A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-sex relationship with another student.

Kaitlyn Hunt started dating a female classmate at the beginning of the school year when she was 17 and the girl she was dating was 15. According to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in February, just after Kaitlyn turned 18, she was arrested on felony charges at the behest of her girlfriend’s parents. The specific crime was “sexual battery on a person 12-16 years old.”

Kaitlyn’s mother believes the charges were motivated by anti-gay animus:

They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter “made” their daughter gay. They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.

But Kaitlyn’s problems did not end there. Her girlfriends’s parents appealed to the school board and had her expelled from Sebastian River High School. Kaitlyn’s mom reports that the State Attorney, Brian Workman, has offered Kaitlyn a plea deal of “of two years house arrest and one year probation.” Kaitlyn has until next Friday to accept the plea deal or face a trial.

The family has started a petition calling on the state attorney to drop the charges against Kaitlyn.

Despite the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military still does not allow people who are transgender to serve. Still, many people only transition after they’ve completed their service, creating complications for their continued receipt of benefits. Now, the Pentagon has recognized its first gender change for a military veteran and established a process — albeit a bit burdensome one — for future trans vets to do the same.

Blogger and activist Autumn Sandeen was informed earlier this month that the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) has been updated to show her gender as female. Department of Defense spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen provided the following statement to BuzzFeed:

For the last several years, the Department has made requested changes to gender in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS) for military retirees. A gender change in DEERS may be accomplished by the retiree presenting the following documents:

- A letter from the doctor who performed the surgery, documenting completion of a gender reassignment surgery
- A court order, legally changing the gender in accordance with applicable state law
- An original birth certificate
- A document, reflecting the sponsor’s name and if applicable, gender following completion of the gender reassignment procedure for a spouse

The Department will not change a gender in DEERS if it results in a loss of benefits to the spouse of the retired member due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The last point is noteworthy, in that the military is committed to making sure retirees receive spousal benefits without conflicting with the limitations of DOMA.

Still, as Sandeen points out on her own post, the hurdles for the gender change are somewhat extensive. The requirement that a trans person complete gender reassignment surgery is problematic because not all trans people want to get such surgery — particularly given sterilization is a consequence — and many cannot afford it. Further, the required birth certificate change is simply not allowed in all states.

Clearly, there are still many changes that need to made to allow trans people full inclusion in military service and the associated benefits, but this is a step in the right direction.

The Missouri legislature has allowed an anti-bullying bill (HB 134) to die, and its Republican sponsor is blaming her gay colleagues for killing it. For all of the effective anti-bullying measures Rep. Sue Allen’s bill included, it specifically banned the creation of enumerated lists of identities to protect, such as sexual orientation and gender identity. Enumerating protections has helped guarantee that anti-LGBT bullying does not go unreported, but according to Allen, they’re too “partisan”:

I typically try to keep partisanship out of my message, but this is an issue for the Democrats who wish for certain students (GLBT –gay, lesbian, bisexual, & transgender) to be “enumerated” within school policies. [...]

What “they” don’t seem to understand is that any stronger policies help ALL students, even those they would have categorized.

So….it seems some people care more about arguing points to make some students more protected when what they’ve really done is to NO better protect ANY student.

The “they” Allen refers to are openly gay lawmakers Sen. Jolie Justus (D) and Rep. Mike Colona (D), who Allen encourages her supporters to contact and blame for the bill’s failure.

Allen clearly does not understand the purpose and function of enumerating groups, calling it “discriminatory” to specify some groups for students and not others. Speaking with the Riverfront Times, she added, “Why are we always segregating?” Of course, enumerating groups does nothing of the sort; instead, it ensures that groups known to be targeted for bullying are specifically listed so that such harassment can be more easily identified. No student is excluded from a bullying policy because they don’t belong to one of the enumerated groups; instead, the groups serve to raise awareness about forms of bullying that are already problematic.

It would also be different if Allen’s bill simply did not address enumerate groups, but it specifically bans them. The only purpose for such a limitation is to ensure protections for the LGBT community are never extended. This is particularly problematic given the incredibly high rates of anti-LGBT bullying that take place in Missouri. According to GLSEN’s 2011 National School Climate Survey, 94 percent of Missouri students regularly hear homophobic language like “fag” and “dyke” at school, and 83 percent of LGBT students have experience harassment or assault for their sexual orientation. These are rates far higher than national averages.

With a bullying epidemic like that, Allen should better appreciate that enumerating protections to groups like LGBT students would actually better protect all students. Instead, she’s encouraging people to bully her gay colleagues for wanting to fix her problematic bill.

