Conservative commentator Steve Deace accused President Obama and the media of using openly gay NFL prospect Michael Sam as an excuse to divert attention from Benghazi and other alleged "failures" of the Obama administration.
Writing for The Washington Times on March 3, Deace condemned "the intolerant same-sex lobby" for pushing its "propaganda" on the American public. Deace highlighted the attention Sam, a star lineman at the University of Missouri, received after coming out in February. According to Deace, liberals pounced on Sam's announcement in order to advance "LGBTQ propaganda" - and to shift focus away from the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya (emphasis added):
Careers are made and broken at this [NFL scouting] event every year, and given the underwhelming performance of a certain prospect from the University of Missouri, his draft status could be in jeopardy.
Except this isn't just any pro prospect. This is Michael Sam. The leftist media's latest contrived attempt to distract the American people from the daily failures of the president who they cover for daily. Mr. Sam generated headlines from shills and wannabes who just couldn't get enough of the first "openly gay football player."
Of course, these are the same people that have been trying to kill football the past two years because it's too dangerous. Now they can't wait to rally around the rainbow flag. And they wonder why their credibility is about as low as that of Congress.
Not to be outdone, a flailing president who seemingly has no time to give answers to the families of four dead Americans at Benghazi, or the millions he broke a promise to that they could keep their current health insurance if they liked it, couldn't wait to jump on Mr. Sam's bandwagon.
After embarking on a tangent in which he attacked transgender people for contradicting the will of "the Creator" and referred to New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray as a former lesbian (she doesn't identify as a "former lesbian" but has said her sexuality is "fluid"), Deace concluded that the "moral foundations of Western civilization" were under assault by the LGBT movement and urged "liberty-loving Americans" to "just say no to the left."
While requiring background checks on gun sales is overwhelmingly popular with the general public, members of conservative media have used false statements and paranoid rhetoric to fight legislation to require checks for more than 20 years.
This week marks the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commonly known as the Brady Bill or Brady Act. Signed by President Clinton in 1993 after a multi-year legislative effort, the law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on customers to prevent felons and other dangerous people from acquiring firearms. While a legal challenge invalidated a waiting period requirement in the Brady Bill created so local law enforcement could process background checks, in 1998 the FBI-administered National Instant Criminal Background Check System was launched, allowing gun dealers to perform often instantaneous background checks on customers. Since then, the law has stopped more than 2 million gun sales to prohibited individuals.
The law derives its name from President Ronald Reagan's press secretary Jim Brady, who was shot and seriously injured during an assassination attempt on Reagan on March 30, 1981, at the Washington Hilton. Reagan was shot in the chest and arm and underwent lifesaving emergency surgery. In a 1991 letter published in The New York Times, Reagan ruminated on the anniversary of the 1981 shooting, writing, "This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981." Jim and his wife Sarah Brady continue to advocate for gun violence prevention polices through their close work with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any expertise in the matter -- is nothing new.
This week, Media Matters accidently broke the news to The Washington Times that longtime conservative columnist Frank Gaffney no longer plans to write for the paper.
To rewind a bit: earlier this week, Breitbart News announced that Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and a former Reagan official, would be bringing his column to the conservative website after having published "some 1,300 weekly columns over the past twenty-five years at the Washington Times."
According to Breitbart News, Gaffney's weekly column was "terminated within days of the release of a letter" he had signed alongside "influential national security practitioners." The letter in question was sent to the American Conservative Union (ACU) in support of Gaffney's charge that conservative activists Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn are closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.
In comments to Media Matters, Gaffney said that his departure resulted from the Times seeking to cut his column from weekly to monthly, which he hinted was linked to the release of the letter.
"One thing happened and then the next thing happened and I leave it to others to judge if it was a punitive action or whether it was just coincidental," Gaffney told Media Matters Thursday. "I am going to be writing for the Breitbart News Network. The arrangement that [was] announced for my writing [monthly] for The Washington Times is really not satisfactory to me."
He said that he would not be writing for the Times, stating, "I want to write a weekly column and I'm happy that whatever the reason for this decision I'm going to have a considerably larger audience at Breitbart than I had at The Washington Times. I've got an arrangement with Breitbart and I will be taking the fullest advantage of that, I wish the Times well."
When initially contacted by Media Matters about Gaffney on Wednesday, Times editorial page editor David Keene praised his "well-researched" work and said that while he was unaware Gaffney was planning to write for Breitbart, the paper would still welcome his writing as long as it was "exclusive." When Media Matters spoke with Keene again today after talking to Gaffney, the news that Gaffney planned to leave the paper apparently came as a surprise.
