Tom Privitere and his husband, Brian Edwards, met in 2000, and fell in love. Nine years later they became engaged to be married. Like any couple who commit themselves to a life together, they must have been ecstatic when they posed for pictures on that happy occasion in 2009.

Now, three years later, Tom and Brian, who married in 2010 and live in New Jersey, and Kristina Hill, the photographer who took their engagement pictures, are involved in a lawsuit. Not against some smarmy tabloid, another photographer, or an entertainment show.

No, according to the suit, the couple’s engagement photo was plucked off the Internet, and used in ads concerning the statehouse race in Colorado. In one case, the photo was doctored to remove the Brooklyn Bridge in the background, and the words, “STATE SENATOR JEAN WHITE’S IDEA OF FAMILY VALUES?” were splashed across the image of the couple kissing. Ms. White and the other pro-equality candidate these ads targeted, House candidate Jeffrey Hare, were both defeated in the election.

The couple and their photographer are suing Public Advocate of the United States in U.S. District Court in Colorado, for the unauthorized use of the photo, for violating the law, and for damages, costs, and attorney fees.

A word about Public Advocate of the United States. On the “About” page of their website, the group says it was founded in 1981, and has “never wavered from our firm conviction that political decisions should begin and end with the best interests of American families and communities in mind. . . . In recent years, our efforts have focused on supporting: . . . A federal traditional marriage (man-woman) amendment to the Constitution to defend tradional [sic] marriage from assaults from those who claim to promote ‘same sex marriage’ . . . . Public Advocate offers strong and vocal opposition to [among other things]: Same sex marriage and the furtherance of so-called ‘Gay Rights.'”

What the plaintiffs are alleging is diabolical–for a political organization to steal an image, and demonize a couple’s love and privacy, in order to peddle bigotry and hate to win votes.

Tom Privitere says, “All that we did was what any other couple would do to mark their engagement and have these photos taken for family and friends to share our joy and our excitement and help people (see) what path we were taking toward our wedding.”

This abuse of decency, which would allow a group to disparage and slander a loving couple, is a perfect snapshot of the lengths to which anti-equality forces are willing to go, to discriminate against their fellow human beings. To those who claim First Amendment freedom of speech, the question is, when does the freedom of speech trump the Ninth Amendment right to privacy?

Homophobia constantly besets those who identify as LGBT; it’s a steady drizzle of rain that occasionally, as in Tom and Brian’s case, erupts into a torrential downpour.

Privitere and Edwards are the victims of unapologetic, overt homophobia. Their case is far from uncommon. The hard truth is that an entire segment of our twenty-first-century society regards LGBT people as less than human, and as such simply not entitled to the same guarantees that they, as heterosexual people, enjoy.

Human rights are at the centerpiece of the campaign for president and vice president of the United States this November. We are talking about the highest offices in our democracy. On the one hand, President Obama made history in May when he endorsed same-sex marriage. In contrast, his opponent, Governor Romney, has staked himself to a federal ban on same-sex marriage if he is elected. Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, recently said, “The things you talk about like traditional marriage and family and entrepreneurship . . . these aren’t values that are indicative to any one person or race or creed or color . . . . These are American values, these are universal human values.”

As we’ve noted previously, Mr. Ryan has received a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign. What this means is that, as a representative to the U.S. Congress from Wisconsin, he has a 100 percent record of voting in opposition to the causes of sexual orientation and gender identity, civil liberties, and civil rights. It’s difficult to imagine two candidates more determined to oppose and dial back LGBT rights and marriage equality than the Romney/Ryan ticket.

Obama’s endorsement, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and other significant gains–including the legal freedom to marry in place in six states plus the District of Columbia (and on the ballot in four more states this November)–give us hope. We feel the pendulum starting to swing toward justice, and can conceive of the day when LGBT people and heterosexual people will live together in harmony, without regard for one another’s sexual orientation, when, in fact, our sexual orientation and who we love will no longer be a cause for contention of any sort.

But as long as basic human rights are regarded as commodities up for a vote, as long as we have candidates for the most powerful offices in the land unblinkingly wrapping their politics around the necks of those they would demonize for their own gain, and as long as we have groups like Public Advocate of the United States (their title makes them sound government sponsored, doesn’t it?) proudly waving the all-American flag of homophobia, Tom Privitere and Brian Edwards and millions of other LGBT Americans will continue to be at risk, and that day of total equality will remain a distant dream.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Learn more about Rachel’s new novel here —-> Driving in the Rain

Join Rachel on Facebook here —-> The Equality Mantra