ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

Alyssa

What Baylor University And Brittney Griner Tell Us About What It Means To Be “Out Of The Closet”

Brittney Griner, the Baylor University basketball star who made headlines this spring both when Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban offered her a tryout to see if she’d be able to play competitively in the National Basketball Association rather than the WNBA—she ultimately signed with the Phoenix Mercury, a women’s team—and then when she confirmed that she’d always been open about her sexual orientation—she is gay—with people who knew her in person, even in Baylor’s observantly Christian environment. Now, in an a pair of interviews with ESPN, Griner explains that even though she was able to be personally out of the closet, the women’s basketball team encouraged her to keep the story from going national during her career:

In a series of interviews — including one on camera Friday — for an ESPN The Magazine and espnW.com story set to hit newsstands later this month, Griner said her silence during college was because Mulkey and her staff were concerned about the program’s image.

“It was more of a unwritten law [to not discuss your sexuality] … it was just kind of, like, one of those things, you know, just don’t do it,” Griner said Friday. “They kind of tried to make it, like, ‘Why put your business out on the street like that?’”

But Griner reiterated on Friday that her sexuality was an open secret at Baylor.

“I told Coach [Mulkey] when she was recruiting me. I was like, ‘I’m gay. I hope that’s not a problem,’ and she told me that it wasn’t,” Griner said. “I mean, my teammates knew, obviously they all knew. Everybody knew about it.”

It’s unfortunate that Baylor basically told Griner that her sexual orientation was no big deal—as long as, by their definition, she didn’t make it that way. And her experience raises interesting questions about what it means for a person to be out of the closet, particularly if their lives are bifurcated between their personal social experiences and a national role.

Baylor’s question, as Griner phrased it, “Why put your business out on the street like that?” speaks to the difference beween so-called tolerance and actual acceptance of LGBTQ people. In the absence of confirmation that someone is gay, they’re assumed to be straight, in part because that’s an assumption that makes people who have little experience with gay people more comfortable. Heterosexuality isn’t “business” that makes anti-gay people uncomfortable to encounter. It’s a neutral default. And because of that assumed neutrality, heterosexuality isn’t something that it’s possible to be “out” about. It’s presumed to be visible even if a theoretically heterosexual person isn’t actually dating someone in a way that publicly confirms their sexual orientation. Heterosexuality can only be disproved. Homosexuality or bisexuality, by contrast, aren’t necessarily visible to a casual observer who chooses not to see the possibility that a figure like Griner could be gay. But that LGBTQ people have to confirm their sexual orientations, at this point, says as much about outsiders who assume they must be straight as it does about LGBTQ people themselves.

And it’s that dynamic that upsets the long-established narrative of coming out particularly for public figures. If Griner was out to her friends, family, and potential partners at Baylor, is the fact that a national audience didn’t know or think that she might be gay on her, or on that audience? Coming out has been framed as a triumphal process, both for the person who finally gets to acknowledge their true identity in public after suffering under pressure to hide, and for people who benefit from the knowledge that there are happy gay people in, say, college sports. But conversely, there’s something frustrating about the idea that Griner, who was out to people who know her in real life already, has to inform a national audience who assumed she was straight by lazy default that, no, actually, she’s gay. It’s great that Griner’s willing to use her experience to educate a national audience about what it’s like for a talented gay woman to coexist with an institution that has openly homophobic statements of principals on its books. But that her experience still seems novel enough to merit news coverage says less about her courage, and more about the lack of imagination of viewers at home who hadn’t bothered to think about Baylor’s treatment of gay and potentially gay players until Griner stepped forward.

Conservatives Are Okay With Gay Scouts If They Stay Closeted

This week, the Boy Scouts of America National Council will finally vote on whether to amend its policy to allow gay Scouts, though it would still prohibit gay Scout leaders. Conservatives continue to eagerly argue that maintaining the complete ban on homosexuality is important for “protecting” Scouts as well as the religious faith of the many churches that sponsor troops, though many people of faith support equality in Scouting too. But last week, the Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse presented this interesting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” interpretation of the ban:

Finally, an important distinction has been lost in the current debate. The Boy Scouts’ long-standing policy does not, by its terms or in practice, exclude people who experience same-sex attraction. Rather, the prohibition is on “open and avowed” homosexuality, and it is that prohibition which will be lifted if the resolution passes.

In other words, it’s apparently okay to be a gay Scout — it’s just not okay to acknowledge it. The problem isn’t whether there’s someone gay in a troop, but whether people in the troop actually learn anything about the existence of gay people. In contrast, multiple studies have shown that coming out is actually good for individuals’ health. Honesty to one’s self, friends, family, and community also embodies the Scout virtue of being trustworthy.

