where heterosexuality is often presented as the only acceptable orientation, and homosexuality is regarded as deviant. Research suggests that homophobia and heterosexist greatly contribute to higher rates of suicide, violence victimization, risk behaviour for HIV infection, and substance abuse among GLBTQ youth as compared to their heterosexual peers. In recent years, however, a number of promising programs have been established to help GLBTQ youth gain the skills and support they need to develop into healthy adults in a society that largely rejects them. If you are conducting research on LGBT youth health and well-being, be sure to check out Advocates' LGBT Youth Research Guide for the most recent news, scholarly research, and publications from a variety of sources.
Last week was not a good one for Team Anti-Gay. The Supreme Court struck the unconstitutional Defence of Marriage Act, and the nations largest state resumed marriages for same-sex couples. Nor is the future likely to be any better for opponents of equality. As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia complains in dissent, the Courts opinion striking DOMA is riddled with language that can be used to attack anti-gay state laws. Moreover, two cases squarely presenting the issue of whether states must provide gay couples with the equal protection of the law are now ripe for review by the left-leaning United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question of full, nationwide marriage equality could be before the justices in as little as two years. And even if a majority of the Court does reject this final push for marriage equality, time is simply not on the side of discrimination. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans under 40 approve of the Supreme Courts recent pro-marriage decision. The only age cohort where a majority oppose that decision are people over age 65. In twenty years, supporters of equality will run the country from top to bottom, and most opponents will be dead. Religious conservatives, however, still have one more card to play in their efforts to deny equal rights to LGBT Americans. As the socially conservative writer Ross Douthat suggested shortly after the Court struck DOMA, the best way to continue to limit the rights of gay people is to build in as many protections for religious liberty as possible along the way. Its clear that anti-gay leaders are already executing this contingency plan. Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint claimed on Tuesday that marriage equality means trampling First Amendment religious liberty protections along the way. At least fifteen antigay individuals, ranging from wedding cake bakers to bed and breakfast owners to t-shirt makers, have claimed the right to discriminate against gay people often in direct violation of the law with many citing their religious beliefs as justification. The conservative U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops claimed in a brief they filed in the Supreme Court that
treating anti-gay discrimination permissively protects the religious liberty of those employers with a religious objection to providing health coverage to same-sex partners. The Bishops brief may be the biggest window into how religious conservatives plan to construct a wall around their own right to discriminate. At the same time that the Bishops urged the justices to protect a special right to deny health care to gay people, numerous employers with the enthusiastic backing of the Bishops themselves are litigating the question of whether their religious objections to birth control give them the right to ignore a federal rule requiring them to include it in their employees health plans. Last week, a federal appeals court embraced a particularly aggressive reading of religious liberty that not only held that for profit companies may refuse to comply with the birth control rule, it also included language suggesting that a religious employer could refuse to comply with antidiscrimination law if they believed discrimination was compelled by their faith. This, simply put, is the social conservative end game. They are not going to succeed in blocking marriage equality. But if they can exempt the very people who are most likely to engage in invidious discrimination against gay people from laws prohibiting such discrimination, then they can suck the life out of many pro-gay laws. Their exaggerated view of religious liberty can no more be squared with equality than it could when Bob Jones University claimed a similar religious right to engage in race discrimination.
NOM Spokesperson Hangs Up On Radio Show To Avoid Acknowledging Same-Sex Couples Kids
By Zack Ford on Jul 2, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Peters repeated his regular talking point that marriage should be exclusive to heterosexual couples because only they can biologically produce a child. When host Doug McIntyre pushed back, acknowledging that same-sex adoption has been legal in many states for quite some time, Peters abruptly ended the interview: MCINTYRE: Weve had gay adoption for a very long time, so weve had gay and lesbian couples adopting children or having children through surrogates for years. And now they want to codify those unions and marriage and for some reason we want to deny them that? If were talking about raising children in gay relationships, weve been doing that for years. PETERS: I was led to believe this was a conversation about what the Court did today, and I have other interviews waiting. Im happy to have a debate about marriage but I simply see adoption as a separate issue. What weve done with adoption is not a reason to redefine marriage, and if youve actually looked at the individual states that have redefined
marriage, one of the first things that happened is they forced Catholic and Lutheran adoption agencies to shutter their doors. So we can talk about adoption until the cows come home, but right now Im fighting very hard for the true definition of marriage at the Supreme Court and across the country and thank you very much for having us on your show. Listen to it (via Jeremy Hooper at NOM Exposed): Peters strawman about adoption agencies is of course wrong; those agencies voluntarily closed down because they wanted to both receive state funding and continue discriminating against same-sex couples. But Peters claim that the question wasnt about the Supreme Court decision is also a farce, because Justice Kennedy specifically wrote about same-sex families in the Majoritys opinion. In fact, some of Kennedys strongest language addressed how the Defense of Marriage Act humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples, making it more difficult for them to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Peters cant have it both ways. If his position for marriage is about children, then he has to think about all children. Apparently he only cares about straight couples children, which shows his argument isnt about children at all its just about discriminating against the gay community.