To be sure, having our President call for full equality for gay Americans in what is one of the biggest and most viewed speeches of his Presidency is monumental. "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law," Obama said on Monday before cheering crowds, "for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." This was said not only before the entire nation, but mere feet away from the Supreme Court justices who are deciding two historic cases for marriage equality this term, the Prop 8 case and the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

But beyond the meaningful, and not to be downplayed, name check of gay equality, was a more far-reaching inclusion of the struggle for LGBT equality in the civil rights history of the United States itself.

This inclusion goes beyond simple words. For the first black President, on both his second inauguration and on the federal holiday recognizing Dr Martin Luther King Jr, to so completely embrace the LGBT rights struggle as part of our common experience turned the page on the idea of "gay rights as special rights" that so many opponents of equality use to one of a shared American quest for civil rights and justice under the law.

There are moments in history when a speech can transcend beyond just words and actually become action-- and that is precisely what weaving the story of the Stonewall Riots (which birthed the modern LGBT rights movement) into the American experience of "becoming a more perfect union" did. The fight for LGBT equality is no longer the story of a small group seeking rights, it became part of the American story of civil rights and freedom.

This fuller integration and recognition of LGBT Americans was apparent not only in the historic words spoken, but in those chosen to speak and participate in the inauguration itself. The first openly gay inauguration poet, Richard Blanco, delivered his poem "One Today." The Rev. Luis Leon of St. John's Episcopal Church in D.C. delivered the benediction and made reference to gay Americans in the prayer (replacing Rev. Louie Giglio, who withdrew from the ceremony shortly after protests over an anti-gay sermon he delivered in the mid 1990s surfaced). Even Michelle Obama's inaugural ball gown was made by openly gay designer Jason Wu.

As the President said, our journey is not complete. But what we witnessed on inauguration day was a dramatic shift, and a long fought for victory of inclusion and recognition. Our fight-- the fight of LGBT people over the decades to fully live the American dream-- is truly an American endeavor that we all must take part in.

The spirit of Stonewall was alive and well at the inauguration-- and it lives on to carry us forward in the fights ahead.

Without a doubt, election night was a landslide victory for equality. Watching the historic results roll in on issues and candidates that matter to the progress of civil rights for LGBT people was truly a snapshot of just how much, and how quickly, this country has changed on social issues.

Throughout the episode, I discuss the huge wins for equality around the country-- and how the LGBTQ community can move forward with the momentum witnessed for civil rights.

Obviously the re-election of President Obama is a huge win for LGBT equality. Bringing back the first sitting President who not only came out in support of marriage equality, but also signed comprehensive hate crimes legislation and ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", proved that supporting and legislating equality isn't the political suicide opponents said it would be.

In fact, out-of-touch views on social issues like LGBT rights was actively used as an attack on the defeated Mitt Romney, who was endorsed by groups like the bigoted National Organization for Marriage. The President's re-election proves that vocal support for our rights can now be seen as a political plus and regressive policies about equality are damaging.

Remember, just a few short years ago we lost marriage rights in the reliably liberal state of California with Prop 8. Now we have a historic clean sweep for equality around the country. Equality opponents poured millions of dollars into fighting basic rights for LGBT people and their families - and the electorate finally rejected the lies, smears, and scare tactics used against our community for decades.

As Maryland's Governor Martin O'Malley so finely put it, "A message to Maryland's kids: whether your parents happen to be gay or straight, your families are equal under the law."

We also saw records shatter in the federal government as a record number of LGBT members got elected to the next Congress. The Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus will also be expanded with the addition of three new members: Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who is poised to become the first openly bisexual member of Congress; Mark Takano (D-Calif.), first Asian-American openly gay member of Congress; and Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.). They join several re-elected and newly elected LGBT equality supporters in both chambers.

That rainbow glass ceiling also shattered with the election of Tammy Baldwin, a lesbian, as the historic first out LGBT United States Senator.

Less reported, but just as important, is that fact that we saw a huge number of state legislatures get their first out LGBT lawmakers ever. North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, New Mexico, Texas, Florida & Pennsylvania all got out LGBT lawmakers in state government for the first time in history. Having a government on all levels that better reflects the diversity of our country, and our community's place in it, is truly amazing and groundbreaking.

But stepping back from the sheer historic number of equality wins on election night, we see an even more important fact forming - being anti-equality isn't good, or even safe, politics anymore. And that is a huge change in a short period of time.

And therein lies the real lesson from this election - we have to harness that equality momentum.

The wins of out and ally lawmakers, from the President down to local city commissions, is vitally important. But now the real work begins.

We have to use these political tools given to us to push forward on vital LGBT issues, like a comprehensive Employment Discrimination Act, in this next cycle. We have to seize the narrative from this election and drive home the truth to anti-equality politicians and organizations alike that they do not have the support of the American people - and will pay for it at the ballot box.

We have to continue to shine a light on the fact that opponents of LGBT equality are also the same people making "legitimate rape" comments and telling minorities to "self deport" so we can continue to build on the large network of fair-minded voters, organizations and communities fighting for their equality as well.

