The findings of a Yale University study show a correlation between adolescent sexuality and the frequency of punishment. The study found that lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adolescents are 40 percent more likely than heterosexual adolescents to be punished by school authorities, police and the courts, according to a recent article in “ScienceDaily.”

The study, which will be published in the journal “Pediatrics” in January 2011, includes the experiences of 15,000 middle and high school students over a seven-year period. Subjects were surveyed about their sexuality and about how often they engaged in different degrees of “misbehavior.” From there, the frequency of punishment was measured, specifically how often behavior resulted in school expulsion, police stops, juvenile arrest, juvenile conviction, adult arrest and adult conviction, according to the study’s abstract.

The abstract concludes that “Nonheterosexual youth suffer disproportionate educational and criminal-justice punishments that are not explained by greater engagement in illegal or transgressive behaviors,” and adds that “Understanding and addressing these disparities might reduce school expulsions, arrests, and incarceration and their dire social and health consequences.”

According to “Science Daily,” the study’s lead author, Kathryn Himmelstein, said that LGB adolescents were 50 percent more likely to be stopped by the police. Further, adolescents who reported being attracted to members of the same sex – even if they did not label themselves as LGB – “were more likely than other teens to be expelled from school or convicted of crimes as adults.”

What’s more, lesbian or bisexual female teens seem to get the brunt of it, reporting “twice as many police stops, arrests and convictions as other girls who engaged in similar behavior,” Himmelstein said. And it turns out that the LGB adolescents studied engaged in fewer violent activities than the heterosexual adolescents studied.

Himmelstein added that “The painful, even lethal bullying that LGB youth suffer at the hands of their peers has been highlighted by recent tragic events. Our numbers suggest that school officials, police and judges, who should be protecting LGB youth, are instead singling them out for punishment based on their sexual orientation.”

On January 20 the world will watch Rick Warren, a man who has compared gay marriage to incest and abortion to the Holocaust, give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration. Oddly enough, in the public eye Warren comes off as an almost moderate pastor, something that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Warren backed the recent California ban on gay marriage, doesn’t believe in evolution and once publicly told a Jewish woman she would go to hell because she isn’t Christian.

“Choosing a man like Rick Warren to deliver the invocation isn’t just a slap in the face to gay supporters, but a slap in the face to several of Obama’s supporters,” said a gay Obama supporter who requested to remain anonymous. “The choice only satisfies the right-wing. It’s like Obama is saying ‘sorry for beating McCain guys, here’s your consolation prize.”

Gays have been the most public of the outraged American population; several organizations have organized protests and sent letters urging Obama to reconsider his decision.

“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” reads a letter to the President-elect from the Human Rights Campaign. “You have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans have a place at your table.”

Obama’s decision to invite Warren, a man who is already such a powerful pastor and has been deemed by many as America’s “unofficial pastor,” may come at the expense of several important groups in the U.S., including many politically knowledgeable religious minorities and gays.

Knowing that many liberals see the choice as utterly insulting, Warren defended himself in a recent speech at his Saddleback Church in Southern California.

“You don’t have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand,” Warren told the crowd, according to Fox News.

In defense over allegations that he is homophobic, he cited his relationship with gay rights activist Melissa Etheridge, saying he is a fan of her music and that the two enjoyed a great conversation one evening.

However, in an interview with BeliefNet, a spiritual site owned by Fox, he likened redefining marriage to include gays to incest, child abuse and polygamy. In the same interview he told BeliefNet that he has “many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes.”

“Every step Warren takes forward, he falls back twice,” said Jason Howell, a conservative who voted for McCain. “He says something to better his public image, then starts talking about gay homes.‚  He does work in Africa fighting HIV/AIDS, but teaches abstinence and prayer instead of sex education to a society where rape is a common cause of the disease. He always says things to satisfy those he’s speaking to, and we can expect the same pabulum in his invocation speech.”

Whether Warren spews pabulum or not, he will deliver the speech as millions around the world watch one of the most historic presidential campaigns come to an official end. Unfortunately, for many, the pastor’s preaching will mar this historic day.

However while countless Americans are insulted, some‚ believe‚ Obama’s willingness to have a man with whom he disagrees on many issues at his inauguration shows his commitment to unifying the country and sets an example all Americans should follow.

“You can look at it that way too. Just because he chose Warren doesn’t mean he supports Warren’s ideology,” said the anonymous Obama supporter. “He’s getting people from all ends of the political spectrum to join in his celebration.”

“He is reaching across the aisle. Warren and Obama disagree on a lot of things, but so do a lot of Americans,” said Howell. “But that doesn’t mean they all aren’t happy about change.”

As is the case with many political decisions that involve religion, this is wrought with controversy. However while analyzing this selection is of grave importance to several liberals, Howell believes January 20 should be about something else.

“The day is about Obama and his historical inauguration not about Warren’s political views. People shouldn’t let that overshadow an accomplishment by a man so deserving of all the success he has received in life.”

The greatest accomplishment of “Milk,” Gus Van Sant’s film chronicling the rise and fall of the first openly gay elected official, is the director’s ability to place the viewer in the thick of it.

The openly gay Van Sant makes a movie about an openly gay politician. Is it a gay movie? Not explicitly. It’s a movie about hope, and a movie about changing the world.‚  Harvey Milk was not a veteran politician: he was a businessman when he moved to San Francisco, and became a politician because he wanted to help people.

Van Sant’s camera rarely shoots Milk from above, and more often than not, is placed in the middle of a throng. You are there, with the crowd. It’s as though Van Sant is in as much awe of what the politician can do as is his cabinet of young, gay outcasts.‚ You fall in love with Harvey Milk, and his murder is all the more tragic for it.

But that’s the point: Milk was trying to do some honest good for people, and he was killed for it. The tragedy of the film doesn’t hit home until the viewer is confronted by documentary footage of rivers of candle-bearing mourners, thousands strong, marching from the Castro to San Francisco City Hall – another incredibly potent reminder that the entire thing was real.

Sean Penn, an actor with whom this writer confesses little familiarity, loses himself in the role. With the use of documentary footage, old camera stock and modern filmic techniques, 1978 and 2008 get confused, and Penn disappears. It’s a masterful performance, deserving of any number of accolades. With a gesture as simple as a smile or a raise of the eyebrows, Penn, through Milk, woos the viewer just as easily as he woos the crowd.

As a film, not just a love-letter, “Milk” is supremely executed. It’s book-ended with Milk’s murder at the hands of Dan White, and follows the narrative Milk himself recorded on cassette tapes days before his death. The film is organized to doom Milk’s mission from the start.