This evening, after being delayed six hours by a concealed carry bill, the Illinois House Executive Committee advanced the marriage equality bill with a vote of 6-5. Passage was expected, as all seven Democrats on the committee previously supported same-sex civil unions. The bill now advances to the House, where advocates are optimistic it will pass. Still, it faces a tougher fight than it did in the Senate, where it passed on Valentine’s Day with a vote of 34-21. A poll released last week found that only 29 percent of Illinois voters oppose marriage equality.

Earlier this month, Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute spoke at a Catholic Women’s Conference in Venice, Florida. Equality Matters noticed some sweeping generalizations about how gay men are all ashamed of their homosexuality because they know that it’s “deeply wrong”:

MORSE: I’ve noticed in my encounters with men who are same-sex attracted particularly that they have a sense of shame. Have any of you ever noticed this? … I’ve noticed that a lot of the people who are very active in the movement to redefine marriage will describe that when they were teenagers that they had a sense of wrongness — of being wrong — and of God thinking they were an abomination, like they all knew that verse. [...]

So they have this sense of wrongness and I think that many of them believe that redefining marriage is going to make them feel better. I think they think that if all of us will approve of them that they will feel better… Making yourself feel good about doing something that is deeply wrong for you is not in the end going to work.

Listen to it:

Morse is actually kind of right, but for the exact wrong reasons. When everybody in a gay adolescent’s family and community are telling him that he’s “wrong,” of course he’s going to absorb those messages. That doesn’t mean he believes those ideas — it just means he has to navigate a situation where everybody else around him does. It’s not surprising that such a young man might then want to encourage people to support him instead of condemning him. Indeed, seeking affirmation is a sensible way of counteracting years of shame.

What Morse is really doing is abdicating any sense of responsibility. She’s reinforcing this sense of internal shame by proclaiming that it’s a natural part of being gay, when in fact it’s quite obviously the result of the very messaging she promotes.

Today the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has been hearing testimony regarding Senate Bill 449, the Fairness for All Marylanders Act, which would finally add gender identity to the state’s nondiscrimination protections. Unfortunately, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg was on hand to testify his belief that transgender people have a “disconnect with reality” and need counseling, not protection under the law:

SPRIGG: A person who believes they are, or wishes to be, the opposite sex from that which is written in the chromosomes of every cell of his or her body, is suffering from a disconnection with an immutable biological reality. The solution to this problem is not actions – up to and including self-mutilating surgery amputating healthy body parts – which will reinforce this disconnect with reality. The solution is compassionate counseling aimed at helping the individual to uncover the psychological roots of their gender identity problems, and to become comfortable with one’s actual biological sex.

I understand the motivation behind this bill – the sponsors are concerned about the pain in the lives of these individuals, and hope that this intervention will ease that pain.

While I share that motivation, I must oppose this bill because it will not work. This bill would force the state and private actors – employers, landlords, and others who provide public services – to officially and legally affirm the very delusion that puts these suffering individuals at odds with reality. Not only will it not make their lives better, but it will prevent them from getting the very help they do need to make their lives better.

Sprigg is making two very offensive points here; not only is he claiming that trans people are “suffering” from a mental illness, but he’s also saying that they deserve to be discriminated against as a result. Leave aside the fact that the psychology professionals recommend affirming trans people in their gender identity, FRC wants it to be legal to fire, deny housing, and deny basic services to transgender people, who are already quite vulnerable to such discrimination. Sprigg has previously called for criminal sanctions against homosexuality and the exportation of gays and lesbians. It’s such campaigns against basic humanity that warrant FRC’s designation as a “hate group.” (HT: Joe.My.God.)

Costa Rica’s Psychologists Association has issued a bold statement today condemning attempts to “cure” homosexuality through ex-gay therapy. The harmful treatment has been on the rise in Latin America, but according to Psychologists Association spokesperson Marisol Fournier, there is no scientific basis for ex-gay therapy:

FOURNIER: Since it is not a disease, it cannot be cured. We do not focus on whether (gays) are born (gay) or (become gay), [but instead focus on who they are].  As psychologists, we must ensure conditions for these people to live a life with emotional integrity, and this means recognizing them as individuals with their own sexual orientation and fully unmark this idea of homosexuality as a disease.

