Maggie Gallagher, former frontwoman for the National Organization for Marriage, penned a short post Tuesday at the National Review noting that moral approval for both gay sex and unwed childbearing has increased in recent polling. She attributes the correlation to a change in societal attitudes, highlighting that the “Christian views of sex” that have been offered by Chris Broussard and Ben Carson are now considered “scandalous.” She then asserts that people should find ways to be pro-straight without being anti-gay:

I personally still cherish the hope that we can as a society eliminate cruel homophobia without jettisoning heteronormativity — which is the need for social norms and institutions to be oriented strongly around the problem and the blessing that sex between men and women makes babies.

But so far, the disconnect between sex, marriage, and babies proceeds rapidly apace.

There are two problems with Gallagher’s argument. At a basic level, it’s logically impossible to say that heterosexuality is better — or should be the norm — compared to homosexuality without simultaneously stating that homosexuality is worse — or abnormal. Either all people are equal in society or they are not; she cannot have her straights-only wedding cake and eat it stigma-free.

More importantly, the two examples she cites are people with particularly anti-gay attitudes. Broussard said live on ESPN that gay people are “walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ,” then proceeded to not apologize for it. Ben Carson, speaking live on Fox News, compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, then doubled down on it, then only later apologized for his “poorly chosen words.” If Gallagher truly wants to “eliminate cruel homophobia,” perhaps she could start by not defending it.

There are still 29 states where a person can be fired for being gay, but Illinois is not one of them. Nevertheless, it seems that Exxon Mobil attempted to discriminate against a prospective employee in that state merely because the individual identified as gay, instead proactively pursuing a less qualified straight candidate for the same position. This was no mere circumstance, but an intentional experiment run by the organization Freedom to Work, which is now suing Exxon Mobil for violating the Illinois Human Rights Act.

According to the complaint, Freedom to Work began its testing after Exxon Mobil refused to adopt a nondiscrimination policy that included protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Despite the unfair treatment, a spokesman for the oil giant, Charles Engelmann, doubled down on the claim that the company doesn’t discriminate:

ENGELMANN: Exxon Mobil’s global policies and processes prohibit all forms of discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in any company workplace, anywhere in the world. In fact, our policies go well beyond the law and prohibit any form of discrimination.

Exxon Mobil’s actions tell a different story. It has the distinction of being the first company to ever earn a negative score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. Not only do none of its policies protect LGBT employees, but the company also engages in activities that undermine LGBT equality. It claims to have a “Corporate Citizenship Report” with a “zero-tolerance” policy for anti-LGBT discrimination, but that document does not have the same legal force as an actual Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) statement. Mobil had such a statement, but when the two companies merged in 1999, Exxon stripped it away. When shareholders attempted to introduce an LGBT-inclusive EEO statement last year, Exxon Mobil actually tried to block it from coming up for a vote. Though they were unsuccessful at blocking the vote, it was overwhelmingly defeated by 80 percent of shareholders.

If Exxon Mobil believes that its “zero-tolerance” policy truly protects its LGBT employees, this lawsuit might just be the perfect test to find out.

As Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld supported the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” recognizing that the time for open service in the military “had arrived.” In an interview with Larry King, however, Rumsfeld explained that he doesn’t support marriage equality, because he’s concerned it will lead to polygamy. He also doesn’t believe marriage is a civil right:

KING: Do you support same-sex marriage?

RUMSFELD: You know, I’m, I guess, of a generation that I don’t — I wonder — I listened to some of the Supreme Court justices and one of them said, ‘Well what’s next after that? Is it two people, three people?‘

KING: But you were a strong supporter of civil rights in Congress — I remember that.

RUMSFELD: You bet I was, throughout the 60s. I was proud of the work that the Congress did in the 1964 legislation and 1965 legislation. I guess I just don’t equate the two, and it’s not a subject I’m knowledgeable about. I guess the Rumsfeld here is: I don’t know.

Watch it:

A new poll from Vanderbilt University shows that support for legally recognizing same-sex couples continues to grow in Tennessee, but at rates slower than the rest of the country. A 49 percent plurality now support civil unions or marriage equality, while 46 percent remain opposed to both. Still, 62 percent believe that gays and lesbians should receive health insurance and other employee benefits for their partners, while only 31 percent oppose that idea.

A number of anti-gay bills related to education died in the Tennessee legislature this year, but lawmakers did designate August 31 as “ido4life Traditional Marriage Day,” a day committed to condemning same-sex marriage.