Equality has turned a corner in our country and there is no going back. But what we do with the victories we worked so hard for this election cycle is truly up to us. Now is when we roll up our sleeves and continue our march for full equality.

As Ted Kennedy said, "The work begins anew, the hope rises again, and the dream lives on."

(Self improvement graphic via Bigstock)

I am seriously running out of ways to express my incredulity at this election...

It seems people have given up even trying to defend Mitt Romney's ever-changing stances and are just saying, "You don't like this current Romney? Don't worry, he'll change into whatever you want after the election and be GREAT! Trust us!"

They can't defend his views because they can't nail any of them down without them changing the next day.

If his constant flip flopping and contortions during the campaign are any indication, his presidency would be a rubber stamp for dangerous, regressive policies put forward in this year's Republican Party Platform-- which literally had the sections on social issues written by Tony Perkins, leader of the hate group the Family Research Council.

This danger of a malleable Mitt Romney has been a common theme this election cycle. And for good reason. Romney has proven that whatever his core values are, they aren't strong enough to buck the rightward trend of his party.

Paul Ryan is the perfect face of today's extreme GOP, seeking to hide radical social conservatism under talk of supposed conservative fiscal views. His record echoes that of the Republican legislators in Congress and states across this country, as well as that of the party's 2012 platform.

They claim to be all about the economy and jobs, yet their actions and legislative records speak of a different agenda, one of pushing our social progress back decades by attacking women's rights, LGBT people, and the social safety net that are part of the very fabric of our country.

For anyone who thinks a strong willed VP and vocal party can't shape a malleable President, you need only look back three short years ago to the influence of Dick Cheney on George W. Bush. Sometimes, the VP isn't even a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Supporters of Romney are now trying desperately to spin his lack of moral certainty as a good thing. Conservative columnist David Brooks tried his best at this game in the New York Times in a rather shocking endorsement of Romney entitled, "The Upside of Opportunism." Yes, in this new Romney-verse, political opportunism should be praised as a good thing in leaders, with Brooks actually saying,

Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done.

Somehow the impossible leap from flip-flopper, to strong leader able to wrangle intransigence, all happens in the space of one sentence.

That same argument was the basis of the Log Cabin Republican's endorsement of Romney. Among other anti-gay stances, Romney signed the National Organization for Marriage pledge, which supported a federal amendment banning marriage equality, as well as included forcing a referendum on marriage equality in Washington DC, appointing anti-equality federal judges, defending DOMA in courts, and creating a panel on ''religious freedom'' to address the imaginary assault on Christians.

Yet despite his long history of anti-LGBT views, the LCR decided Romney's malleability was a good thing, and that his lack of conviction would really work out for us all in the end. Saying that pledge was simply

an empty promise made to a vocal but shrinking constituency. ... In our judgment, the NOM pledge is ultimately merely symbolic and thus should not be the basis of a decision to withhold an endorsement.

That's right-- they honestly call a signed pledge an "empty promise." Of course, don't tell NOM that, because they endorsed Romney because of his pledge to them.

The argument for Romney has become "you can't really trust anything he says, so just trust he'll flip-flop in the direction you want." That's an interesting knot to tie oneself into.

As for a post-election Romney, does anyone honestly think he won't be driven by the extreme fringe currently controlling the GOP? That he's going to suddenly grow a bipartisan moral compass and buck the party he needs to support him so he can get reelected for a second term?

If he'll act like he has this election just to GET in office, what makes you think he'll be any different as he tries to STAY in office?

Talk about "leading from behind"...

In Romney's new political world, lying, lack of leadership, directionless pandering, and moral ambiguity aren't something to run from, but embrace. Forgive me if I don't simply "trust" that Romney and the extreme voices running the GOP will suddenly break out in enlightenment and bipartisan handholding after a contentious election.

When things like my basic rights and equality as an American are at stake, I prefer to base my vote on policy and facts, not the "empty promises" touted by Romney's supporters.

(Img Src)

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender office holders are our clearest and most convincing champions for true equality.  As leaders in government, they become the face and voice of our community.  They challenge the lies of extremists and speak authentically about themselves, their families and our community.

One of the most effective organizations working to achieve that goal is the Victory Fund, a nonpartisan organization that helps LGBT leaders win elections and then serve effectively. Since it's inception in 1991, the Victory Fund has helped thousands of openly LGBT candidates win election to local, state and federal offices.

Getting directly involved in politics and having our voices heard is vitally important to the movement for LGBT equality. That is why we need to run for office at every level of government - and support those in our community that step up to represent us. Visibility in the political process, whether it be at the national and state level or city commissions and local school boards, can have huge impacts. By being part of the political process and having visibility in people's every day lives, we can break down stereotypes, remove stigma, and literally change hearts and minds by putting a human face on our community

Having that all important seat at the political table changes the debate on LGBT rights. It becomes harder for hostile lawmakers to make inflammatory, false, and degrading statements about our community when they have to look one of their fellow legislators who is openly LGBT in the eye day in and day out. Having our voices in the debate and in the political decision making process itself is vital to continuing the momentum for equality, fairness, and civil rights.

