Our society has made remarkable progress in the fight for LGBT equality in my lifetime. The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was completed this year, and most Americans support ending discrimination against LGBT people in the workplace. In 2010, for the first time, two separate polls indicated that a majority of Americans support the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. The well-documented generation gap in support for LGBT rights ensures that anti-equality forces in the United States are ultimately fighting a losing battle.

But as the GOP presidential primary is so vividly reminding us, much work remains to be done in the struggle for LGBT equality. Of course, the usual suspects in the anti-gay pantheon remain the most vocal exponents of homophobia, but even well-meaning, LGBT-affirming individuals can and often do reinforce homophobia and heterosexism without even knowing that they’re doing it.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve found myself in the following situation: a supportive, well-meaning friend or family member is introducing me and my spouse to someone we don’t know. This person makes the introduction as follows: “Hi, so-and-so! This is John, and this is his [insert occasional awkward pause here] partner [or 'boyfriend,' or 'lover,' or 'friend'] Michael.”

Michael and I have been married for nearly six years. Still, we regularly find ourselves in the situation outlined above. I suspect that people have a wide variety of reasons for using non-marital terms to describe our relationship in social situations. Perhaps they aren’t (or are?) aware of the religious or political views of others and wish to sidestep any potential awkwardness that might ensue. Perhaps they themselves, while outwardly professing to support equality, still struggle silently with acceptance of our marriage. Perhaps they wish to save us from embarrassment or retribution. Even LGBT-identified friends of ours slip up on occasion, introducing Michael as my “partner” or asking me whether my “boyfriend” and I will be able to attend their holiday party. I suspect that in these cases especially, force of habit is the culprit: same-sex couples have been excluded from the rights and privileges of marriage for so long that many LGBTs don’t even think of committed same-sex relationships in marital terms.

However varied the reasons may be for using less contentious terms to describe our marriage, the result is always the same: it denigrates our love, telling us that our marriage is somehow unworthy of the term, inherently unequal and intrinsically less valuable than the marriages of our straight counterparts. It reinforces the still-powerful cultural taboos surrounding LGBT people and our relationships. It implies that honesty about the nature and definition of our relationship is less important than accommodating the prejudice of others. It tells us that it’s best to be silent.

I am not entirely without guilt here, either. Early in our marriage (perhaps due to my Catholic upbringing or the sometimes sadistic nature of Midwestern politeness), I often adapted my own terminology to suit my audience. For friends, family members, and people under 40 I used the term “husband,” but for elderly and conservative people, and in work-related situations, I retreated into the relative neutrality of “partner.” I’m no longer shy about making universal use of the term “husband,” but I’ve still occasionally been reticent to call others out for neglecting to do so themselves.

No more.

I can no longer concern myself with whether or not my marriage makes others uncomfortable. I have to be true to myself, my husband, and the love that we share. I refuse to make any concessions whatsoever to bigotry; from now on, I will correct anyone who disrespects the way Michael and I define our relationship. I will not allow my marriage to be denigrated in my hearing.

Of course, there are some in the LGBT community who make the conscientious decision not to describe their committed relationships in marital terms. I respect those decisions and would never suggest that those relationships are any less equal, committed, valuable, or meaningful than mine. However, decisions about how to define a couple’s relationship are for that couple, and that couple alone, to make. Michael and I define ourselves as husbands (as does the State of Vermont), so referring to us by any other term is a sign of deep disrespect that I, and hopefully others, will no longer tolerate.

This holiday season, when you’re introducing your married LGBT friends at a party, remember to respect the way they choose to define their relationship. Michael is my husband. Get used to saying that, because from now on, I’ll be correcting you if you don’t.

Note: This piece, which can also be found on the Huffington Post, is a retooled version of a post that originally appeared in the Bilerico Project in December 2010.

From a Steve Ralls, Communications Director at Immigration Equality, Huffington Post op-ed:

In about 72 hours, a plane from The Netherlands will arrive at JFK Airport in New York and two passengers onboard will, for the first time in more than two decades, be able to step safely onto U.S. soil. The arrival of Clemens Ruland and Hugo Bausch will also signal the end of a shameful and discriminatory policy that has exacted a heavy price on our country’s reputation in the scientific community and kept countless individuals – both straight and gay – separated from their loved ones.

Beginning today, the United States’ decades-old HIV Travel and Immigration Ban will be a relic of the past, and the stigma and discrimination it has engendered around the world will, with any luck, begin to fade, too.

Slowly, but surely, America rejoins the rest of the civilized world under the Obama administration. It is nice to live in a country with a smart president that does not kowtow to retrograde reactionaries. For those on the flight from The Netherlands, welcome to The United States of America.