The point-blank murder of Mark Carson, who was targeted specifically because he was gay, has shaken the LGBT community nationwide, particularly in New York City. After a vigil Saturday night and huge march on Monday, not one conservative group had yet spoken about the incident. This prompted Daily Kos blogger Scott Wooledge to point out a harsh juxtaposition, noting that mere hours after a shooter opened fire at the Family Research Council in August, wounding a security guard, a large coalition of LGBT groups issued a joint statement condemning the violence. Through his infographics studio Memeographs, he produced the image at right criticizing the anti-gay groups.

Only after its viral distribution did conservative groups begin to issue statements. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage was first, though he tried to distance the homophobia that prompted the crime from the homophobia NOM promotes daily. He also suggested that opponents of marriage equality are equally persecuted:

We condemn in the strongest possible way the murder of a gay man in New York by a killer who apparently hurled anti-gay insults at him moments before the killing. This senseless act cannot be condoned in America or anywhere, and we urge that the perpetrator be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our heart goes out to the family of the victim, and we hold them in our prayers. While this killing appears to have no connection to the current debate about redefining marriage, there is no room for violence toward any American — whether they support traditional marriage or not. No person should be subjected to violence because they are gay or lesbian or because they believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is no place for violence, period.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council followed suit, issuing a statement that was narrowly distributed via email and has since been published:

We denounce any and all acts of unprovoked violence. No American should be the target of violence – period. We hope and trust that justice will be served in that the perpetrator of this senseless act of violence will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Other conservatives were more cruel in their response. Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel chose to chide LGBT activists for politicizing the shooting, tweeting Monday, “That didn’t take long. Let no tragedy go to waste, eh?”He did condemn the murder, describing the murderer not as homophobic, but as psychotic. Of course, he has done plenty to politicize the FRC shooting, using it to target the Southern Poverty Law Center’s labeling of hate groups — a label he once wore as a “badge of honor.”

The American Family Association has yet to say anything about Carson’s murder or the rash of anti-gay hate crimes in New York. Instead, its OneNewsNow service ran a story Tuesday about Christians being persecuted in China. OneNewsNow regularly includes content fed from the Associated Press and outside sources, so it’s likely an editorial decision was made to feature one and not the other.  Violent persecution anywhere is wrong, but it seems AFA, which also attacked the SPLC over the FRC shooting, prioritizes some stories over others.

Homophobia and transphobia stem from notions that LGBT people are weak, less than, deviant, harmful to society, and deserve to be ostracized because of their identities. These are the very messages promoted by these conservative groups, which is why many of them have been labeled as hate groups. That they had to be prodded over several days to condemn a murderous hate crime — and many still haven’t — could indicate a lack of concern about anti-LGBT violence, but it could also suggest a subtle acknowledgment that the rhetoric they promote bears some responsibility in the first place.

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.

- The Peace Corps will now accept applications from same-sex couples who wish to serve overseas together.

- Both President Clinton and President Obama have encouraged Illinois to pass marriage equality.

- Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa’s The FAMiLY Leader explains his opposition to same-sex marriage: “It’s awful.”

- Meet the closeted gay employee serving the Boy Scouts of America full time in silence.

- The British House of Commons voted 366-161 to give final approval to the marriage equality bill after amendments. (It passed the initial bill in February 400-175.) It will proceed to the House of Lords in the coming weeks.

- A new study finds widespread homophobia through the European Union — in school, work, and throughout daily life.

- A new study of Italy’s schools finds that 40 percent of straight students refuse to have gay friends.

- Graduating high school senior Ted Chalfen of Boulder, Colorado, spoke about how rewarding his school experience was because his classmates accepted him when he came out:

A significant point of contention in the immigration reform legislation currently undergoing mark-up in the Senate Judiciary Committee is whether individuals in binational same-sex couples should have the same right to sponsor their partners for citizenship as opposite-sex couples already enjoy. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages and thus extends those couples no immigration benefits. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been adamant about adding these protections to the bill through amendment versions of his Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), but Republicans like Sens. Marco Rubio (FL) and Lindsey Graham (SC) have made it clear the protections are a deal-breaker for reform.

Committee mark-up is nearing its end this week and Leahy’s amendments have still not been introduced. Sources suggest that President Obama encouraged Leahy not to introduce these amendments in committee, but save them for introduction on the floor of the full Senate. Obama has said publicly he believes that including protections for same-sex couples is the right thing to do, but UAFA would likely face an even bigger hurdle on the Senate floor than it would if included with the bill in committee.

