Since NOM isn’t anti-gay, just pro-straight, it’s lucky for Mr. Brown that Twitter user UK @dubeats was available to provide his editorial skills to Mr. Brown.  Otherwise, Mr. Brown’s the apparently too hastily-released statement may have been misconstrued to be entirely homophobic.  Says Mr. UK:

NOM’s President Brian Brown wrote a statement on the BSA’s vote to allow gay scouts.  But I think it was released before it was proof-read.  So I have edited it for them.

Here is Mr. UK’s excellent work.  Enjoy:

H/T JoeMyGod

The Senate passed the measure in April on a 12 to 9 vote.

If the measure gets legislative approval again during 2015 session (Nevada’s legislature convenes in odd-numbered years), the question will be placed on the November, 2016 ballot.  The governor’s approval is not needed on constitutional resolutions.

The odds look good for re-approval by the legislature in 2015.  From RGJ.com:

Even the resolution’s most ardent opponents, such as the conservative Eagle Forum’s Janine Hansen …thinks passage in the 2015 Legislature is probable.

“It will pass, unless there is some radical change in the Legislature and we get a majority of Republicans in one of the houses who are willing to vote against it,” said Hansen. “But that doesn’t seem likely to me.”

Assembly roll call, May 23, 2013

As for Nevada voters, Freedom to Marry reports that “A February 2013 poll from the Retail Association of Nevada found that 54 percent of people in Nevada support removing the so-called Protection of Marriage provision from the Nevada Constitution, which prohibits marriages between same-sex couples in the state. Just 43 percent of those surveyed oppose removing the provision.”

Support for marriage equality will presumably continue to increase in Nevada along with the rest of the country between now and the 2016 general election.  As Assemblyman Elliott Anderson, who voted for SJR13, said in his remarks on the Assembly floor today, “The will of the voters is changing, as it has with me.”

Tony Perkins

This is just pathetic. Apparently the Family Research Council is attempting to attach gay equality to the Department of Justice leak story:

When the Justice Department is done violating journalists’ First Amendment rights, it looks like they’ll move on to employees’. In a chilling memo to DOJ staff, the Obama administration is warning managers that they’d better start embracing homosexuality–or else. The email, which a Justice employee leaked to Liberty Counsel, is a scary reminder of how far this administration will go to crush free speech and expression in America.

In advance of June, the DOJ is priming its staff for a four-week in-your-face “gay pride” celebration that demands, not only the participation of–but affirmation by– all staff. Based on this new directive, “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Managers,” it’s no longer acceptable to be quiet or even neutral on homosexuality. In a not-so-veiled threat, the administration tells staff that when it comes to homosexuality and cross-dressing, “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
That’s absolutely outrageous. Even criminals have the right to remain silent! President Obama’s so-called Department of Justice is actually telling workers that there’s no place in the government for people with unspoken objections to homosexuality. In fact, writes NRO’s Ian Tuttle, “there is no longer a place even for private, unexpressed disapproval…”

Forget tolerance. The DOJ wants–and expects–vocal support for sexual deviance. Nowhere is that more evident than in this latest list of “DO”s and “DON’T”s, which includes some eye-opening advice for staff leaders. “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying” (sound ominous?) “and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document).” “DO attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride” and decorate your office accordingly. “DO display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker).” “DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.” “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other,’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms.”

It’s hilarious how FRC claims that the brochure in question was “leaked.” Makes the entire situation sounds ominous doesn’t it? Don’t be fooled by FRC’s shuck-and-jive.  There are certain facts about the brochure that FRC omitted. According to Ed Brayton of Free Thought Blogs:

First of all, this is a pamphlet of “practical tips to help managers create a truly inclusive workplace climate.” It’s not a set of commandments delivered from Mt. Sinai. It wasn’t even sent out by DOJ officials, it was sent out by DOJ Pride, the Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice and Their Allies.

In his post, Brayton was calling attention to the fact that another religious right spokesperson, Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, was distorting the brochure. Brayton especially called attention to the fact that Barber was cherry-picking portions of the pamphlet to make it seem more ominous.

Apparently FRC is doing the same thing.  No matter how FRC attempts to make the brochure (this one) sound like a dangerously forced directive on behalf of the DOJ, it’s really not.  The brochure informs DOJ employees of the simple fact that some of their fellow employees are lgbt and gives tips as to how to behave towards them.

And really, what’s wrong with that?

I think FRC’s last statement on the matter gives a key to the entire matter:

As FRC has said for years, this debate has never been about tolerance. It’s about forced acceptance. President Obama admitted as much when he praised the NBA’s Jason Collins. Read what he said when Collins announced he was gay: “The LGBT community deserves full equality, not just partial equality. Not just tolerance.”