Portugal has offered marriage equality to same-sex couples since 2010, but until now had not allowed those couple to adopt each other’s children. Today, the Portuguese Parliament passed a bill 99-94 to allow adoption, ending the discrepancy in what it means for same-sex couples to be married. Portugal is one of the few countries in the world that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution. (HT: Joe.My.God.)

Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman is facing two lawsuits for refusing to provide the flowers for a same-sex wedding in violation of Washington law, but now she has filed a countersuit with support from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom. The suit claims that Stutzman is entitled to religious conscience protections that allow her to ignore nondiscrimination protections, as ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt attempted to explain to WorldNetDaily:

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

ADF reports the Washington State Constitution uniquely protects the rights of conscience and religion, and the countersuit argues that Ferguson is “constitutionally precluded from compelling Stutzman to use her artistic skill to personally craft expressive floral arrangements” for a same-sex ceremony when it violates her religious beliefs and her conscience to do so, “particularly when there are many other florists willing, ready, and able to create floral arrangements” for such ceremonies.

Some lawmakers are trying to pass a law to justify discrimination in this way. When a staffer for one of those representatives was asked what a rural gay couple should do if all the local grocery stores refuse to serve them, he said “gay people can just grow their own food.” The fact that there may be other florists is irrelevant. Before the end of segregation, there may have been other lunch counters willing to serve African Americans, but that doesn’t mean the discrimination by some was not still a problem.

ADF isn’t wrong that the Washington Constitution refers to religious conscience protections, but Schowengerdt didn’t reference the entire provision:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

In other words, the state’s conscience protections are not without limits — they don’t justify violating the law or discriminating against an entire segment of the population. Stutzman’s case has clearly become a cause célèbre for conservatives, but by doubling down on defending her with a countersuit, ADF is making it quite clear that their intentions have little to do with protecting religion and everything to do with justifying anti-gay discrimination. As recent marriage equality votes in state legislatures have demonstrated, ADF’s argument isn’t very convincing.

Welcome to The Morning Pride, ThinkProgress LGBT’s daily round-up of the latest in LGBT policy, politics, and some culture too! Here’s what we’re reading this morning, but please let us know what stories you’re following as well. Follow us all day on Twitter at @TPEquality.

- Today is the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO). The above map shows the most inclusive (green) and anti-LGBT countries in Europe.

- A Nevada Assembly Committee has advanced a constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriage.

- The Puerto Rico Senate has approved a sweeping LGBT nondiscrimination bill.

- LGBT groups are challenging Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) to include same-sex couples in his new push for adoption.

- Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) points out that “the sky has not fallen” and “the earth has not opened up to swallow us up” because of marriage equality.

- Minnesota Republicans are not going to try to overturn the same-sex marriage law.

- A New Mexico Catholic school is demanding that a trans-masculine student wear a female gown to graduation.

- Openly gay former Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) will marry his partner on Saturday in DC.

- Glee‘s Matthew Morrison is HRC’s latest “American for Marriage Equality.”

- Uma Thurman will portray anti-gay activist Anita Bryant.

- Jason Collins and his brother Jarron joked about his coming out experience with Jimmy Kimmel.

- Watch an IDAHO flashmob from Gay Star News:

This week , Louisiana State University held its first-ever Lavender Graduation, honoring LGBT seniors. Similar ceremonies have been held for students across the country for over two decades, recognizing them for “not only their achievements but for surviving their college years.” But at LSU, this simple ceremony is riling conservatives like those at CampusReform.org who don’t believe LGBT students deserve any special recognition:

Caleb Covington, a sophomore at LSU, told Campus Reform that due to the school’s tight fiscal position and he believes it is unfair for school funds to be used for one group’s graduation ceremony.

“It sounds fiscally unsound to fund any other grad ceremonies aside our own. It’s nice that they are making an effort to make LGBT students feel welcome but at the same time it’s somewhat unfair to many other groups who want to have their own private graduation ceremonies,” he said. “It’s also not also in the spirit of budget cutting that we should probably be having right now.”

It’s important to note that the funding came from a budget in the campus’s Office of Multicultural Affairs specifically set aside for supporting LGBT students. A similar ceremony is also held at LSU for African-American students who are graduating, as is similarly the case on other campuses.