Despite Republicans’ threats to let the inclusion of same-sex families derail the entire bill, several of the major conservative groups that support the bill also back UAFA’s protections. Some, like The DOMA Project’s Lavi Soloway, have called out Senate Democrats on the committee for caving to these threats rather than defend the gay community’s inclusion on principle. United Methodist Church Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño has suggested that any Senator willing to walk away from the bill over the inclusion of LGBT families “should be ashamed of themselves.”  In contrast, blogger Bil Browning argues that immigration reform is too important for all LGBT immigrants to worry about specific protections for couples. The legislation does contain some provisions that will especially help LGBT people, including a protection that people cannot be targeted for solitary confinement because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Nevertheless, the absence of UAFA would limit gay, lesbian, and bisexual immigrants to one less path on the roadmap to citizenship. Should the Supreme Court overturn Section 3 of DOMA next month, however, the federal government may be able to recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes.

There are estimated to be at least twenty-four thousand binational same-sex couples in the United States and many will undoubtedly be helped by the bill’s legalization provisions. Countless stories of these families being separated by deportation have permeated the media over the past few years. Republicans are insisting that this should remain the status quo, and it seems they might just have the political leverage to keep it that way.

The ex-gay “professional” organization NARTH has published a new document highlighting its beliefs about homosexuality as a recommendation to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to continue its policy of not permitting gay Scouts. NARTH asserts the following false conclusions:

• A person’s environment can contribute to their sexual orientation. Research suggests this isn’t really true after someone’s born.
• Children experiencing “sexual confusion” can be harmed if encouraged to identify as gay. This is only true for people like NARTH members who believe homosexuality itself is harmful.
• Engaging in homosexual behaviors carries a “significant risk for serious health consequences.” These are largely caused by anti-gay stigma, not homosexuality itself.
• Gay young people are more sexually active than their peers. This is a distortion of data showing that young people’s first sexual experience is with a person of the same sex, not evidence about young people who actually identify as gay.
• Sexual abuse causes homosexuality. This is patently false.

Based on all these assumptions, NARTH warns that allowing gay Scouts would be a threat to other Scouts’ protection:

The most critical question to answer regarding this proposed policy change, however, is: How will child protection be assured? If openly homosexual boys are allowed to participate, how does a Scoutmaster monitor the influence or actions that these boys may have upon others in the troop especially during overnight events? Will equal but segregated facilities be required? This certainly would be the case if the BSA were to alter its policy and admit girls.

As the BSA deliberates a potential change in its membership policy, NARTH encourages the council members to carefully consider the complexities of sexual orientation development reflected in the aforementioned research. Council members must strive to envision the short-term and long-term consequences of any potential decision.

Ex-gay therapists like NARTH represents prey on young people who “struggle with same-sex attractions,” a struggle influenced by a disapproving family or community. Allowing gay Scouts to participate fully in the BSA would both compromise the stigma that they rely on to bring them clients and further disprove many of the claims they make to substantiate their shame-based treatment.

Andrew Walker and Ryan Anderson

The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, a disciple of National Organization for Marriage former chairman Robert George, has become a national spokesperson for opposition to marriage equality. In a new piece for Focus on the Family co-written with Heritage’s Andrew Walker, they make “a Millennial case for marriage,” citing a litany of arguments about the importance of not “redefining marriage.” Strikingly, not one of their arguments actually addresses the lives of gay people, and in turn, not one of their points would actually be compromised by same-sex couples marrying.

Here are some of their claims, many of which derive from an arbitrary definition of marriage that “men and women are different and complementary”:

Children Need To Have Fathers

Borrowing a tactic from NOM, Anderson and Walker invoke President Obama’s concerns about how growing up without a father has a significant negative impact on children.  They conclude, “fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children.” But abandoned single mothers have nothing to do with same-sex couples, and studies about “fatherlessness” do not even include lesbian families in their samples. Heterosexual men deserting their families is a legitimate societal concern, but it has nothing to do with same-sex families.

Children Do Best With A Mother And Father

Without referencing a single citation — not even Mark Regnerus — Anderson and Walker proclaim, “For decades, social science has shown that children tend to do best when reared by their married mother and father.” It may be true that children do better with both of their parents as opposed to only one, but social science has found that committed same-sex couples are just as capable of effectively raising children.

