much-needed guidance to state policymakers, who are working quickly to establish Essential Health Benefits standards that will apply to insurers next year. These rules, and the protections they give to gay and transgender individuals and their families, are key in achieving the law’s goal of making affordable, comprehensive health care coverage available to all Americans.

Our guest blogger is Andrew Cray, a research associate for LGBT Progress at the Center for American Progress.

The Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has released a new study today analyzing the impact of anti-LGBT bullying on middle and high school students who participate in athletics. Though the climate in athletics can be quite toxic, there are still many LGBT students participating, and when they do, they benefit academically from having the experience. Unfortunately, many are dissuaded from participating at all.

Here’s a look at some of the findings:

• LGBT students are about half as likely as their non-LGBT peers to participate in interscholastic sports (23.2 percent vs. 47.8 percent).
• The more involved LGBT students were in athletics, the higher their GPA, with team leaders averaging a 3.4, team members averaging a 3.2, and non-athletes average a 3.0.
• Over a quarter of LGBT student athletes have been harassed or assaulted while playing because of their sexual orientation (27.8 percent) or gender expression (29.4 percent).
• Most students (79.4 percent) felt uncomfortable talking to school athletics staff about LGBT issues.
• Even P.E./gym classes continue to be unsafe spaces for LGBT students, with about half of them reporting bullying or harassment because of their sexual orientation (52.8 percent) or gender expression (50.9 percent).
• As a result, many LGBT students avoid P.E. classes (32.5 percent), locker rooms (39.0 percent), and athletic fields (22.8 percent) out of fear of victimization.

GLSEN’s overall study of school climate for LGBT students found that 82 percent have been verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation. The new results seem to indicate that athletics is an environment where these students might be particularly vulnerable, and yet where they could greatly benefit. Indeed, anti-LGBT climates hurt academic performance and even increase drop-out rates. Advocating for LGBT-inclusive bullying prevention strategies not only protects the safety of students, but increases their ability to succeed in school and beyond.

Minnesota Sen. Branden Petersen (R) and his kids.

As Minnesota state lawmakers prepare to introduce marriage equality legislation, Republican Sen. Branden Petersen has announced he will be a co-sponsor. Though he voted for the amendment banning same-sex marriage two years ago, Petersen now believes supporting same-sex marriage is the “right thing” to do:

PETERSON: At this point, I am concerned about doing the right thing. I have a certain amount of peace about that, and I will let the chips fall where they may. It’s only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legal. I thought it was important to engage the issue now, and when we do it, do it right, and that there’s some perspective from the people I represent in that. I know there are other Republicans who are very interested in supporting same-sex marriage.

Petersen explained that his father-in-law has been in a same-sex relationship for 20 years, and he doesn’t want the issue to divide the state the way it has divided his family. He does have a few amendments he wants to propose to the bill, but none seem to weaken its guarantee of equality. Among his concerns is making sure religious leaders can choose not to wed same-sex couples, a provision that most same-sex marriage bills have included. He also wants to make sure the kids in same-sex marriages have the same financial guarantees in the event of a divorce as the children of opposite-sex couples.

Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL), the bill’s sponsor, sees no problem with any of Petersen’s recommendations. He believes having a Republican co-sponsor is “awesome” and may inspire other members of the GOP to add their support.

The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) passed a resolution earlier this month calling for an end to any and all state and federal laws that criminalize or prosecute individuals based on their HIV status. The resolution points out that the laws undermine testing and prevention priorities, further stigmatize HIV-positive individuals, and ignore modern scientific understandings of the virus:

Despite the relatively low risk of transmission and significantly lowered level of harm, thirty-four U.S. states and territories have adopted criminal statutes based on perceived exposure to HIV. Most of these laws were adopted before the availability of effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV, which substantially reduces already low transmission risks and provides a pathway to highly successful HIV treatment.