There is nothing more powerful than having someone in power who knows our community's issues because they live them every day.

And then you get a letter in the mail reminding you of just that.

My husband, who I legally wed in California prior to Proposition 8 passing (thereby being grandfathered in to a state of pseudo-marriage equality limbo), got a letter from TIAA-CREF Financial Services in the mail entitled "Notice Regarding Civil Unions in the State of Illinois." The letter, like a slap in the face, laid out in stark terms exactly how the patchwork of rights created by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) impacts same-sex couples in ways many don't even consider.

The letter states:

"Pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), same-sex couples and civil unions are not recognized for the purposes of federal law. Therefore, the favorable income-deferral options afforded by federal tax law to an opposite-sex spouse under Internal Revenue Code sections 72(s) and 401(a)(9) and "spousal continuation" rights are currently not available to a party in a civil union."

This is what discrimination looks like, even when it comes in a form letter. There on a page, in black and white, is a reminder to same-sex couples that their relationships aren't viewed as equal in the eyes of their government. I'm not sure many heterosexual couples can imagine what it's like to open your mail and get a letter like this out of the blue - a written dig at your life and family.

Copy of the letter and more after the break.

(Click to embiggen)

We fight for marriage equality for a reason. People who think that civil unions are equal "just without the word marriage" need only look at the harsh language of this simple form letter to see that nothing short of full equality for all couples will be enough. And to be sure, the anger that is felt when we get caught off guard by moments like these only fuels us to fight harder.

There will be a day when reminders of our inequity, of how we are viewed as second class citizens by our government, like this tax notice will be a thing of the past. But until then, I'll keep opening our mail with that little feeling of trepidation, always wondering what insult to the life and family we've built may be lurking inside.

One vote being cast in a sea of millions may seem insignificant, but when we step back to look at the tumultuous history of voting rights in our country, the real world effects of voting, and the current efforts to suppress certain groups of voters, it becomes clear that voting is a vital right and an act that intersects with every aspect of the issues we care about.

Voter suppression and disenfranchisement is nothing new in our country. After our country was founded and the Constitution was adopted in 1787, only white male property owners (a mere 10% to 16% of the nation's population) had the right to vote. The act of voting was reserved for rich, white males - leaving out women, minorities, and poor people.

Voting was slowly expanded throughout the 1800's to other groups of men, but ways to suppress the vote of non-white and non-wealthy citizens ran rampant throughout the country. Literacy tests and poll taxes, prerequisites for voting, had the effect of disenfranchising many people of color as well as poor whites. States even made up impossible hurdles for voting, like the "eight box law," under which voters were required to place ballots in correct boxes which were then shifted throughout the day.

The battle for women's suffrage went on even longer. Voting rights for women were first proposed in July 1848. Yet, it took 72 years of protest and activism for the Nineteenth Amendment to become law in 1920.

It wasn't until 1957 that the Civil Rights Act was passed. The act set up the Civil Rights Commission, which has among its duties investigation into voter discrimination. Disenfranchising poll taxes were finally outlawed in 1964 with the adoption of the 24th Amendment. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed to protect the rights of minority voters and eliminated voting barriers such as the literacy test.

With the often bloody and hard struggles to win and protect voting, it is amazing, yet perhaps not surprising given our history, that a new move to rollback these hard won rights is underway in many states around the country.

Current Voter Suppression & Disenfranchisement Efforts

It seems that many in our country haven't learned from this past and are doomed to repeat it.

In 2011, Republicans gained control of both chambers in 26 state legislatures, with 21 of those states also having GOP governors. Republican-controlled legislatures have passed a wide range of new bills that restrict, rather than broaden, access to the voting rights.

The numbers are staggering. At least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states. There are 27 restrictive bills currently pending in 6 states. 25 laws and two executive actions have passed since the beginning of 2011 in 19 states. 17 states have passed restrictive voting laws that have the potential to impact the 2012 election - these states account for 218 electoral votes, or nearly 80 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.

These GOP led efforts impose a series of new restrictions on voting - strict new voter-ID laws, limits on voter-registration drives, and closing early-voting windows which create fewer precincts and longer lines.

Photo ID mandates are the most pervasive new restriction on the right to vote. In 2011, Republicans have proposed these laws in more than 30 states, requiring Americans to possess and show unexpired government-issued photo identification as a prerequisite to voting.

The new requirements and costs associated with photo ID laws are quite simply a new form of poll tax. The laws don't serve any problem with voter fraud.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University found fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare, saying, "Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible... Most allegations of voter fraud simply evaporate when more rigorous analysis is conducted."

The Department of Justice has struck down voter ID laws in Texas, Florida, South Carolina and Wisconsin this year under the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that states with a history of racially discriminatory voting procedures get their laws cleared by the DOJ. But many states either have tougher news laws that disenfranchise voters or are still in the middle of the judicial process that will decide if these laws stand. This uncertainty in the laws around voting rights and requirements creates confusion, doubt, and further alienates voters in targeted groups.