They later acknowledge that a “relatively small number” of gay or lesbian couples “would be” raising children — avoiding the reality that they already are — but offer no thought as to how those families would actually benefit from the protections of marriage outlined throughout the rest of the post.

Men Will No Longer Stay Committed To Their Wives

This continues to be one of the most absurd arguments against marriage equality: “Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children, and for men and women to marry before having children.” Whether men will cheat on their wives has nothing to do with whether same-sex couples can marry.

Marital Norms Will Dissolve

Anderson and Walker’s slippery slope suggests that if marriages were reduced to just “intense emotional regard,” they would not have to be permanent, limited to two people, sexually exclusive, or oriented to raising families. But all of these points are already true of opposite-sex couples: many divorce, some practice polygamy, plenty cheat or are open, and none have any obligation to raise children. This argument also undercuts the important protections that couples themselves gain from marriage through that “intense emotional regard,” particularly as they age. Because they don’t have access to marriage, older same-sex couples struggle economically and face extra hurdles to care for each other.

Marriage Equality Discriminates Against Christians

Somehow marriage equality “further marginalizes those with traditional views and erodes religious liberty.” Anderson and Walker are concerned that people who are prejudiced against same-sex couples marrying will be perceived as prejudiced, which just isn’t fair. Borrowing another popular talking point, they claim that Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was “forced to discontinue adoption services,” when in fact they voluntarily shut down because of their insistence on discriminating. They’re also afraid elementary school children will learn that same-sex couples exist, ignoring that they’ll already learn that if their classmates’ parents are same-sex couples. The underlying objection here seems to be that marriage equality will make it harder for Christians to discriminate against the gay community — discrimination for discrimination’s sake.

Society Will ‘Self-Correct On Marriage Over Time’

Anderson and Walker conclude their piece by constructing a narrative of momentum for opposition to marriage equality, imagining “Americans committed to marriage coming out of the shadows.” This optimism for their cause ignores that people of all ages are increasingly supporting same-sex marriage, a trend driven most robustly by the young people they claim to represent. Their hope is that when young people marry, they’ll appreciate the “gendered nature of parenting,” but what seems more likely is that they will only further appreciate just how much respect and security is denied to same-sex couples.

(Credit: Jeffrey James Keyes via Queerty)

Thousands marched Monday night in New York City to denounce the recent rash of anti-gay violence, including the murder of Mark Carson this weekend. The march to the spot where Carson was shot was led by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court challenge of the Defense of Marriage Act, and also included representatives from numerous other LGBT groups.

Glennda Testone, Executive Director of the city’s LGBT Community Center, addressed the crowd at the intersection of 8th Street and Sixth Avenue:

We have always been a community that takes care of each other.  Sometimes when no one else will. We’ll continue to do that. We will continue to show up for each other. There are hundreds of us here tonight, but the truth is, that there are five hundred thousand LGBT people who come to New York because they want to live openly. They want to be who they are, they want to love, and they should be able to do that. They should be able to do that on any street, any avenue, any neighborhood in this great city that we all love. [...]

The violence we’ve seen in recent weeks is a reminder. It’s a reminder that political and legal gains do not always necessarily translate immediately to the street, to every street, and to every person. This is a reminder. It’s why we need to stay united, it’s why we need our voices to be strong, and we can’t go back. We are here today not only to mourn the loss of our community, not only to take back some of our power, and to take back that sense of safety, but we are here together, as one, to create a strong voice that says we will not be threatened, we will not be harassed, we will not be taunted, and we will not be killed because of who we are and who we love.

More photos can be found at Queerty, Towleroad, and Joe.My.God. Watch a brief clips from the rally, including remarks from Carson’s aunt:

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.

- Advocates say they have the votes for marriage equality to pass in the Illinois House.

- The White House will honor ten state LGBT officials as Harvey Milk Champions of Change, and will always posthumously award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to astronaut Sally Ride.

- A Republican threat of filibuster has killed an LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying bill in the Minnesota Senate.

- A bill that would have limited transgender people’s ability to marry has died in the Texas Senate.

- Same-sex couples are actually raising children largely in states and cities where their marriages aren’t recognized.

- Supporters protested a New Mexico Catholic school Monday night that is refusing to allow a transgender student to wear the graduation robe that matches his gender.

- Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) will preside over a mass wedding of same-sex couples at this summer’s Pride.