This argument actually compromises conservatives’ many claims about gay men being sex-obsessed pedophiles. Instead, it reflects an assumption that sexual identity should be denied or repressed, framed by Ruse’s plea to Catholic church sponsors to oppose the change. It’s basically an admission that opposition to lifting the ban has little to do with “protecting” anybody and more to do with maintaining religion-fueled animus against people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Indeed, this approach jibes with how the Catholic Church tries to simply deny the existence of gay people.

By trying to posit both arguments simultaneously, the Family Research Council and other conservative groups demonstrate that they have no legitimate reasons for discriminating against gay Scouts. They support discrimination simply because they support anti-gay stigma.

New York City Rocked By Hate Crime Murder And Spate Of Anti-Gay Violence

(Credit: Joe.My.God.)

Late Friday night, a gunman claiming to be the Newtown shooter chased after 32-year-old Mark Carson through the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City shouting homophobic slurs at him, and ultimately shot him in the face. Carson was pronounced dead upon arrival at Beth Israel Medical Center. After an ensuing policing chase, the suspect was taken into custody and later identified as 33-year-old Elliot Morales, who has previously spent ten years in prison for robbery.

On Saturday, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly explained that “this clearly looks to be a hate crime.” There have already been 22 bias-related crimes reported in New York City this year, a sharp increase over 13 such crimes during the same period last year. Carson’s murder was the fifth incident this month alone. Earlier this month, a same-sex couple walking arm-in-arm were brutally beaten in broad daylight just outside Madison Square Garden by a group of men calling them faggots.

Hundreds attended a midnight candlelight vigil Saturday night, where speakers repeatedly implored the crowd to “Say his name!” prompting a response of “Mark Carson, Mark Carson, MARK CARSON!” This afternoon, the city’s LGBT Community Center has organized a march and rally in response to Carson’s death and the spate of hate crimes against gay men.

Watch a video of Saturday night’s vigil (via Joe.My.God.):

The Morning Pride: May 20, 2013

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.

Anti-gay Orthodox Christians challenge police at Georgia's march against homophobia. (Credit: AFP)

- French President François Hollande has signed marriage equality into law.

- A Texas gay couple has been separated after the sister of the partner with Alzheimer’s claimed guardianship even though they had power of attorney for each other; she then evicted the healthy partner from his house because they still had three years left on paying their mortgage.

- The 2013 Human Rights Watch “Hall of Shame” includes the anti-LGBT American Center for Law and Justice as several other homophobic groups abroad.

- The coalition that supported marriage equality in Minnesota, Minnesotans United for All Families, will continue its work, protecting supportive lawmakers from conservative election challenges.

- The Missouri Senate advanced an anti-discrimination bill with a 19-11, including nine Republicans, but it died in the House.

- Though Discover cards are often used to support the discriminating Boy Scouts of America, the credit card company says that “discriminatory practices are inconsistent” with its values.

- The New Mexico transgender student who was told he’d have to wear a female robe at his Catholic high school graduation has chosen not to walk.

- A Scottish trans woman was banned from using the ladies’ room at a shopping center in clear violation of the Equality Act 2010, which bars discrimination based on gender reassignment.

- Over 70 percent of Russians oppose any attempts to justify or publicly display same-sex relations.

- A march marking the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia in the nation of Georgia was interrupted by thousands of Orthodox anti-gay activists, injuring 28 people in the process.

- Glee‘s Alex Newell (“Unique”) kicked off the New York AIDS Walk 2013 this weekend with a rousing performance of “I Know Where I’ve Been” from Hairspray:

What’s Next For Kaitlyn Hunt, The Teen Charged With A Felony For Same-Sex Relationship With Classmate

Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Indian River County Sheriff's Office)

On Friday night, 18-year-old Kaitlyn Hunt and her family went public with their story: Kaitlyn was charged with a felony stemming from a relationship she had with a 15-year-old girl at her high school. The response in the 48-hours that followed, Kaitlyn’s father Steven Hunt told ThinkProgress in an interview, was “extraordinary.”

Already, nearly 40,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Assistant State Attorney, Brian Workman, to drop the case. On Facebook, more than 13,000 people have joined a group — Free Kate — in support of the family.

Last week, her father said, Workman offered Kaitlyn a plea bargain. She could plead guilty to child abuse, a felony, and spend two years under house arrest. The judge would determine if she would have to register as a sex offender. They were given a deadline of May 24th to accept the offer or face trial.

Kaitlyn’s father suggests his daughters arrest — and the substantial sentence sought by the prosecutor — are motivated by anti-gay bias. He told ThinkProgress that the younger girl’s parents have told teachers at the high school that “their daughter will NOT be gay.”