"We're sorry to lose him but wish him well," Keene told Media Matters. "I guess he's notifying us through you and we appreciate your willingness to serve as his intermediary on this."
The uproar began February 18 when Gaffney's CSP released the newest salvo in its years-long campaign to attack Grover Norquist and ACU board member Suhail Khan for their supposed association with the Muslim Brotherhood. The group sent a letter to ACU board member Cleta Mitchell signed by "influential national security practitioners" including former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and former CIA Director James Woolsey.
The letter criticized the ACU's ties to Norquist and Khan and included a 45-page report detailing claims against them, which listed 87 alleged "facts" about Norquist and Khan it claimed were signs of their "assault on the right."
In addition to serving as the Times editorial page editor, David Keene also serves on the ACU board.
Conservative media outlets are lauding a legislative effort to enact what experts are calling an attempt to reincarnate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the core provision of which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last summer.
On February 12, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Senate version of the State Marriage Defense Act, a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) in January. The bill would require the federal government to yield to state definitions of marriage, meaning that same-sex spouses would lose the federal benefits and protections of marriage if they moved to states that prohibit same-sex marriage. Accordingly, ThinkProgress has dubbed the bill the "'You're Not Married Anymore' Bill."
The bill - which stands an infinitesimal chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate - would push back on the Supreme Court's June 2013 ruling against Section 3 of DOMA, which barred the federal government from recognizing validly performed same-sex marriages. Section 2 of DOMA, which wasn't considered in the Supreme Court case, allows states to define marriage, but there's a strong argument - increasingly supported by the courts - that the logical end-point of the Supreme Court's ruling is the demise of state-sanctioned discrimination against same-sex couples.
Since the Court issued its ruling, five federal courts have overturned state marriage equality bans, citing Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion that DOMA served no legitimate purpose. The most recent such ruling came on February 13 when U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen struck down Virginia's marriage equality ban.
Right-wing media, however, won't let DOMA die without waging a fight for anti-gay discrimination.
Breitbart.com championed Cruz and Lee's bill as a defense of state's rights, reprising the argument advanced by anti-civil rights figures who supported placing racial minorities' constitutional rights at the whim of state authorities. The website's William Bigelow asserted that the bill "protects the states from having the federal government encroach" on their ability to deny equal rights to same-sex couples.
Following the same narrative, The Daily Caller touted the bill as an effort "to prevent the federal government from imposing conflicting definitions of marriage on the states," promoting Cruz's claim that President Obama "should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states." PJ Media also acted as stenographer for the bill's sponsors, extensively quoting the bill in addition to Cruz and lee. The bill, PJ Media's headline read, tells the federal government to "mind states' rights on same-sex marriage."
A man accused of violating Washington, D.C.'s gun laws is conservative media's latest dubious "hero" in its ongoing effort to attack stronger gun laws.
Right-wing media are defending a Washington, D.C. man on trial for possessing unregistered ammunition by making a flawed comparison between his situation and NBC News host David Gregory's display of a high-capacity ammunition magazine on Meet the Press following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Conservative media's complaint that Washington, D.C. financial advisor Mark Witaschek faces trial while Gregory faced no criminal charges ignores that those two situations rest upon entirely different circumstances.
On the December 23, 2012, edition of Meet the Press, Gregory showed, for demonstration purposes, a 30-round high-capacity ammunition magazine like the one used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that claimed 26 lives nine days earlier. In Washington, it is illegal to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. NBC apparently ran the segment after a miscommunication with law enforcement. Gregory's display of the magazine angered conservative media including Washington Times senior opinion editor Emily Miller who wrote that Gregory "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." In January 2013, Washington prosecutors announced that Gregory would not be charged with a crime in a letter that explained, "Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States."
Witaschek's legal problems began in the summer of 2012. Following alarming allegations that Witaschek threatened his "estranged wife" with a gun, police visited his home on two occasions. During both visits, police found unregistered ammunition in Witaschek's home. In Washington, D.C., only individuals who have registered firearms may possess ammunition. Witaschek was charged with violating Washington's gun laws. The charge from the first police visit was thrown out because even though Witaschek consented to a search, the visit was conducted without a warrant. Witaschek was offered a plea deal that included no jail time and a $500 fine to resolve the charge from the second police visit, which was performed with a warrant. Witaschek rejected the offer and plans to go to trial on the remaining charge.
The Washington Times has made a special arrangement with former National Rifle Association president David Keene that allows the pro-gun advocate to serve as the paper's opinion editor, but still apparently be a spokesman for the gun lobby and serve as one of its top leaders.
The unusual arrangement is raising concerns among journalistic ethicists, one of whom accused Keene of "passing yourself off as a journalist."