- Omaha’s newly elected mayor, Jean Stothert, apparently will not try to repeal an LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance.

- The British House of Commons approved several amendments to the marriage equality bill, but none that weakened or threatened its passage.

- A new YouGov poll shows that 54 percent of Britons support marriage equality and only 36 percent are opposed.

- The Church of Scotland General Assembly has voted to allow openly gay ministers.

- Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has come out for marriage equality after previously opposing it.

- A Catholic seminary in Pennsylvania offers a “sports camp” that helps gay men shed their same-sex attractions. Perhaps it looks something like this:

Research has previously demonstrated that ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriage create psychological stress for the gay community, and new analysis from a massive National Institutes of Health study has confirmed the same effect. Around 2004, NIH began conducting interviews for a massive mental health survey, then followed up with the same participants a year later. In the 13 states that approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage that year, there was a sharp increase in psychological disorders among people who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, according to Columbia University psychologist Mark Hatzenbuehler:

“Lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals who lived in the states that banned same sex marriage experienced a significant increase in psychiatric disorders,” Hatzenbuehler says.

“There was a 37 percent increase in mood disorders,” he says, “a 42 percent increase in alcohol-use disorders, and — I think really strikingly — a 248 percent increase in generalized anxiety disorders.”

To put those numbers in perspective, although Hatzenbuehler did find more than a doubling in the rate of anxiety disorders in states that eventually banned gay marriage, in absolute numbers he found that anxiety disorders went from being reported among 2.7 percent to 9.4 percent of gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

The effect was unique to members of the gay community and unique to those states, not occurring among LGB people in states that didn’t have ballot measures that year. Hatzenbuehler attributes the psychological stress to negative media portrayals, anti-gay graffiti, a general loss of safety, and a feeling of directly targeted for discrimination.

Conservatives regularly claim that there are “health consequences” associated with being gay, but they rarely admit that it’s their rhetoric and tactics that are responsible.

Last week, the bipartisan immigration reform bill survived its second week of Senate Judiciary Committee markups largely intact and faithful to the “Gang of 8’s” core principals, which would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.  Today, the Committee will debate proposed amendments to Title III of the bill, which will address interior enforcement of immigration laws, including asylum procedures, indefinite detention, and solitary confinement.  Here’s a rundown of what some upcoming amendments mean for LGBT immigrants:

Asylum

Homosexuality is currently a crime in 78 countries around the world.  The right to seek asylum from persecution is a core right necessary to protect LGBT people around the world from persecution.  Unfortunately, a major obstacle to LGBT immigrants availing themselves of asylum in the United States is a bureaucratic one.   Under the current law, asylum seekers are required to file an asylum application within one year of entering the U.S.  Currently, under the one-year filing deadline, refugees with credible claims are denied asylum simply because of a bureaucratic technicality.  The elimination of the one-year filing deadline is particularly important for LGBT asylum seekers, who often miss the one-year deadline because they either do not know that sexual orientation or gender-based persecution are grounds for seeking asylum or do not feel safe disclosing their LGBT status to U.S. government officials within a year of arriving in the United States.

The Bill currently would end the one-year filing deadline, but Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has proposed two amendments that would compromise this improvement:

• Grassley’s amendment 27 would completely remove the language ending the one-year filing deadline.
• Grassley’s amendment 52 would substantially delay the elimination of the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications.

Indefinite Detention and Solitary Confinement

Immigrants in detention, including asylum seekers, are locked up in jail-like facilities, separated from their families and communities.   LGBT detainees often experience increased rates of discrimination, mistreatment and abuse both at the hands of fellow detainees and by guards.  Furthermore, a New York Times story this spring found that prolonged solitary confinement has been used on LGBT detainees under the guise of protecting them.  Some upcoming amendments improve the situation of LGBT immigrants in detention facilities, while others place them at greater risk of harm:

• Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) amendment 2 would prohibit the use of solitary confinement based on sexual orientation and gender identity and stop ICE from using solitary confinement for “protection” of detainees.
• Despite Constitutional precedent prohibiting the indefinite detention of immigrants, Grassley amendment 53 requiring the indefinite detention of immigrants who cannot be deported, without even the basic protection of a bond hearing to determine if they should be detained in the first place.  His amendment would also require the prolonged detention of arriving asylum seekers, including people seeking protection in the US from persecution on account of their sexual or gender identity.
• Grassley 51 would eliminate the bill’s expansion of alternatives to detention.  Alternatives to detention seek to make detention less restrictive and less costly for immigrants who have no criminal background and do not pose a flight risk.  For LGBT detainees, who have historically faced unsafe conditions in traditional detention facilities, alternatives offer a way to remain in their support communities while awaiting the outcome of their cases.
• Senator Jeff Session’s (R-AL) amendment 5 would impose a mandatory 60-day sentence of imprisonment for any immigrant who overstays his or her visa unless the person can be removed within 90 days.  Not only would the amendment require incarceration with no determination of an immigrant’s actual risk to public safety, it would also subject some asylum seekers and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to mandatory imprisonment.