So what’s next for Kaitlyn?

The family is hoping that public pressure will improve the offer from the State Attorney. Her father said Kaitlyn would be willing to plead to a misdemeanor, but not a felony. If the position of the State Attorney does not change, Kaitlyn and her family are prepared to go to trial.

The family’s attorney, Julia Graves, has assembled a table of experienced defense lawyers that will convene next week to discuss Kaitlyn’s legal options. Meanwhile, Kaitlyn is scheduled to appear in court again on June 20. At that time, if a plea agreement is not reached, the judge could set a date for trial.

Florida Teen Expelled, Charged With Felony For Lesbian Relationship

Kaitlyn Hunt (Credit: Free Kate Facebook Page)

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 about three years younger. According to an account posted to Facebook by Kaitlyn’s mother, in February, shortly 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 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.

Pentagon Establishes Process For Transgender Veterans To Change Gender Records

Autumn Sandeen protesting Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

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.

Justice

Texas Judge Forbids Lesbian Woman From Living With Her Partner


Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.

And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.

Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriously conservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court.

Missouri Lawmaker Blames Gay Colleagues For Killing Bullying Bill

Missouri Rep. Sue Allen (R)

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.

Immigration

Anti-Immigrant Leader Trashes Rubio With Homophobic Slur

(Credit: AP)

A top anti-immigration advocate referred to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) using a homophobic slur during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show on Thursday.

Mark Krikorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, argued that Rubio is critical to building Republican support for reform, but is either misleading lawmakers about the bill or is unaware of the provisions included in the measure.

“Without Rubio, there is no bill, I mean, it just can’t happen,” Krikorian said, “because Rubio’s job basically was to be the beard for this bill.” The phrase “beard” became popularized in the 1960s to describe a woman helping a man hide his homosexuality.

The Center for Immigration Studies was established by John Tanton, a strict a nativist who once wrote a paper titled “The Case for Passive Eugenics” and has openly professed his preference for white people. CIS has produced reports with racist undertones and Krikorian himself has jokingly suggested that immigrants are responsible for the subprime mortgage meltdown.

In 2007, he accepted an invitation to speak at the Michigan State University chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, a group that had posted “Gays Spread AIDS” fliers across campus.

Portugal Expands Marriage Equality To Include Same-Sex Adoption

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.)

  • Comment Icon

Washington Florist Countersues For Religious Right To Discriminate

Barronelle Stutzman

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.

  • Comment Icon

The Morning Pride: May 17, 2013

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:

  • Comment Icon

Louisiana LGBT Graduation Ceremony Riles Critics Who Think It’s A Waste Of Money

Students at LSU's Lavender Graduation (Credit: Chelsea Brasted, NOLA.com)

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:

  • Comment Icon

Alyssa

Outspoken LGBT Advocate Chris Kluwe Signs With Oakland Raiders

(Credit: Getty Images)

Chris Kluwe, the National Football League punter who has been an outspoken advocate for LGBT equality both inside and outside sports, announced Thursday that he will sign a one-year contract with the Oakland Raiders. Kluwe played the previous eight seasons for the Minnesota Vikings before being cut earlier this month after the Vikings selected a punter in the 5th round of April’s NFL Draft.

Kluwe, incidentally, is moving from one state that just passed marriage equality (Minnesota) to one where same-sex marriage is still illegal (California), and he told fellow LGBT ally Brendon Ayanbadejo that he will remain an advocate for LGBT rights when he joins the Raiders, Ayanbadejo wrote on FOXSports.com:

Kluwe is known for his mind and mouth, as well as his leg. He is a vocal advocate of equality in sports (and life), and says he will continue to speak for what he believes.

“I’m still going to be myself socially and continue to tweet and interact with my fans,” Kluwe said.

Kluwe and Ayanbadejo were both released by their teams this spring, immediately fueling speculation around the sports world that their advocacy had been a factor in the teams’ decisions. Even Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) weighed in when Kluwe was cut, saying, “Yeah, I don’t feel good about it,” an implication that Kluwe’s outspokenness played a role in his release. Others raised similar questions when the Baltimore Ravens released Ayanbadejo.

Though Ayanbadejo remains unsigned, Kluwe’s new contract should put those concerns to rest. The reality is that the release of both players looked more like business decisions — Kluwe was due $1.45 million in 2013, nearly $1 million more than the Vikings will pay his rookie replacement. Ayanbadejo, meanwhile, was an aging 36-year-old linebacker who primarily played special teams, and considering that the Ravens handed out a record contract to quarterback Joe Flacco, his $940,000 salary at an easy-to-replace position made him expendable (he was hardly the only prominent Raven to fall victim to cost-cutting this offseason).