Beyond Numbers: Voter Suppression's Impacts

Each tactic disproportionately burdens the same voters: youth, students, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, seniors, low-income voters, and Americans with disabilities. Voter suppression efforts, like newly-enacted photo ID laws, will also have a disproportionately harmful impact on those who are transgender.

According to a recent study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, over 25,000 otherwise eligible transgender voters could be turned away at their polling places come November due to the potential discrepancy between a voter's gender identity and his or her designated sex on state-issued identification. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) found over 40 percent of transgender men and women do not have an ID that accurately reflects their gender. 

As a result of the impact on these various voting groups, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University estimates that as many as 5 million voters could be disenfranchised in the 2012 election.

The impact of removing these voters from the equation not only effects things like the Presidential race, which has dire consequences on many policies effecting the country, but also down ticket races like state legislatures and judges, which have huge impacts for issues like women's rights and LGBT equality. The removal of Democratic voters, and thereby voters more likely to lean socially moderate or liberal, also has a potentially outcome-altering impact on state ballot initiatives, like anti-gay marriage equality bans on the ballot in many state in 2012.

For example, almost all of the Republican photo ID mandates make it more difficult for students to vote. In Texas, you can vote with a gun license but not a student ID. South Carolina and Tennessee expressly prohibit the use of student IDs, while Wisconsin allows student IDs but has strict qualifications that no university ID in the state currently meets.

Suppressing young, progressive voters does more than just changing the outcome of one Presidential election; it shapes social policy by removing their voices from the process and disenfranchising them for years to come. This would set progress on social issues back decades, from reproductive rights to minority issues to LGBT equality.

We have seen throughout our history how restricting voting rights doesn't strengthen us as a country; it muffles the voices of the very people who most need to be heard. Voter suppression and disenfranchisement is about fear of progress and change.

Silencing swathes of the electorate for political gain may seem like a good idea in the short run, but it stagnates our country. These laws prove some haven't learned from the mistakes and growth of those before us that fought and died for the right to cast that ballot on election day.

Voting can't be taken for granted - and its impact on us all can't either.

(Ballot box graphic via Bigstock)

After the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, money poured into elections with the creation of the Super PAC - political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.

While the vast majority of that unlimited money has been flowing directly to conservative groups and causes, like Karl Rove's "CrossRoads GPS", progressives are trying to play catch up to the new, no holds barred rules of campaign finance. And it is certainly an uphill battle. Conservative super PACs have far outpaced their liberal counterparts in 2012, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Liberal Super PACs spent a total of $31.1 million dollars through the end of July while conservatives spent $137.1 million dollars-- over four times as much.

To help break down the issues around Super PACs, the episode features an in-depth discussion with LPAC chair and spokesperson, Sarah Schmidt, about the group's mission, the races they are throwing their support behind, how LPAC is focusing on transparency with donors, and why having women's voices in politics is vital for our country. The mission of LPAC and their important efforts to get strong, progressive women into office is highlighted by the recent attacks on women's rights we've seen this political cycle, from stomach-churning "legitimate rape" rhetoric to forced ultrasounds to regressive attacks on birth control.

The topic of Super PACs and money in politics is extremely complex, but vitally important as we move forward with issues we care about. If we didn't use SuperPACs for our causes, we'd be handicapping ourselves and our issues by not trying to combat the outpouring of conservative and anti-LGBT money flowing to our opponents. We also need to change these laws around money in politics and fix the damage created by Citizens United and unlimited spending from Super PACs.

There is no simple answer. But one thing is clear - we must fight against this broken political system and still live in it so we can affect that change. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. It's like they say in politics, if you don't have a seat at the table, most likely you're on the menu.

While it may be an easy talking point for some to say "I'm not a single issue voter... LGBT issues aren't all that matter," the actual truth about the intersection of LGBT rights and economic justice is inescapable.

While some may try to separate the need for a focus on jobs and economic recovery from LGBT equality, the two are closely connected for many in the community. While media portrayals of affluent, white gays dominate the airwaves, the truth is that LGBT people face higher rates of joblessness, lower wages, and higher rates of poverty than their heterosexual counterparts, due in large part to the compounded issues of workplace discrimination added to a slow economic recovery.

LGBT people, particularly people of color, face significant discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Recent studies show that anywhere from 15% to 43% of gay people experience some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. For transgender Americans, the situation is even worse, with a staggering 90% of transgender workers reporting some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.

To be clear, it is still perfectly legal to fire, or not hire, someone for no other reason than the fact they are gay or transgender, or even perceived as such, in the majority of states. Only 21 states and the District of Columbia have laws barring employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, while just 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.

This pervasive discrimination against LGBT people leads to vast socioeconomic inequalities. Discrimination directly causes job instability and high turnover, resulting in greater unemployment and poverty rates for LGBT people, which strikes doubly hard in tough economic times.