Sharita Gruberg is a Policy Analyst for the LGBT Immigration Project at the Center for American Progress.

President Obama delivered the commencement speech this weekend at Morehouse College, an historically black all-male liberal arts school in Georgia. His remarks were remarkably gay-inclusive, challenging the graduates to be the best husband they can be even if their partner isn’t female, and to recognize the kind of oppression other groups experience, including gays and lesbians:

OBAMA: And that’s what I’m asking all of you to do:  Keep setting an example for what it means to be a man.  Be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.  Be the best father you can be to your children.  Because nothing is more important. [...]

As Morehouse Men, many of you know what it’s like to be an outsider; know what it’s like to be marginalized; know what it’s like to feel the sting of discrimination.  And that’s an experience that a lot of Americans share.  Hispanic Americans know that feeling when somebody asks them where they come from or tell them to go back.  Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love that they share.  Muslim Americans feel it when they’re stared at with suspicion because of their faith.  Any woman who knows the injustice of earning less pay for doing the same work — she knows what it’s like to be on the outside looking in.

So your experiences give you special insight that today’s leaders need.  If you tap into that experience, it should endow you with empathy — the understanding of what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, to see through their eyes, to know what it’s like when you’re not born on 3rd base, thinking you hit a triple.  It should give you the ability to connect.  It should give you a sense of compassion and what it means to overcome barriers.

Watch the full address (HT: Towleroad):

In 2009, Morehouse College was the subject of controversy for instituting a dress code that seemed to specifically target gay men who occasionally cross-dressed. More recently, the university established a scholarship in the name of gay civil rights activist Bayard Rustin and also began offering its first Black LGBT History course.

At its nominating convention Saturday, the Republican Party of Virginia selected three candidates for the November 2013 statewide elections. Their selections — Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II for governor, Bishop E.W. Jackson for lieutenant governor, and State Senator Mark Obenshain for attorney general — represent three of the most vocally anti-LGBT figures in the history Virginia politics.

Ken Cuccinelli

Over his seven-and-a-half years as a state senator and his four year as attorney general, Cuccinelli earned a reputation as Virginia’s Todd Akin. He opposes even the most basic legal protections for LGBT people because he believes same-sex relationships are immoral — previously explaining, “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that.” Even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case that such bans were unconstitutional, he helped defeat an effort to repeal the state law making consensual sodomy a felony. This maneuver came back to haunt him earlier this year, when prosecutors tried to make use of the law to prosecute a statutory rape case and courts rejected the case on constitutional grounds.

He has actively pushed for state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent any legal recognition of what he terms, “what they’d like to refer to as ‘homosexual families,’” authoring a resolution calling for a federal amendment to invalidate any same-sex marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or “other relationship analogous to marriage.” He has opined that “giving public sanction to homosexual marriage ends up redefining marriage and it’s certain to harm children.” He even opposed a state bill that allowed private companies to voluntarily provide health insurance benefits to employees’ domestic partners, warning it might “encourage this type of behavior.” His advisory opinion that Virginia’s public colleges and universities should rescind their nondiscrimination policies was called “reprehensible” by a former Republican state legislator. As recently as February, he reaffirmed his fealty to Virginia’s marriage inequality amendment, saying, “Virginians decided this in 2006 that we were going to respect traditional marriage… I don’t see that changing anytime soon.”

After unsuccessfully attempting to block a non-binding resolution honoring a Richmond-based LGBT charitable group, Cuccinelli explained, “When you look at the homosexual agenda, I cannot support something that I believe brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul.”

E.W. Jackson

As a pastor and unsuccessful 2012 Senate candidate, Jackson has never been shy about expressing his strong opposition to LGBT people. He believes gays and lesbians are “very sick people, psychologically and emotionally” whose minds are perverted. He has also said, “Homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, it destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of.” Read more