When Keene was named opinion editor of the Times in July 2013, the Times stressed that he would have a leading role at the paper, stating he would "oversee the newspaper's editorial page, commentary section and online opinion strategy." Times editor-in-chief John Solomon praised Keene's ability to "craft... fresh policy ideas" and "inspire a new generation of conservatives to find their voice, embrace innovation and reach consensus."
But the story announcing Keene's appointment made no mention that he would apparently be continuing to serve as a leader and spokesman for the NRA.
Keene, who served as president of the NRA from 2011 to 2013 after nearly three decades as chairman of the American Conservative Union, remains a member of the NRA's board of directors. His job at the Times has not prevented him from being quoted in the media promoting NRA positions.
For example, a January 21, 2014, article in The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, PA, about a prominent NRA-managed gun show quoted Keene defending such shows and gun rights. For a February 5 story in The Washington Examiner, Keene described the NRA's internal strategy for participating in the 2014 elections, suggesting that the Times editor is still playing a key role in such deliberations.
Solomon, the Times editor, addressed the conflict of interest Keene may face between his newspaper duties and his role with the NRA in an email to Media Matters. He stated that the Times had agreed to Keene wearing both hats, but with some restrictions.
"Our ethics rules allow an employee in special circumstances to hold an outside position, if it is pre-approved and the appropriate ethical steps are followed," Solomon wrote. "That's the case with David Keene and his membership on the board of the NRA. We knew when we asked David to be our opinion editor that he would continue on the NRA board. We also knew that his role with the NRA was publicly and extensively known."
Solomon went on to explain that he and Keene had "worked out a set of rules for him related to the NRA," adding that, "David recuses himself from editing any pieces in his department that are focused on the NRA. He is free to write about the NRA in his personal weekly column as long as he discloses to the reader in that column his continuing role with the organization."
Washington Times columnist Rebecca Hagelin denounced comprehensive sex education programs as part of a "deplorable" effort to sexualize the nation's students - ignoring data showing that students in such programs tend to delay sexual activity - and listing discussions of homosexuality as an example of the "lurid propaganda" sexual education allegedly promotes.
In her February 4 column, Hagelin tackled "sex propaganda in schools" as her "culture challenge of the week." Highlighting a story that originated with serial misinformer Todd Starnes of Fox News, Hagelin asserted that sex ed is "designed ... to encourage children to experiment with sex." She blasted sex ed programs that teach as "equal" and "normal" such activities as "male-female intercourse, masturbation, and homosexual practices" (emphasis added):
Imagine your sweet daughter, barely into puberty, coming home and showing you a photograph she took with her phone of a sex poster at school -- a poster that lists the many ways people "express their sexual feelings," including "grinding," "anal sex," "oral sex" and just about everything else you can think of.
Imagine, even further, that the school district representative, when asked about the poster, shrugs and says it is part of a health and science curriculum that "aligns with national standards" of sexuality education.
You'd be right to be mad.
But this isn't a thought experiment. This is real-life "sex ed" in the heartland of America.
Mark Ellis, a man whose daughter attends a public middle school within the Shawnee Mission School District in Kansas, made the news when he found out the truth about what goes on in America's schools these days. He was shocked at the explicit nature of the school-authorized poster and perplexed by the school's claim that its sexual education curriculum is meant to promote abstinence.
"This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction," he said.
He's right. But, sadly, many of our nation's public schools teach the lurid propaganda every day.
Most sexuality education curriculum materials are designed not to promote abstinence but to encourage children to experiment with sex. Any kind of sex. Programs like the one Mr. Ellis protested present all types of sexual activity as equal and perfectly normal even for the youngest of children, including male-female intercourse, masturbation and homosexual practices.
The reason is quite simple.
For the political left, children have a "right" to have sex with no guilt, no consequences and no commitments. And they are going to teach them how to do it, by golly.
Educators, school boards and school districts have been snowed by "experts" who peddle the claim that "comprehensive" sex education programs are designed to promote abstinence as much as "safer sex." They are not. Sprinkling a few words about abstinence into a curriculum loaded with explicit "how to" information is simply a subterfuge.
The real agenda is to expose innocent children to sexual practices that they couldn't even imagine at their tender ages without some adult planting the idea into their heads.
In the wake of a smear campaign of "race-baiting and dog whistle politics" against Debo Adegbile, President Obama's highly-qualified nominee to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has formally called on right-wing media to raise the level of discourse and abandon their efforts at "character assassination" and "racially charged rhetoric."