On that score, I would say that FRC is partly right. Lgbt equality has never been about tolerance.  You tolerate your pets having accidents on the carpet. You tolerate traffic jams. You even tolerate the slow cashier who makes you wait in a grocery store. But no one has the right to think that they are so superior that they should tolerate a fellow human being merely attempting to live his or her life.

Nor is lgbt equality about forced acceptance. To a degree, it’s never been about acceptance but respect of a fellow human being. And with that respect comes the knowledge that your sexual orientation – gay, straight, or bisexual – does not put you on a pedestal where you have the patent to concepts like “family,” “morality,” or “love.”

FRC seems to think that those who believe as it does do in fact have a patent to those concepts. That’s all well and good if the organization wants to follow that delusion. However, FRC doesn’t have the right and will never have the right to force the lgbt or our allies to live under that same delusion.

A sergeant first class on the staff of the United States Military Academy at West Point faces charges for allegedly filming numerous female cadets without their consent, sometimes when they were in the shower, according to the Army.

The suspect, Sgt. First Class Michael McClendon, faces charges under four articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for indecent acts, dereliction in the performance of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, and actions prejudicial to good order and discipline. He currently faces 35 specifications in total.

…At West Point, McClendon served as a tactical noncommissioned officer, which is a staff adviser responsible for the health, welfare and discipline of a company of 125 cadets. The person in the position is expected to “assist each cadet in balancing and integrating the requirements of physical, military, academic and moral-ethical programs,” according to the West Point website.

No word on what the Army is going to charge the sergeant with yet. I guess we can conclude from this story that all military men are bathroom predators…hell, that all men are bathroom predators…right?

Well, maybe not.

Seriously, one can’t judge every heterosexual male by the actions of one heterosexual male. There have been men who crossdressed to get access to women’s restrooms and locker rooms in the past: here, here, and here, for example, but I can find other stories of heterosexual males filming women in restrooms and locker rooms, such as here and here. And of course, my first civil rights effort was reporting four shipmates for peeping on my then division officer as she showered.

One can’t judge every straight man by a small minority of straight men who engage in unlawful voyeurism; one can’t judge every trans woman by as small number of crossdressing males who engage in unlawful voyeurism.

To me, the “bathroom bill” argument as a tool to argue against civil rights for trans women is a fail. Yes, one can find a number of stories of crossdressed voyeurs fouling the discussions on civil rights based on gender identity, but one can find a number of stories of non-crossdressed voyeurs too that could be used to make the case that the doors on women’s public bathrooms aren’t magical things that keep all predators of all sorts out. It’s peeping that’s the crime, not crossdressing while peeping. Crossdressing is just a tool some voyeurs use in an attempt to make themselves less visible, but most often it makes them stand out more than they otherwise would.

In the end, it’s sad to read that female plebes at West Point have to deal with sexual harassment in any form, let alone this form. As a someone who’s was sexually harassed by military men myself — let me say that all women, men, girls and boys deserve better than being treated as sexual objects while going to the restroom. Women servicemembers at West Point deserved better than they apparently received from a sergeant assigned to their command.

For the first time ever, I feel as if my pro-Family supporters are letting me down.

Dear ,

It’s hard to write you this.

My office is in trouble. And I need your help.

I have been working overtime fighting against the radical Homosexual Lobby.

Today, I’m worried.

Despite passing Thought Control and repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the radical Homosexual Lobby is drooling for more in the new Congress.

So along with a new Congress, they have adopted new tactics.

I see well-known agents of the radical Homosexual Lobby everywhere. They are huddled in dark corners scheming and plotting. They meet secretly with newly elected members of Congress in hopes of tempting them to advance their perverse agenda with campaign cash and the promise of votes.

This, in spite of the fact that the Republican majority in the House was preserved in large part by pro-Family Americans turning out to the polls in record numbers.

Together, we beat the Gay Bill of Special Rights and Homosexual Classrooms Act in 2012, but we had to spend everything to do it.

The Homosexual Lobby knows this, and they know as well as you or I that if we can’t finance ourselves, we won’t be able to stand up to them in the future.

We haven’t seen the last of the Gay Bill of Special Rights either. Mark my words.

And the new Congress brings greater threats than ever before, I am in trouble…

This is a painful email for me to write.

For the first time ever, I feel as if my pro-Family supporters are letting me down.

I have prayed about this matter. I am sure that I am doing what is right.

It is our duty as decent God-believing adults to fight against the tyranny and immorality of the radical Homosexual Lobby. But many good Christian supporters aren’t coming through.

…

Won’t someone think of poor Eugene?