Nathaniel Frank, author of “Friendly Fire: How The Gay Ban Undermines The Military And Weakens America” demolishes Princeton professor Robert George’s idiocy disguised as “reason” in today’s Huffington Post. “If we’re going to use reason,” writes Frank, “let’s use real reason, and not lean on our ivy-league credentials to pass off homophobia as genuine rationality.” According to his post:

For years now a culture war has raged between liberal rationalists and religious dogmatists over whether homosexuality should be treated equally by civil law. Having lost ground in recent years as young people grow up in a world far more familiar with the banalities of what it really means to be gay, the right wing has begun taking careful steps to re-brand its homophobia as a rational, secular position, instead of the sectarian prejudice that it is.

This is the latest project of the Princeton professor, Robert George, profiled in this Sunday’s New York Times magazine. It’s a dangerous trend, and a starkly immoral one, as credentialed, highly educated people who should know better lend their social science credentials to the sloppy thinking and outright bigotry of those who are unable or unwilling to challenge their own dogma.

As I wrote yesterday, (and Evan too) George is sophistry disguised as scholarship. He basically has religious hang-ups with LGBT people. Instead of exploring his own poor morals and personal issues, he has created a career out of justifying prejudice – all on Princeton’s dime.

Be warned: Those new National Organization for Marriage anti-GLBT actor auditions videos Wayne reported about this week are gone. NOM noticed that its evil ruse had been exposed and demanded that YouTube take them down. Even a clip of a recent MSNBC Rachel Maddow clip that included the audition tapes is gone. NOM’s reason: copyright infringement.

YouTube has to develop a bigger pair. The fact that a national organization is working to deny equality under law to millions of certain citizens makes the story newsworthy. Showing at least excerpts is fair use — under law.

Why are people so afraid of the anti-equality crowd? It’s so obvious that the organized fundies are the ones to fear. NOM was willing to lie, manipulate, and terrify the ignorant segment of the public, low-info types who can be compelled en masse to do what is right for their brand of Christianity, but wrong for anyone who really believes in basic American ideals. The tactic is cynical, selfish, immoral, and destructive. And it works: Remember Proposition 8?

At HuffPo, Lambda Legal’s Evan Wolfson provides a description opf the ads and refutes their vicious claims, so that at least some of those unable to view the outrage can see clearly the threat with which we are dealing. It’s a long excerpt, but it is an important one:

Consider what the actors in the NOM ad pretend to be:

A doctor who wants to discriminate against her patients, despite civil rights laws and medical ethics that the California Supreme Court upheld – in a case having nothing to do with marriage.

An officer of a New Jersey group that for years voluntarily operated a beachside pavilion with special tax-breaks that required it be open to the public – but then tried to turn down a lesbian couple. The case did not turn on marriage, since New Jersey doesn’t yet allow gay couples to marry, but, rather, basic civil rights laws about open access to public accommodations.

A Massachusetts parent who sought to dictate public school curriculum about the diverse families children will need to be aware of to thrive in a diverse world, and then wanted to remove her child from classes in a way that would have disrupted class and imposed unreasonable burdens on the school and other kids.

The law in California, as elsewhere, is that doctors can’t discriminatorily refuse to treat patients ‚Äî Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM incites fear. The law in New Jersey, as elsewhere, says that organizations running public accommodations such as restaurants or rental halls cannot discriminatorily exclude people ‚Äî African American, Latino, or Asian, gay or non-gay; that has nothing to do with marriage, and yet NOM says that the discriminators are somehow the victims. The law in Massachusetts, as elsewhere, of course allows parents to teach their kids whatever they want, and even to send them to private schools or do home-schooling. The law also rightly sets rules for determining public school curriculum without having every parent, or special interest with an agenda, coming in and imposing their views on everyone else’s kids ‚Äî yours or mine, gay or non-gay.

I encourage you to read Wolfson’s entire piece — he has worked on the front lines of this fight and knows the terrain. And he’s a lawyer.

National Organization for Marriage may believe that its copyright trumps our right to know the truth, but the group is wrong. Here is an opportunity to dtake action and do some good: Anyone with a thirst for a truly equal US will share descriptions of the ad — along with the truth about marriage equality and the fact that is is no threat to anyone, save those who need legal supremacy — with everyone they know. It is particularly urgent that we talk with those who question the need for civil-marriage equality. If we can’t trust YouTube to stand up to transmit the truth, we must do it.

Here is a debate between NOM’s Maggie Gallagher and Human Rights Campaign Joe Solmonese on CNN’s “Hardball,” where the HRC chief handily obliterates his opponent’s position using truth and fact.

HRC\’s Joe Solmonese on Hardball 04/08/09