The discrimination also leads to a wage gap between LGBT and straight workers.
Gay men earn 10 percent to 32 percent less than similarly qualified heterosexual males, while older gay and lesbian adults experience higher poverty rates than their heterosexual counterparts. Findings also show that lesbian women across the board are consistently poorer than their heterosexual counterparts. Transgender people are twice as likely to be unemployed and are four times as likely to live in poverty. Nearly 20 percent have been or are currently homeless due to the issues stemming from workplace discrimination.

The economic news for LGBT families is startling as well - being denied the legal protections and economic safeguards provided to married heterosexual couples and parents contributes to higher economic insecurity for LGBT families. A 2009 Williams Institute report, "Tax Implications for Same-Sex Couples," finds that same-sex couples often pay more in taxes than heterosexual couples because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. The report shows that the economic impact of marriage discrimination is significant: same-sex couples are not able to file federal joint tax returns, cannot transfer property tax to their partners freely, and are not eligible for Social Security survival benefits.

And again, all these numbers multiply when factors like race and gender are added to the mix for LGBT people and their families.

This job insecurity in the LGBT community often results in insufficient income, sporadic health care coverage, and inadequate or unsafe housing. The issues that many Americans are facing are compounded because of systemic discrimination on many fronts for the LGBT community - from employment discrimination to lack of relationship recognition.

It's the Economy, Stupid

So while many may criticize the LGBT community for focusing on basic equality and protections from discrimination, it is clear that these issues directly impact the economic stability of our lives and families. To try to claim that calls of "jobs, jobs, jobs" is more important than, or not even connected to, issues of equality is to deny the complex and systemic history of bias and discrimination that hurts LGBT people, women, and people of color.

That's why fully-inclusive nondiscrimination laws that protect all LGBT workers on the local, state, and federal levels are essential to boosting the economic security of our community. It is also why having equal access to civil marriage rights, health coverage, and governmental services is vital to LGBT people's economic well-being. Securing equal rights for all would ensure that bigotry and ignorance do not perpetuate joblessness and economic hardship in the LGBT community.

To pretend that there is no connection between LGBT rights and economic security is to speak from a position of disconnect that is steeped in dishonesty and affluent privilege. It is clear that you have one political party seeking to strip rights from LGBT people, to the point of writing those calls for continued discrimination into their party platform and into their candidate's stump speeches, which goes straight to the heart of economic insecurity for the LGBT community. You also have another party seeking to expand access to equality through both their platform and actions. The choice should be clear for LGBT Americans.

There is simply no denying that equality is an economic issue.

It's hard to believe it has been ten years. Looking back at the terrorist attacks of September 11th, it's easy to see it as the event that has shaped politics and the direction of our country, for good and bad, for an entire generation. For me, however, it is a highly personal experience and one that is not easily boiled down into a bumper-sticker or a stump speech talking point. Back in my pre-political life, I was a flight attendant and was in the air on September 11th, 2011 working a flight from New York City to Florida.

I worked for an airline that has live TV's in every seat, so we were some of the few people in the air that actually watched the horrors of that day unfold live. It all started normally enough. The crew of 6 met for the early morning flight, expecting a short trip to Tampa and back. The plane was full of people and we had a quiet, low-key service, chatting with the few passengers who were awake.

Then it happened.

The news didn't know what was happening- if it was an accident or something more. I got on the phone with our pilots, who knew only a few small facts from chatter on the radio. We set up a communication line, updating our pilots with news from the TV as it came in. We were almost ready to start our descent when the entire plane seemed to scream at one time.

A second plane had hit. This was a terrorist attack.

The crew went into crowd control mode as we were told by the pilots that we were being ordered to land immediately. The plane went into a sharp decent as we worked to calm passengers while at the same time arming ourselves with whatever we could find as "weapons" in case we had hijackers on board as well- coffee pots, fire extinguishers, anything we could use to defend ourselves and our plane.

We landed safely and police met the plane to help unload panicked passengers. Our little crew of 6 sat on the empty plane, holding hands and watching in shock as reports came in of other planes going down and crashing. We tried to call friends, to find out if our co-workers were okay or on the planes that went down. As a New York based airline, we all feared the worst. We watched as more horrible news came in- the towers collapsed, thousands were feared dead, rumors flew that more planes had gone down.

In the days that followed when we returned to NYC, I went into the city, attended vigils for the victims (including my fellow flight attendants). I cried and waved as first responders and firefighters drove by to help in the recovery effort. I looked for the faces of friends in the thousands of missing persons fliers that were posted around the city. I continued to fly nearly empty planes, the whole time fearing that it could happen again. It actually played a huge part in making the decision to leave the industry in later years.

To me, 9-11 was a very personal experience. It brought me closer to friends and family and made me realize what was important to me, forever changing the direction my life took. That is why it saddens me as I watch politicians and political parties use it as a "call to action" or as a reason to chip away at personal freedoms and rights. Instead of coming together as a country, it seems we entered into a time that is more distrustful and divided than ever, throwing around terms like "unpatriotic" or "real Americans" with impunity. That day changed so much and shaped our politics for generations to come. It remains to be seen if we can learn and grow from it or simply stagnate in fear and divisions.