LGBT rights orgs have been very clear violence will not be tolerated. Opponents of LGBT rights however have never made it clear to their followers that anti-gay violence is not a tactic to “fight the gay agenda.” After a big spike in anti-gay hate crimes in 2012, can they not issue a joint statement such as gay rights groups did here: http://bit.ly/1a14SqI

And remind people, we can disagree without hurting each other?

National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown responded with a blog post, stating:

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.

However, Family Research Council, which understands what it means to be the intended target of violence after an armed man tried to attack its offices last year, has remained effectively silent.  Yesterday FRC president Tony Perkins sent a statement via email to a select group of recipients denouncing “unprovoked violence”, but he has refrained from emailing it to FRC’s general email list (which I am on) or posting it on the FRC website, Facebook page or Twitter feed.

In other words, FRC wants journalists to report that it has released a statement without really releasing it.  FRC wants credit for repudiating anti-LGBT violence without really repudiating it.

Following months of threats and pressure by some Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced today he is withholding amendments to the immigration bill that would end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) immigrant families. In recent weeks, GOP Senators Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Marco Rubio, and John McCain have sought to scapegoat LGBT families, promising to abandon immigration reform entirely if it was amended to include LGBT protections.

“Despite the leadership of Chairman Leahy, Judiciary Committee Democrats have caved to bullying by their Republican colleagues,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality Action Fund. “There should be shame on both sides of the political aisle today for lawmakers who worked to deny LGBT immigrant families a vote. Despite widespread support from business, labor, faith, Latino and Asian-American advocates, Senators abandoned LGBT families without a vote.”

Senator Chuck Schumer, an architect of the immigration bill, had long promised LGBT constituents that the package would include their families.  “From the beginning we told Senator Schumer that it would only get harder to add LGBT families to the bill,” said Tiven.  “We are disappointed that Senator Schumer and his ‘Gang of 8’ colleagues accepted a false choice between LGBT families and immigration reform, when the truth is that including LGBT families from the outset would have strengthened the bill.”

Republican senators looking for a reason to walk away from the bill scapegoated LGBT families. “Republicans came after LGBT families, and Democrats didn’t stand up,” Tiven said. “Who will be in the GOP’s sights next?”

Sen. Diane Feinstein said of the LGBT-inclusive amendment that the Democrats refused to move:

Like Sen. Hirono’s amdt, we know this is going to blow coalition apart … Don’t want to lose Sen. Graham’s vote.

What if the Democrats had said “Sen. Graham will lose Democratic support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill if we don’t include same-sex binational couples“?  I guess we’ll never know.

There is no gender marker on military identification cards, so it’s not an issue of being outed by any gender marker on it. But, it still was important to me — every other government database records my gender as female, and the DOD showing me as male just bothered me.

After making some preliminary telephone calls to the Department of the Navy, I was connected to Division 31D of the Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERS 31D) I was then told what the requirements are for changing one’s recorded gender with the DOD. In the process I found out the DOD directly processes all change of gender packages by transsexual retirees. However, transsexual retirees still does to submit their packages through the military service that they served in. So, since I served in the U.S. Navy, I had to submit my package to the DON.

After contacting NAVPERS 31D, I contacted folk at OutServe-SLDN, and asked them if they wanted me to test the system at the DOD in similar manner as I tested the system with the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) for the Veterans Administration (VA). I previously was the “test case” for NCTE on the VA on changing one’s recorded gender. Back in June of 2011, NCTE and the VA leadership agreed that transsexual people should be able to change their gender in the VA’s databases without a surgical letter. By using various forms of ID and personal documentation, I repeatedly tested the policy to find out what the “magic identification documents” the VA required to change gender. What I found out, and shared with NCTE was that the initial attempt to change VA policy on changing recorded gender didn’t achieve an easing of procedures to change one’s recorded gender. The VA and NCTE then went back to the drawing and fixed the problem — my testing of the system was the catalyst for creating a policy with a single procedure for changing one’s recorded gender at the VA.

So after contacting the OutServe-SLDN, they told me was that no one had ever documented for them that it was even possible to change one’s recorded gender with the DOD. Allyson Robinson, their executive director, and David McKean, their Legal and Public Policy Director, asked me just to follow the current procedures as outlined by NAVPERS 31D just to document one could actually change one’s gender with the Department of Defense, and then together we would publicize the results.

The main reason to publicize the results is so that other retired servicemembers would be aware of the procedures, and OutServe-SLDN could steer other retired servicemembers through the process I documented could be accomplished.