Many college campuses continue to have chilly climates for LGBT students, yet it is also a time when many young people come out for the first time. LSU is a school with limited resources available to counteract that climate — in fact, it has never even participated in the Campus Climate Index, which evaluates LGBT-inclusive policies at universities. LGBT students clearly face a unique set of challenges while in college, so to suggest that they do not deserve recognition using funding specifically set aside for just that purpose is simply an attempt to force them back into the closet. Lavender Graduation champions students for doing just the opposite.

Watch a local news report about the supposed “controversy” from WBRZ:

As state legislatures around the country move to enact marriage equality and civil unions, an anti-gay Christian legal and policy coalition calling itself the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has become a ubiquitous presence at committee hearings. But their misleading testimony in defense of the right to discriminate has done virtually nothing to advance their cause — and may even undermine it.

As the Delaware Senate debated a marriage equality bill earlier this month, opponents brought ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence to the floor to offer testimony. Lorence noted a case in New Mexico (a state which don’t even allow same-sex marriage), in which an anti-gay vendor had faced legal action after violating state civil rights laws, and suggested that he believes such public accommodations laws are unconstitutional. “It’s the business owners that deal with weddings. It’s licensed professionals having their licenses threatened because they believe the wrong things about marriage,” he told the Senators.

Delaware state Sen. Dave Sokola (D), lead Senate sponsor of the bill, told ThinkProgress that Lorence’s right-to-discriminate arguments actually helped solidify support for the bill:

We had recently added “sexual orientation” to our non-discrimination statute in 2009, and debated and passed Civil Unions just 2 years ago. Even with a large turn-over in both the House and Senate, this issue was very fresh in many of our minds. Equality Delaware did a tremendous outreach to all, with a special emphasis on our newer legislators, so there was sufficient understanding of the matter, and I do think he just firmed up the positions of all on the prevailing side. We also now have a 4-year track record of how Delaware businesses are doing with respect to this, and the predictions of our opponents have not come true since we enacted either of the previous bills. The facts have significantly diminished their credibility.

Lorence also made this argument to the Delaware House of Representatives. Sokola’s House counterpart, Rep. Melanie Smith (D), told ThinkProgress: “I believe he was mistaken in much of what he said and misrepresented the bill significantly.” She added that as far as she knew, “no votes were swayed by his testimony.” The bill passed both chambers and was signed into law by Gov. Jack Markell (D).

Lorence also offered similar testimony in 2011 before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee, warning that “small businesses that decline to serve or participate in same-sex ceremonies could be sued for discrimination by a public accommodation,” ignoring the fact that Maryland law had prohibited such discrimination since 2001. The committee recommended the bill and voters enacted the law last year. Read more

Former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis told ThinkProgress this week that they support marriage equality. With their endorsements, every living former Democratic presidential nominee is now on record in support of same-sex marriage.

Every other living Democratic nominee had previously made their support explicit.

The list includes:

• 1. Former President Jimmy Carter (1976 and 1980). Carter said last year “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things — he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.”
• 2. Former Vice President Walter Mondale (1984). Mondale, who invoked civil rights legend Hubert Humphrey as he campaigned against last year’s proposed Minnesota marriage inequality amendment, said in an e-mail that he not both “opposed the constitutional amendment that would prevent legalizing gay marriage and I supported the legalization of gay marriage adopted this past week in Minnesota.
• 3. Former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis (1988). Dukakis confirmed his support to ThinkProgress in a May 12 e-mail.
• 4. Former President Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996). Clinton announced his support for marriage equality in 2009 and has actively campaigned for it since. Clinton had previously signed the anti-gay 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
• 5. Former Vice President Al Gore (2000). Gore delivered a “forceful endorsement” of marriage equality in 2008, saying “gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women — to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage.”
• 6. Secretary of State John Kerry (2004). Kerry told the blog Blue Mass Group in 2008 that he “absolutely” supported civil marriage equality. He explained his evolution in a 2011 Boston Globe op-ed entitled “Politicians have the right to evolve on gay marriage.”
• 7. President Barack Obama (2008 and 2012). President Obama made his historic announcement one year ago, telling ABC’s Robin Roberts: “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

Former Senator George McGovern (D-SD), the 1972 Democratic nominee, also endorsed marriage equality prior to his death last year. He told the Daily Republic last May: “I’m a ‘conservative’ when it comes to marriage. I think if two people love each other, are living together and having sex, they ought to get married.”

To date, no living Republican nominee or president has endorsed same-sex marriage.