(Img src)

Yet the rhetoric, with mindless sound bites and talking points flooding the airwaves, has somehow muddied the water, especially when it comes to the reality of each candidate's record. That rhetoric has at times obscured, and other times purposefully obfuscated, what that choice really means - especially when it comes to basic equality, civil rights, and social issues.

One of the favored talking points of conservatives to the LGBT community is that "Obama is just pandering for your votes with his support of marriage equality." This nasty bit of campaign rhetoric has sunk into the psyche of some fiscally conservative members of the community and our equality allies, giving them an easy out for voting against basic civil rights with the idea that "Obama hasn't done anything concrete for equality."

But a deeper look beyond that rhetoric and to the record of both sides tells a vastly different story.

The GOP Record on Equality

That distracting, and untrue, GOP rhetoric on equality is trying to hide the abysmal record of the current extremist Republican Party and their ticket, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, on social issues. The ever malleable Mitt Romney has repeatedly found it impossible to stand up to the radical voices that now drive his party. If his constant flip flopping and contortions during the campaign are any indication, his presidency would be a rubber stamp for dangerous, regressive policies put forward in this year's Republican Party Platform - which literally had the sections on social issues written by Tony Perkins, leader of the hate group the Family Research Council. The Republican Party platform opposes marriage equality and supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the "union of one man and one woman."

The platform also criticizes the Obama administration's decision not to defend the horrendous Defense of Marriage Act in court, attacks the judiciary for making pro-LGBT decisions in states, and makes its arguments using attacks that denigrate and discount the lives and families of LGBT people. Even the choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate, who has one of the most anti-equality and socially extreme voting records in the Congress, further adds to a solid record of anti-LGBT positions.

The Obama Record on Equality

Yet beyond just seeking to ease the conscience of those LGBT people that are fiscally conservative so they can vote against their own interests, the "Obama doesn't care about gay people except for your votes" rhetoric also tries to erase a long, solid record of movement towards LGBT equality by this administration.

While most only talk about Obama's recent support of marriage equality or the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as his lone accomplishments for LGBT rights, the record of the administration behind that rhetoric speaks for itself.

The administration's record on LGBT rights goes far beyond DADT repeal. Yes, he signed and implemented the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", but has also kept a vigilant eye on the process, including permitting military chaplains to officiate same-sex marriages where legal. Obama also signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, allowed transgender Americans to receive true gender passports without surgery, ended the Social Security Administration's gender 'no-match' letters that unfairly targeted transgender citizens, and clarified the meaning of 'family' to include LGBT relationships which helps to protect bi-national families threatened by deportation.

Beyond legislative action, Obama has moved quickly to include LGBT people and their rights in all areas of government, closing loopholes and long-held discriminatory practices that hurt many in the community. The administration announced HUD's new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders, released America's first comprehensive plan to prevent and end homelessness (which included homeless LGBT youth), hosted the first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention in America's schools, announced White House LGBT Conference Series to address issues affecting LGBT Americans (including health, housing and safety),

The Obama administration has made many concrete moves that have huge impacts on the lives of LGBT people when it comes to government jobs as well. Obama ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, banned discrimination in federal workplaces based on gender identity, issued guidance to foster safer working environments for transgender federal employees, and ensured transgender veterans receive respectful care according to their true gender through the Veterans Health Administration.

When it comes to healthcare, the Obama Administration has a record that goes beyond just enacting the Affordable Care Act, which contained many provisions that help the LGBT community's health needs. They clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for LGBT employees, promoted equal access to quality health care by enabling searches for health plans with same-sex partner benefits on Healthcare.gov, completed a first of its kind Institute of Medicine study on LGBT health, included specific data on health needs of lesbian and bisexual women in the Health Resources and Services Administration's 'Women's Health USA 2011' federal report, and ensured hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for gay and lesbian patients. They even ended the discriminatory and sickening ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States.

The long record on fighting for LGBT rights goes beyond our borders as well. The Obama Administration led a United Nations measure to restore 'sexual orientation' to the definition of human rights and created the first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad.

Even the opposition's rhetoric about Obama just giving "lip service" to marriage equality for same-sex couples is completely false. One of the most important moves for our fight for marriage rights in the courts was this administration declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and announcing they will no longer defend it in court. Beyond that game-changing move, Obama has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and supported lesbian widow Edith Windsor in her suit against DOMA. Even in his presidential proclamation of National Adoption Month, President Obama called for equal treatment for same-sex adoptive parents.

This long, detailed record of pro-equality moves by the Obama Administration stands in stark contrast to the Republican party that has spent millions defending DOMA in courts, opposed DADT repeal, criticized international involvement in LGBT human rights abuses, and attacked LGBT rights on every front.

The Political Reality

What is amazing about the Republican's rhetoric on LGBT rights is that they try to paint dueling pictures of the President's record on equality. On one hand, they seek to appease LGBT conservatives by saying he hasn't done anything for equality. On the other, they try to paint him as an advocate of the "radical homosexual agenda" to fire up the ever shrinking group of social extremists that make up their current base. The very incongruent nature of those taking points should be the first sign that this rhetoric isn't based in reality in any way.