The statement reflects similar guidance issued by the Pan American Health Organization (a subset of the World Health Organization) last May, pointing out that the stigma promoted by ex-gay therapy is the only reason gay people should be tempted by the “unjustifiable practices” in the first place.

Edie Windsor and her lawyers have filed their final brief urging the Supreme Court to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. When Windsor’s wife died, she was forced to pay $363,053 in federal estate taxes because their marriage was not recognized under DOMA. In the brief, Windsor’s lawyers point out that House Republicans have invented new explanations for why they originally passed DOMA, but the original record shows that their goal was to discriminate against people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual.

For example, various lawmakers referred to “moral disapproval of homosexuality,” suggested homosexuality is based on “perversion” and “lust,” and called homosexuality “inherently destructive,” with allusions to “promiscuity, perversion, hedonism, narcissism, depravity, and sin.” Not only was the clear target of the law the “unnatural” behavior of same-sex couples, but Congress did not even consider the financial impact of the law. Indeed, as the brief points out, the very name of the law, the “Defense of Marriage Act,” demonstrates that its supporters viewed gay people as a threat. Here’s how the brief calls out these missteps:

DOMA was enacted out of “insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.” The Act was rushed through Congress at a time when there was no realistic prospect of gay couples getting married in the near future anywhere, even in Hawaii.

The legislative history is replete with language of panic and fear, as well as stereotypical thinking about the purported dangers of gay people or their relationships. Congress gave no consideration to the ways DOMA would impact the thousands of federal programs implicated. It made no attempt to assess DOMA’s impact on the federal budget. It expended no effort to address the obvious irrational consequences of DOMA’s sweeping applicability, such as DOMA’s exclusion of married gay couples from federal financial disclosure requirements or conflict of interest rules. The very language of its title indicates that DOMA was enacted to defend or “guard against” people who appear to be different.

The “post hoc” arguments that House Republicans have since proffered to explain a different intention behind DOMA include the “fantastical” idea that preventing gay couples from marrying will somehow encourage heterosexual couples to marry have children. The brief effectively debunks this claim:

This far-fetched theory has nothing to do with DOMA. It is irrational, fantastical thinking to believe that the federal government’s decision to treat married gay couples as unmarried under federal law will encourage straight couples to marry before having children… Put more concretely, no straight couple would decide to marry or have children simply because Ms. Windsor had to pay $363,053 in federal estate taxes. Conversely, no straight couple would call off their wedding if Ms. Windsor receives a tax refund.

Indeed, there is no clear rationale for the discrimination against Ms. Windsor or any same-sex couple except the desire to treat the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community as second-class citizens. Combined with the Department of Justice’s arguments against DOMA, Windsor’s case is quite strong, while House Republicans have nothing but spin, distortion, and stereotypes.

Last April, high school student Amber Hatcher announced she would be participating in the National Day of Silence, a nationwide protest to raise awareness about anti-LGBT bullying, and sought permission in advance from her school administrators in Desoto County, Florida. Her principal threatened “ramifications” if she participated and even called her parents suggesting they keep her home because there “would be consequences.” Lambda Legal reached out to the school informing administrators of students’ rights, but they chose not to respond, instead emailing teachers to notify the principal if anybody was participating. Amber followed through, and was subsequently suspended for the day.

Lambda Legal has now filed suit against the school on Amber’s behalf. The complaint includes the full text of the email Principal Shannon Fusco sent to teachers advising about the protest:

Teachers:
Please note that we have a group of students today who have an intention of protesting. The district has an absolute policy against protesting on school campuses.

If you have students who are wearing placard [sic] in protest of an issue or disrupting the hallways or classrooms, please notify the dean or administration, and we will handle it.