On January 23, conservative newspaper The Washington Times ran an extremely offensive caricature attacking Adegbile. The caricature was a reference to Adegbile's successful appellate representation of a convicted murderer whose death sentence was twice confirmed to be unconstitutional. Adegbile's work on that case as one of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's top lawyers has been called "consistent with the finest tradition of this country's legal profession" by the American Bar Association.
The Times' caricature, on the other hand, referred to his nomination as "a slap in every policeman's face," a reference to the victim of Adegbile's former client.
The Leadership Conference -- a coalition of 200 of the nation's leading civil rights organizations -- responded with a statement calling the caricature "reminiscent of the racist iconography of the late 19th century designed to dehumanize and stereotype African Americans," a condemnation of the right-wing media attacks against Adegbile. The January 30 statement also called on the Times and Fox News specifically to "tone down this rhetoric and have a reasoned and substantive conversation on this important nomination":
Until today, we've ignored the race-baiting and dog whistle politics that form the basis of opposition to Debo Adegbile's nomination to head the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. We've disregarded the distortions about Adegbile's efforts to ensure that all Americans can live and work free of discrimination.
But this buffoonish and racially tinged caricature is beyond the pale of acceptable mainstream debate. This cartoon is reminiscent of the racist iconography of late 19th century America designed to dehumanize and stereotype African Americans who were only beginning to throw off the shackles of chattel slavery.
Debo Adegbile is one of the preeminent civil rights lawyers of his generation with broad and bipartisan support for his confirmation. He's the son of immigrants who worked his way through law school to defend American democracy in the U.S. Supreme Court. But to the Washington Times, Fox News, and others, he's a buffoonish caricature and a "cop killer." The American Bar Association has debunked this lie, and wrapping it in racially charged rhetoric does not make it any more true.
This type of character assassination harkens back to the baseless and unrelenting attacks by Senator Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s McCarthy hearings, which led counsel Joseph Welch to ask Senator McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
The head of the civil rights division is a vitally important office charged with defending the rights of all under the U.S. Constitution. There is no longer room for the dog whistle politics of yesteryear in a 21st century debate about an extremely well-qualified nominee to an important position such as this. We're calling on all of Adegbile's critics to tone down this rhetoric and have a reasoned and substantive conversation on this important nomination.
Right-wing media continue to attack former senior counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee Debo Adegbile, President Obama's highly-qualified nominee to head the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, with baseless smears and race-baiting.
Following the lead of an ongoing right-wing misinformation campaign against this former top lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, The Washington Times advanced the accusation that Adegbile's nomination is somehow offensive to police because he once worked on the twice-successful appellate appeal of the unconstitutional death sentence of a convicted murderer. Adegbile's former client remains imprisoned for life. Immediately reposted by right-wing blogger J. Christian Adams, who began the smears against Adegbile, the Times captioned its disturbing caricature of Adegbile with: "Obama's choice represents a slap in every policeman's face."
The caricature does not appear in the online edition of the Times.
Unlike The Washington Times, the American Bar Association has called Adegbile's representation of a criminal defendant's constitutional rights "consistent with the finest tradition of this country's legal profession." Moreover, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives has also lent its support to Adegbile's nomination, calling him "well qualified" and the smears on his character "troubling":
We believe that Mr. Adegbile's record of achievement is impressive, and he is well qualified for the position. Additionally, he has demonstrated a respect for the fundamental rights of all people under our constitution to have legal representation no matter how heinous the offense. We are confident in his ability to bring a balanced and ethical perspective into his role as head of the Civil Rights Division.
The attacks on Mr. Adegbile's character for upholding one's constitutional rights are troubling. To take away one's right to a proper defense because of the act committed, is against the constitutional oath that we as law enforcement officials have sworn to protect and defend. His distinguished record of achievement has centered on racial justice, constitutional rights and equal opportunity; and he should be judged on his entire body of work and not one chapter.
We empathize with the surviving families and those touched by the despicable crimes that were committed; and we understand how painful it is for them to see a conviction sustained at trial and a death sentence imposed only to be lost on appeal because of an error. But these are the laws that we have taken an oath to uphold both popular and unpopular. Civil Rights cases are some of the most controversial and complex cases that our courts face. They are based on interpretations of the US Constitution and affect the rights afforded to all of our citizens and some non-citizens. We expect the leadership of the Civil Rights Division to possess the courage to move forward on those cases that warrant it, and, after careful and thoughtful consideration have the ability to reject those cases that don't meet the legal threshold.