TO be clear, there are times the campaign and candidate rhetoric itself can be enlightening, like comparing Ann Romney's "my real marriage" anti-gay dog whistle speech to Michelle Obama's "proud Americans can . . . boldly stand at the altar with who they love" convention speech. In fact, the content of the speeches and inclusion of diverse faces and voices in the Democratic National Convention compared to the erasure of, and at times open hostility to, LGBT Americans at the Republican National Convention speaks volumes. Nearly every speech at the DNC had multiple, substantive, policy-supported mentions of LGBT equality that were completely organic and turned into applause lines. That stands in stark contrast to the language of the RNC on equality - which ranged from openly hostile and demeaning to seeking to erase our families and lives from the conversation.

Elections are about debating what we want our country to be and where we want it to go. It's time to debate the issues based on the truth, not distortions. We can only have that debate if we cut through the rhetoric, remove the distractions, and talk about the real policies and records of the candidates. It may be easier to listen to the talking heads on TV spin their version of reality, but only by being an educated electorate can we really see the choice we have to make.

It's a telling lineup for a party trying desperately to sell the talking point that they are all about "jobs, jobs, jobs." Highlighting these truly radical speakers and elevating once fringe figures with extreme views highlights what the Republican Party of 2012 has truly become - a party taken over by far-right zealots who distract with tax and deficit talk as they seek to legislate their own narrow definition of "morality."

And therein lies one of the most important, and under-reported, problems of a Mitt Romney candidacy. Romney doesn't lead as much as follow the loudest voices in his party.

"Romney has proven that whatever his core values are, they aren't strong enough to buck the rightward trend of his party. The mercurial, malleable Mitt would be a rubber stamp for dangerous, regressive policies put forward by a Republican party that wants to drive America back generations and erase hard won rights for many in our country."

Those regressive policies are on full display in this year's Republican Party Platform, which literally had the sections on social issues written by Tony Perkins, leader of the hate group the Family Research Council. Like the featured speakers at the convention, this anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-immigrant manifesto shows a party that has handed it's moral compass over to the most divisive and extreme voices once thought too be too far out of the mainstream.

Those are the voices that will be calling the shots on the Republican governing policies and controlling an easily swayed President Romney, something we have already seen in the campaign as Romney continuously capitulated to social conservatives to shake off the "moderate Mitt" attack from opponents.

Even Romney's choice of a running mate, Paul Ryan, should give sane and educated voters pause. Paul Ryan is the perfect face of today's extreme GOP, seeking to hide extreme social conservatism under talk of supposed conservative fiscal views.

His record echoes that of the Republican legislators in power in Congress and states across this country and that of the party's 2012 platform. They claim to be all about the economy and jobs, yet their actions and legislative records speak of a different agenda to push our country's social progress back decades by attacking women's rights, LGBT people, and the social safety net that are part of the very fabric of our country.

And anyone who thinks a strong willed Vice President and vocal party can't shape a malleable President need only look back three short years to the influence of Dick Cheney on George W. Bush. Sometimes, a VP isn't even a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

So as the Republican party marches forward speakers at their carefully orchestrated convention, look at the message they are sending. Listen to the loudest voices in their party that are given a national platform, from Governor Bob " Forced Ultrasound" McDonnell to Mike "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation" Huckabee to Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum.

These are the voices calling the shots for the current party and shaping the agenda of a Romney presidency.

(Romney/Ryan caricature via DonkeyHotey on Flickr)

To help break down the issues of biphobia, bi erasure, and bi history in the LGBT movement, the episode features an in-depth discussion with bisexual activist, Brother Michael Oboza, an activist monk and Michael Page, who founded the New Liaison for Bisexual programs at the Center on Halsted in Chicago. The discussion looks at the issues that face the bisexual community from both anti-equality forces and from within the gay and lesbian communities.

Video and more after the break.

It's a hard place to be in for many in the bisexual community. The very concept of bisexuality often finds itself trapped in a position of both invisibility and hyper-visibility - despite the fact that bisexuals constitute the largest population within the LGBT community. Can you imagine the pain caused by not only being rejected and demeaned by anti-equality forces who call you "sinful" or "sick," but also being rejected or told you don't exist by the very community you are supposed to be part of?

In truth, how are these claims by some in the gay community any different than the homophobic rhetoric we fight against from the far-right about gays being a perversion or something than can be changed or prayed away. The truth is, they aren't. Comments like "bisexuality is just a stop on the way to gay" can be as demeaning and damaging as calls of fag and dyke.

These facts are underscored by the groundbreaking report from the San Francisco Human Rights Commission called "Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations." The report contains some startling facts that only further show how vital this conversation is, saying:

"Bisexuals experience high rates of being ignored, discriminated against, demonized, or rendered invisible by both the heterosexual world and the lesbian and gay communities. Often, the entire sexual orientation is branded as invalid, immoral, or irrelevant. Despite years of activism, the needs of bisexuals still go unaddressed and their very existence is still called into question. This erasure has serious consequences on bisexuals' health, economic well-being, and funding for bi organizations and programs."