AARP strives to serve the interests of all people over the age of 50, and that includes members of the LGBT community. The organization has a webpage dedicated to AARP Pride, with resources related to issues like marriage equality’s legal benefits, nondiscrimination protections in nursing homes, and unique health concerns like HIV. Because of AARP’s inclusiveness, the American Family Association is specifically targeting the retirement group for contributing money to the “homosexual agenda.” AFA Executive Vice President Buddy Smith offered this warning:

SMITH: When you reach the age of a person like myself and you begin to get information from the AARP saying that they will represent you and your values and standards, you’d better be careful. This group is a very, very powerful Washington lobby, and you just may be very surprised and disappointed to see those things that they are promoting and those things they are opposing.

Be very careful that you know what your fees are going for because the AARP is not on your side. If you are a Christian and believe in Biblical values, you can pretty much count on the fact that everything that you are in favor of, the AARP is opposing.

LGBT older adults face many unique challenges, especially in regards to their very economic well-being. Because of discrimination and alienation throughout their lifetime, as well as their inability to claim partner benefits like Social Security, LGBT older adults are much more likely to be living in isolation and poverty. It makes perfect sense that AARP would recognize that a segment of its constituency experiences particularly troubling circumstances and could use additional support. Conservatives, like AFA’s own Bryan Fischer, have long claimed that gay men die early because of HIV and other supposed consequences of “homosexual behavior,” so perhaps Smith thinks AARP should be a straights-only organization because he believes it already is.

If AARP is supporting the “homosexual agenda,” then that agenda is merely survival.

The Texas House has approved a bill that would allow student organizations at any of the state’s public universities to willfully violate nondiscrimination policies and refuse membership to whomever they choose.  According to the amendment from Rep. Matt Krause (R), student organizations deny membership to students according to the following criteria:

(1) who demonstrates opposition to the organization’s stated beliefs and purposes; or

(2) whose membership in the organization: (A) would affect in a significant way the organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints; or (B) is designed for the subversive intent of undermining the organization’s ability to assemble for its stated purposes.

Hypothetically, this language could be used to discriminate against any student. If a student organization doesn’t like an individual for whatever reason, they could simply claim that he or she doesn’t represent the group’s “viewpoints.” This would allow discrimination based on any characteristic, including even race. Krause’s target, though, is clearly the LGBT community; earlier this year he offered a different bill that would have cut funding for any university that doesn’t allow discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Similar legislation passed in Virginia and Tennessee also considered such measures, though none passed.

These measures all stem from religious organizations’ attempts to discriminate against students because they are gay. Krause’s, like the others, specifically references these religious groups as needing special protections for their freedoms of speech and association. Some conservatives even fear — as is evident in Krause’s language — that gay or atheist students, for example, will infiltrate these groups to compromise their missions. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this has ever happened anywhere, nor is it even a realistic possibility.

Student organizations receive funding from student fees, and thus all students who pay fees should have access to them. These clubs have enough independence to elect student leaders that will uphold the organization’s mission without needing to violate nondiscrimination statements. If Krause’s amendment is passed into law, students at universities will pay for services they then do not have access to. Though he claims in its language that it helps “promote diversity of thought and the marketplace of ideas,” it will have the exact opposite effect.

Welcome to The Morning Pride, ThinkProgress LGBT’s daily round-up of the latest in LGBT policy, politics, and some culture too! Here’s what we’re reading this morning, but please let us know what stories you’re following as well. Follow us all day on Twitter at @TPEquality.

- Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) is fighting for equal benefits for married gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers and veterans.

- Fox News largely ignored the marriage equality victories in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota.

- It looks like the Texas legislature is taking up some anti-LGBT legislation before the session ends.

- Princeton and Syracuse have joined the growing number of universities ensuring their employee health plans include transition-related coverage for people who might be transgender.

- The National Organization for Marriage will have a tough case to make if it does sue the IRS for leaking its tax return, seeing as how its former chair, Maggie Gallagher, believes it was a low-level employee who was duped, not engaging in criminal behavior.

- More than 20 percent of same-sex couples now live in states where they can marry; in 2009 it was only about 5 percent.

- LISTEN: Homophobe Richard P. Sheridan is not happy that he lost his election for Dallas City Council — really not happy.

- Meet Kevin Grayson, another out NFL prospect.

A group of ex-gay therapy advocates are objecting to a proposed ban on the treatment for minors in New Jersey, claiming that such a law would help protect pedophiles. The so-called “Citizens Against the Jerry Sandusky Victimization Act” has been organized by the New Jersey Family Policy Council — not surprising given the group’s past president is Greg Quinlan, who identifies as ex-gay and is also president of the ex-gay advocacy group PFOX. The committee believes that homosexuality can be caused by sexual abuse, and thus if minors are not allowed to receive therapy to change their orientation, they’ll be less likely to report abuse they receive.