We believe that Mr. Debo Adegbile possesses the unique qualifications needed to lead the Civil Rights Division. He is balanced and ethical, and has demonstrated a duty to honor our Constitution through his bravery to ensure the proper representation of even an individual who has committed the most reprehensible of offenses. Our Constitution is what makes America great and has served as a model for other nations. Therefore, it is our recommendation that Mr. Debo Adegbile be quickly confirmed as the Assistant Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. [National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, 1/24/13]
Right-wing media have responded to a Supreme Court justice's decision to temporarily block the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) birth control mandate by falsely claiming that abortifacients are included in the coverage required by the health care law.
2013 was an epic year of right-wing media misinforming the public on the health care debate, particularly on women's health issues. Ignoring women's health experts, conservative media spent this year stoking fears about everything from birth control to maternity care, ignoring science, distorting state and federal regulations, and demonizing women's health care options in the process. These are the top six scare tactics from 2013.
Media Matters looks back at the best of the worst of right-wing media's treatment of women in 2013.
Conservative media outlets have repeatedly asserted that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - federal legislation that would ban employment discrimination against LGBT workers - discriminates against Christian businesses, but a new report from PolitiFact has rated that claim "False."
On December 16, PolitiFact evaluated a fundraising email from the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) which claimed that ENDA would unfairly punish Christian businesses. PolitiFact rated TVC's claim "false," noting that ENDA includes religious exemptions that are actually more generous than those contained in other federal non-discrimination laws.
PolitiFact also noted that non-religious businesses operated by religious individuals have to comply with the law regardless of the business owner's faith (emphasis added):
Under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964], and therefore under ENDA, religious organizations, which need not be church-run, would be exempt. Additionally, all businesses with fewer than 15 employees are exempt, whether they're religious or not.
Nelson Tebbe, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in religious liberty, said ENDA's religious exemption exceeds Title VII's.
"It's broader because the religious exemption in Title VII only allows religious organizations to discriminate [against LGBT individuals] on the basis of religion," he said. But it doesn't allow religious groups to discriminate based on factors like an employee's gender or race.
So by permitting religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, ENDA allows them more flexibility than Title VII.
The bill's religious exemption indicates that churches, church-run initiatives and other religious businesses need not comply by employing people of all sexualities and gender identities. And there's no special negative treatment for Christians.
Businesses of any religion could qualify for the exemption. Individuals of any faith who oppose sexuality would have to abide by the law, so no religion is singled out.
We rate this claim False.
The myth that ENDA would discriminate against Christian businesses has been widely debunked, but that hasn't stopped the lie from gaining prominence among right-wing media outlets.
The Washington Times editorial board denounced a judge's ruling that a Denver baker violated Colorado's anti-discrimination law by not serving a same-sex couple, assailing "militant homosexual activists" for having the temerity to oppose business discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In a December 10 editorial, the Times cast the judge's decision as an affront to religious freedom, not bothering to distinguish between one's right to personally hold anti-LGBT religious views and discriminatory practices by a business operating in the public marketplace (emphasis added):
A Colorado court is making it a crime to refuse to cater to militant homosexual activists. Judge Robert N. Spencer held on Friday that a bakery owner who, citing his Christian religious beliefs, wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple must "cease and desist from discriminating" or pay fines so large that he'd go out of business.
In this clash of values, the religiously observant are relegated to the back of the legal bus. In Judge Spencer's view, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion must give way to a state anti-discrimination law, even though the Colorado Constitution clearly states, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state." The plaintiffs, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were "married" in Massachusetts, where another court declared such unions to be legal. The couple had demanded that Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, produce a cake for a July 2012 reception in Colorado.
It's not as though Mr. Phillips was unwilling to serve the groom or the other groom. "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies," Mr. Phillips told the men. "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."
The activists here could easily have taken their business elsewhere (rather than to the ACLU), but they wanted to force Mr. Phillips to endorse their conduct, regardless of his deeply held values. Unlike, say, cookies and brownies, a wedding cake is a creative endeavor that communicates a message from the artist, Mr. Phillips' Alliance Defending Freedom attorney explains. "If the service or the product is expressive, if it sends a message, and the government says you have to make it, create it and carry it for someone else," ADF lawyer Nicolle Martin said on a Denver talk-radio show, "that is forced speech.
As is often the case, the Times' editorial board doesn't appear to understand what it's talking about. In this case, the notoriously homophobic paper at least managed to discern which side of this dispute a committed opponent of LGBT equality would take, but the Times' logical consistency stops there.
Take the Times' non-sequitur concerning marriage equality. It's true, as the editorial notes, that same-sex marriage remains illegal in Colorado. How, though, does this invalidate Judge Spencer's finding that Phillips' refusal to serve the couple was a violation of the state's anti-discrimination law? The law explicitly prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Colorado's lack of marriage equality doesn't change that.