We cannot, as a community, be part of erasing a vital and thriving part of our movement and history. In the same fashion, simply throwing a "B" into the acronym LGBT isn't enough - we have to celebrate, educate, and support bisexual people in our movement with true inclusion and visibility in all areas of our community. Having frank and honest discussions amongst ourselves like on this episode can help that process along.

Ignorance, close-mindedness, and refusal to accept others is what we are fighting against as LGBT people - we have to demand better of ourselves and be examples for others of what true acceptance looks like.

Make sure you catch the entire interview on Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson on Gay Chicago TV, with new episodes added every second and fourth Thursday of the month. You can join the show's discussions on twitter with the hashtag #WaymonWrapUp and on our Critical Thinking Facebook page.

Political party platforms are meant to be the guiding principles, core values, and desired actions of a party. They are a roadmap for members and, more importantly, for voters that show where a particular political party wants to take the country given the chance to set the agenda. This year, the two major parties' political platforms tell a tale of stark differences on equality - one of a party looking forward and one of a party seeking to drag social progress back decades.

On one hand, this year's Democratic Party Platform is the most pro-LGBT in history, complete with support for both marriage equality and fully-inclusive employment non-discrimination protections:

"We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples...

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

We know that putting America back to work is job one, and we are committed to ensuring Americans do not face employment discrimination. We support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because people should not be fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity."

Having one of the two main parties include support for marriage equality, condemnation for the odious "Defense of Marriage Act," and support for ENDA that protects both sexual orientation and gender identity is a historic move. The language used as well, tying employment discrimination protections directly to the larger fiscal issue of job creation in general, shows a party that finally understands that for many in the LGBT Community, social issues like equality are very much inexorably tied to fiscal and financial issues - many in the LGBT community get hit with the double struggle of a bad economy and still-legal employment discrimination against them.

The Democratic Party Platform shows a party willing to see where the majority of Americans are when it comes to basic equality for LGBT people. It also shows a party willing to move forward, despite vocal opposition and social controversy around equality.

The 2012 Republican Party Platform

On the other hand, the GOP's Political Platform seems to want to pull the country back when it comes equality for LGBT people. While the conservative gay organization, Log Cabin Republicans, said that the Republican Party platform might actually include a "positive nod" towards LGBT people with a vague line about the "dignity and respect" of all Americans, the reference made no specific mention of LGBT people, In fact, the party platform includes some horrific language that proves that LGBT people and our rights are not included in the Americans that deserve "dignity and respect" for the GOP.

In fact, the anti-gay language contained in the Republican Party Platform has an author that shows just where the influence for the current GOP is coming from - Tony Perkins of the virulently anti-LGBT hate group the Family Research Council. In fact, Perkins bragged about his influence over the party's social agenda, saying, "You should read the entire plank on marriage, which I wrote. I feel very happy about it."

That influence speaks volumes in the language. The Republican Party platform opposes marriage equality and supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the "union of one man and one woman." The platform also criticizes the Obama administration's decision not to defend the horrendous Defense of Marriage Act in court, attacks the judiciary for making pro-LGBT decisions in states, and makes its arguments using attacks on the lives of LGBT people and blatant distortions torn from the pages of hate groups like the Family Research Council.

"A serious threat to our country's constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values...

An activist judiciary usurps the powers reserved to other branches of government and endangers the foundation of our country. We oppose the Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle - in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts - makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath.

We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so.

It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, are less likely to engage in crime, and are less likely to get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom... We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage."

To be perfectly clear, the Republican Party platform not only opposes basic rights for LGBT people, but also erases the very idea of our families. The underlying message in the language is that only heterosexual couples with children are "families," while any other make-up outside of that antiquated notion (including same-sex couples with children) simply aren't "real" families. In fact, the social science they refer to absolutely includes same-sex couples raising children, yet the GOP seeks to use distortion to erase our very existence.

Beyond that, the Republican Party wants to write that level of discrimination into our federal constitution - they want to change the document they constantly wrap themselves in to take rights away from a specific group of people.

This platform shows a party taken over by extreme social zealots like Tony Perkins that want to strip LGBT people of their rights and drag forward social progress in our country to a grinding halt.

The Stark Contrast

While not everyone in a political party agrees with every plank in a party platform, the political manifestos do shed important light on the stark differences in the two major parties of today. One party seeks to respect and expand rights for LGBT people, while the other looks to take rights away and make our community invisible.

While some political issues thrive from healthy debate and disagreement, like fiscal or foreign policy, some things should be beyond "political stances." Basic civil rights and respect for all Americans should be a given, despite the politics at play. But when a party like the GOP hands its moral compass over to divisive and extreme people like Tony Perkins, we cannot look away. There are lines in the sand that must be drawn to stop the people who would drag us all back instead of forward, whatever your political persuasion or views on issues beyond equality.

The choice has never been more clear when it comes to civil rights for LGBT people - which platform would you be proud to stand on?

(Goldfish contrast clipart via Bigstock)