Ex-gay therapist Christopher Doyle, who works with infamously disavowed therapist Richard Cohen at the so-called International Healing Foundation, is also a member of this “Citizens” group. This week he told American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios that if New Jersey’s bill banning ex-gay therapy passes, “more Jerry Sanduskys will get off scot-free“:

DOYLE: What we’re trying to communicate to the press was gay activists are indoctrinating young people to believe that they’re born that way, that they’re born gay. And if young people believe that they’re born gay because of the gay activist indoctrination they will not seek a professional counselor to try to figure out why they have same-sex attractions. Many times, in fact about half of the clients that I have in my client list right now, have experienced sexual abuse, lots of them by pedophiles such as Jerry Sandusky. So if they’re never going to go and seek help for their unwanted same-sex attractions, which are a symptom of that trauma, then the Jerry Sanduskys of the world will not be discovered, they will not be reported by professional counselors. Kids won’t tell their parents they were molested because the kids are going to think, ‘Hey I’m born this way and my sex abuse didn’t have anything to do with my same-sex attractions,’ and then there you go — more Jerry Sanduskys will get off scot-free.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Doyle has previously claimed that there is no data available about the outcomes of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) for adolescents, a point he does not realize is a compelling argument against offering the treatment. There is also no evidence to substantiate any link between sexual abuse and sexual orientation — if anything, such claims only serve to prey on the vulnerability of young people who have been traumatized. In contrast, research continues to verify the unchangeable biological and genetic components of sexual orientation.

Besides the point that ex-gay therapy and its accompanying claims have no scientific merit, Doyle’s argument actually undermines his own espoused goal. If he truly believes that having an unwanted same-sex orientation is the only reason to report sexual abuse, then he also inherently believes homosexuality is the only consequence of sexual abuse. This disregards the very real trauma and very real consequences that actually result from abuse. It’s simply an absurd idea that if kids are okay with their sexual orientations that they’ll somehow just shrug off the abuse they experience.

A New Jersey Senate committee has advanced the proposed ban on ex-gay therapy for minors, and Gov. Chris Christie (R) has even indicated willingness to sign it should it pass out of the legislature. A similar ban passed in California has been suspended pending legal challenges from the ex-gay network NARTH and other anti-gay groups.

Another bakery in Oregon has refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple for their commitment ceremony. Erin Hanson and Katie Pugh reached out to Fleur Cakes for a wedding cake for their celebration near Mt. Hood, but owner Pam Regentin made it quite clear she would not serve them because they are a same-sex couple. KATU News reporter Dan Cassuto reached Regentin by phone to confirm she understood she was clearly violating Oregon’s nondiscrimination law:

CASSUTO: Pam, are you aware that it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation if you have a business that serves the public.

REGENTIN: I believe that I have the liberty to live by my principles.

Watch the news segment:

The story parallels a similar instance of discrimination from earlier this year, when Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to provide a same-sex couple a cake because “marriage is a religious institution ordained by God.” The Oregon Labor Bureau is still processing a complaint filed by that couple.

Both these cases highlight how so-called “religious liberty” actually has nothing to do with marriage equality, because same-sex marriages are not even legally recognized in Oregon. The distinction between whether a business will serve a gay customer and whether a business will serve a gay marrying couple is insignificant, because either way, it’s discrimination based on sexual orientation. A Washington florist tried to make this same distinction, and now faces lawsuits from both the customers she refused service to and the state attorney general.

Two new polls show continued momentum for marriage equality in the states of Michigan and Virginia.

According to results from The Detroit News and WDIV-TV Channel 4, 56.8 percent of Michigan voters now support the freedom to marry — up 12.5 percent from last year — while just 36.7 percent oppose it. At least 65 percent favor some form of civil unions, but those are also banned by the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage. Apparently, 54 percent would be prepared to vote to repeal that ban. A November poll similarly found that 56 percent support equality, while a poll from last May found only 41 percent approval. These various results suggest a significant sea change in Michigan over the past year on this issue.

Virginia has also experienced significant progress. A new Washington Post poll shows that 56 percent support marriage equality —  up 10 points from two years ago — while 43 percent remain opposed. A series of recent posts have shown mixed results in Virginia, such as two polls last month that only found 45 percent for the freedom to marry, while an October poll found 49 percent support. Many of these polls found higher support for civil unions or other forms of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.