By documenting my change of recorded DOD gender, OutServe-SLDN and I secondarily 1.) wished to highlight that even though one could change one’s name and gender, that didn’t mean one could also update one’s DD214 (certificate of release or discharge from the military), 2.) wished to show that the policy was difficult and not in line with the recently streamlined policies for changing one’s recorded gender with the State Department (for passports) and the VA, and 3) and wished to emphasize that since former Secretary of Defense Panetta announced women are now going to be allowed to serve in combat and that as of in May of 2013 that DSM-V is no longer going to list transsexual people as disordered. We thought that publicizing that military retirees can change one’s recorded gender at DOD could be a tool to open up public dialogue on the kind of open military service for trans servicemembers — the same kind of open service for trans servicemembers that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell afforded for lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers.

OutServe-SLDN and I looked at my change of recorded gender with the DOD as a tool to move the discussion forward on these issues. And on April 2nd, my documented gender was changed.

Others may believe I’m the first retired servicemember to change my recorded gender with the DOD, but I’m well aware that I’m not. For me, moving the dialogue forward towards trans people being able to change their DD214s; streamlining the policy for changing one’s recorded gender at the DOD; and helping open the dialogue towards open military service for trans servicemembers are goals I believe are well worth going public about my story to achieve those goals.

Simply put, I’m publicly joining the struggle for trans servicemembers’ and veterans’ ordinary equality, and I hope I’ve played a small part in the eventual achievement of that ordinary equality for trans people.

~~~~~
Further reading:
* Buzzfeed: Pentagon Recognizes Transgender Veteran, Advocates See A “Shift”
* LGBT Weekly: Changing my documented gender with the Department of Defense
* ThinkProgress: Pentagon Establishes Process For Transgender Veterans To Change Gender Records
* The Advocate: Trans Activists Highlight Military’s Step Forward
* The Daily Mail (U.K.): Pentagon recognizes transgender service members for first time in ‘symbolic’ move for LGBT community
* Daily Kos: Pentagon acknowledges transgender veterans
* Force For Change: Thank Pentagon for Transgender Veteran Equality Efforts
* Free Republic: entagon recognizes transgender service members for first time in ‘symbolic’ move for LGBT community

Kate Green (Labour), MP for Stretford and Urmston and Shadow Minister of State for Equalities

Today the British House of Commons gave for a second time its overwhelming approval to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, voting 366 to 161 at the bill’s third reading.  In February, the same body overwhelmingly approved the bill by a vote of 400 to 175 at its second reading.

The bill, which would legalize marriage for same-sex couples in England and Wales, now moves to the House of Lords.

MPs debated several amendments both yesterday and today prior to the third reading vote.  The amendment receiving perhaps the most extensive debate today would have allowed Humanist groups to perform same-sex marriages (New Clause 15).  The amendment was withdrawn after the Secretary of State voiced technical concerns.  Amendment sponsors appeared committed to reintroducing into the House of Lords an updated version of the amendment which would address the concerns raised today.

Notably, today’s vote comes almost 25 years to the day after Parliament passed the shameful Section 28, which stated that “a local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.  Section 28 was not repealed until 2000 in Scotland and 2003 in England and Wales.

Bill progress can be followed here.

Related:  British House of Commons Amends Same-Sex Marriage Bill

The bill would legalize marriage for same-sex couples in England and Wales.

Amendments intended to weaken the bill were rejected by wide margins, including an amendment (New Clause 3) that would have allowed marriage registrars to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages if the registrar objected based on “sincerely held religious or other beliefs”.  NC3 was rejected 340 to 150.

Friendly amendments passed, including Amendment 23 which “protects ministers of religion employed by secular organisations (eg as hospital or university chaplains) who refuse to carry out same sex marriages from claims being made against them personally under the employment provisions of the Equality Act 2010″, and Amendment 24 which “requires, rather than (as the Bill does at present) allows, the Lord Chancellor to make an order enabling the Church in Wales to marry same sex couples, if he is satisfied that the Church has resolved to do so,” according to LGBTory.

Considerable debate was dedicated to amendments related to Civil Partnerships.  New Clause 16, which commits the Government to undertake a prompt, formal review of Civil Partnerships after same-sex marriage is legalized, passed 391 to 57.  New Clause 10, which would have extended Civil Partnerships to opposite-sex couples immediately, was rejected 375 to 70.  MPs opposing NC 10 expressed concern that its adoption could delay passage of the bill, or even be used to scuttle it.

In February, the bill was overwhelmingly approved during its Second Reading by a vote of 400 to 175.  Tomorrow the House of Commons will consider additional amendments before taking the Third Reading (final) vote on the bill.  If it passes, it will move to the House of Lords in two weeks.

Bill progress can be monitored here.

Update: A transcript of the May 20 debate can be found here.