Clearly the use of HIV-specific criminal laws, of felony laws such as attempted murder and aggravated assault, and of sentence enhancements to prosecute HIV-positive individuals are based on outdated and erroneous beliefs about the routes, risks, and consequences of HIV transmission. Legal standards applied in HIV criminalization cases regarding intent, harm, and proportionality deviate from generally accepted criminal law principles and reflect stigma toward HIV and HIV-positive individuals.

People living with HIV have been charged under aggravated assault, attempted murder, and even bioterrorism statutes, and they face more severe penalties because law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and legislators continue to view and characterize people living with HIV and their bodily fluids as inherently dangerous, even as “deadly weapons.” Punishments imposed for non-disclosure of HIV status, exposure, or HIV transmission are grossly out of proportion to the actual harm inflicted and reinforce the fear and stigma associated with HIV. Public health leaders and global policy makers agree that HIV criminalization is unjust, bad public health policy and is fueling the epidemic rather than reducing it.

Multiple studies have shown that laws criminalizing HIV are not effective at minimizing transmission rates. In fact, such laws discourage many individuals from getting tested for HIV or discussing the virus with medical professionals. When they do get tested, they prefer to do so anonymously, which prevents public health officials from tracking transmission or helping them contact past sexual partners.

A member of President Reagan’s original commission to investigate AIDS has similarly called for the end to such laws because they “were not evidence-based.” Unfortunately, such laws are not merely an artifact of the past; a new law punishing people for exposing others to any sexually-transmitted infection has been proposed in Arizona.

Focus on the Family actively campaigns against equality for LGBT people, but a new video reveals just how much gall the organization has in defending discrimination. In a conversation between host Stuart Shepard and Focus’s resident ex-gay Jeff Johnston, the two suggest that “the real agenda” of the equality movement is to “marginalize” Christians for opposing same-sex marriage:

SHEPARD: This is no longer theoretical. I mean we’ve talked about it for years and a lot of people said, “Oh, don’t pay attention to them, they’re just making this up, there will be no impact. We’re just talking about fairness, equality, providing this for folks and it will have no impact on you whatsoever.” We’re seeing people want to shut down businesses and using the weight of government to do this. [...]

JOHNSTON: They’re not just pushing Christians into their churches, they’re reaching into their lives and saying, “Here’s what you should say and here’s what you can’t say.” So they’re attacking freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

SHEPARD: So the effort to redefine marriage is not just about creating this new type of relationship out of thin air, it’s actually about silencing Christian voices in the public square.

Watch it:

Shepard and Johnston are categorically denying that discrimination is discrimination. They cite various cases of so called “marginalization” of Christians, but none of them even took place in states that have marriage equality. In each situation, it was a business refusing to provide a service to people because of their sexual orientation and then being challenged under state laws because that form of discrimination is illegal. A New Mexico photographer refused to document a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony and lost in court. Bakers in Colorado and Oregon have been challenged for refusing to sell cakes to celebrating same-sex couples. A t-shirt company in Kentucky was found to be in the wrong for refusing to print t-shirts for a Pride festival. None of these states even have same-sex marriage; the business owners simply do not have legitimate standing to discriminate.

Focus on the Family feels that challenging these Christians constitutes an attack on their motives, and they’re right. They’re defending discrimination, and personal religious beliefs offer no justification for that second-class treatment in society.

The Respect for Marriage Coalition, headed up by Freedom To Marry and the Human Rights Campaign, is rolling out a new multi-million dollar national ad campaign for marriage equality, including television spots, full-page newspaper ads, and online banner ads. The “#Time4Marriage” campaign features Former First Lady Laura Bush, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Former Vice President Dick Cheney, and President Obama all endorsing marriage equality:

BUSH: When couples are committed to each other and love each other then they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has.

POWELL: Allowing them to live together with the protection of law, it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country.

CHENEY: Freedom means freedom for everyone.

OBAMA: Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.

Watch it:

Full-page print versions will run in national newspapers like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support marriage equality, including two new polls released yesterday.