And as as Cyd Zeigler argued at OutSports when the Vikings cut Kluwe, immediate speculation without evidence that advocacy played a role in their releases can be counterproductive to the cause they are pushing, Ayanbadejo, Kluwe, and other players have fought to make the NFL a more open and inclusive place both for advocates of LGBT rights and for gay players. But painting football as a place where those voices still aren’t welcome, where speaking out carries the penalty of losing one’s job, only encourages allies to remain quiet and gay players to stay in the closet. And it ignores the progress the league as made. Despite hiccups along the way, the NFL has indeed become a more open place: not only are Kluwe and Ayanbadejo speaking out, but so are both NFL Players Association president Dominque Foxworth and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and the league has strengthened its efforts to rid the game of discrimination and homophobia.

If evidence existed that Kluwe and Ayanbadejo’s advocacy played a role in either situation, it should be publicized, shamed, and subject to the league’s non-discrimination policy. It’s far more likely, though, that Kluwe and Ayanbadejo were cut because football, as Zeigler explained, “is a numbers game.” Making legitimate business decisions doesn’t make a football team discriminatory, and treating legitimate business decisions as discriminatory only ensures that football will remain in the shadows of tolerance for far longer than it should.

  • Comment Icon

The Losing Arguments Of Anti-LGBT ‘Alliance Defending Freedom’

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

  • Comment Icon

Health

Why Criminalizing Teen Sexuality Isn’t The Best Way To Keep Our Youth Safe

(Credit: USA Today)

This month, West Virginia became the latest state to ban teen sexting. Under the state’s new law, minors are barred from making, having, or distributing material that portrays another minor in an “inappropriate sexual manner.” Those who come in violation of the law will be charged with “an act of delinquency” and, instead of being faced with criminal charges, will be required to enroll in an educational program to learn more about the potential long-term consequences of sexting.

West Virginia law already prohibited adults from sexting with minors — a situation that represents a clear abuse of power, and can fall under child pornography charges. The new measure goes further to restrict this type of sexual activity among peers. “I think it’s long overdue,” one parent told a local NBC affiliate. “I think [sexting] gets our [nation's] kids in a lot of trouble, gets them active in sex way earlier than they should be.”

That attitude is likely mirrored in the other states across the country that have imposed some legislation to address youth sexting. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 20 states have enacted some kind of teen sexting measure. Some legislative pushes in this area have been a response to incidences of cyberbullying, and hope to prevent teens from distributing explicit photos in a way that is intended to cause emotional harm. The anti-sexting laws range from requiring schools to distribute educational materials about the dangers of sexting, to fining high schoolers for being in possession of an explicit photo on their cell phone, to serving teens with a misdemeanor change for texting a sexual image of themselves.

Of course, it’s incredibly important to make teens aware of the long-term consequences of their actions, encourage healthy sexual behavior, and crack down on cyberbullying. But punishing teens for their sexual activity isn’t necessarily the best way to go about accomplishing any of those goals. First of all, despite the media’s consistent hand-wringing over the perils of new technology and the corruption of American youth, sexting is not actually an inherently dangerous sexual activity. It’s not necessarily correlated to other types of more “deviant” behavior, either. And ultimately, sexting bans don’t proactively encourage teens to safeguard their sexual health.

That’s because this type of legislation doesn’t help foster a culture in which teens grow up learning how to respect themselves and others, make responsible choices, and honor their sexual partners’ consent. Instead, anti-sexting laws simply further the pervasive attitude that expressions of teen sexuality are always dangerous and shameful. As the failures of abstinence education programs have already demonstrated, stigmatizing sexual expression isn’t actually an effective way to keep teens safe, since it doesn’t encourage them to practice healthy behavior or feel comfortable enough to ask questions. And, if teachers and principals are empowered to confiscate students’ phones to investigate potential illegal behavior, anti-sexting laws could also create a high school environment where every teen is automatically a suspect.

Read more

  • Comment Icon

Mondale, Dukakis Back Marriage Equality, Joining Every Living Democratic Presidential Nominee

Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale

Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale

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.

Update

A reader noted that former President Gerald Ford (R) also supported equal rights for same-sex couples before his death, saying in 2001, “I think they ought to be treated equally. Period.”

  • Comment Icon

Conservatives Warn Of AARP’s Support For ‘Homosexual Agenda’

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.

  • Comment Icon

Texas House Passes Higher Education ‘License To Discriminate’

Texas Rep. Matt Krause (R)

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.

  • Comment Icon

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up