If a student refuses to participate in class by taking part in a silent protest, that is considered a disruption. Again, please notify the administration, and we will handle it.

Thanks you,
sdf

It’s been over 40 years since the Supreme Court ruled that students have a right to participate in protests in schools. In the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court ruled that it was a violation of students’s First Amendment rights to suspend them for wearing black armbands to protest the U.S.’s involvement in Vietnam. Like the students in that case, Amber was participating in class and simply remaining silent to indicate her position. The school was completely in the wrong for blocking her free expression, and it’s unfortunate a lawsuit is required for the administrators to learn that lesson.

The National Organization for Marriage is once again exercising its muscle in order to try to get its way, promising $500,000 to campaign against Republicans who support marriage equality in Minnesota and support Democrats who oppose it. NOM claimed victory for this tactic in New York, even though only one of the four candidates they campaigned against was actually replaced by someone who agrees with their position. In a press release announcing the commitment to bullying, NOM’s Brian Brown specifically called out Sen. Branden Petersen (R) for endorsing the marriage equality effort, claiming that the issue is all about protecting children:

BROWN: Republicans like Branden Petersen don’t realize that not only is voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a career-ending vote for a Republican. NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage. Legislators need look no further than what happened to GOP Senators in New York. Four of them were responsible for passing gay marriage. We helped take out three of those Senators by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage. They are now out of office. We will not hesitate to do the same thing in Minnesota.

We urge Democrats in the Minnesota Legislature to vote their values, and not what their party bosses tell them. Standing for true marriage is the right thing to do for Minnesota families, and especially for children. The fact is that Minnesota children, and all children, have a right to expect laws that promote them being raised by a mother and father. We will support those legislators, Democrats and Republicans alike, who vote for Minnesota family values, just as we have done in other states. Marriage is not a partisan issue, and NOM does not hesitate to oppose weak Republicans and support strong Democrats.

As always, NOM completely ignores the many children already being raised by same-sex couples who would benefit if their parents could marry. A Williams Institute study of the 2010 Census estimated that there are over 1,600 same-sex couples already raising children in Minnesota, a third of whom identify as spouses. There are at least an additional 8,500 couples who would benefit from the legal protections marriage affords. NOM’s bullying tactics are deplorable enough, but scapegoating children under the guise of “family values” is that much worse.

Last week, Football celebrity Tim Tebow backed out of speaking at the First Baptist Church in Dallas after public outcry over the odious positions of its lead pastor, Robert Jeffress. Not only did Jeffress claim that Tebow still intends to reschedule, but he used his sermon on Sunday to defend the very positions that led to the outcry:

JEFFRESS: You know, it is an amazing thing to me that a church is called anti-Semitic simply because we preach that everyone — Jew, Baptist, Catholic, Hindu, atheist — everyone must trust in Christ in order to go to Heaven. It’s amazing to me that we’re called anti-gay simply because we say sex ought to be between a man and a woman in marriage; somehow that’s construed to be anti-gay. [...]

The bad news is there is such a thing called sin, and the Bible says we are all guilty of it, and we are all headed for an eternity of separation from God. But it the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is it doesn’t matter who you are or what you have done. It doesn’t matter whether you were a Jew, a Baptist, a Catholic, a Muslim, a Hindu, a homosexual, an adulterer, a thief, or a cheat. It doesn’t matter what you’ve done, you can be forgive of your sins if you trust in Jesus Christ as your savior. That’s not a message of hate; that’s a message of hope.

Watch it:

Alan Colmes interviewed Jeffress this week and called him out on some of his past comments. He explained,”When they’re quoting me, I’m speaking to my church, to my members, and of course you have to add the context to it.” For example, he explained that he didn’t call President Obama the Antichrist, he just said that Obama’s policies are paving the way for the Antichrist. Further, he said that he’s not hateful towards gays because he simply believes homosexuality is comparable to adultery and pre-marital sex.