Jeremy Hooper points to this video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that the Solicitor General should resign over President Obama’s decision not the defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “It’s unacceptable, it cannot be justified. It was direct interference politically by the President of the United States,” Sessions said during Donald Verrilli, Jr’s confirmation hearing to the position, before falsely claiming that Obama had supported DOMA. From the hearing:

SESSIONS: I would suggest what should have have happened. The Solicitor General should have told the Attorney General, ‘we cannot not defend that statute. It does not comply with the law.’ And the Attorney General should have told the President, ‘I know you may have changed your mind, Mr. President, but this is a statutory law passed by the Congress of the United States, it’s been upheld Constitutionally and it has to be defended. We cannot fail to defend that statute. And then what happens? I think what happens is the President says, ‘okay, I wish we could….’ And I think he would have backed off. If not, then you have to resign.

Watch it:

But if we are to take Sessions’ suggestion seriously, then we would also need to impeach conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. As Ian Millhiser explains, “in 1990, then-acting Solicitor General Roberts refused to defend a federal affirmative action law after he successfully convinced the George H.W. Bush Administration that the law was unconstitutional. He failed to convince the Supreme Court, however, and the law was upheld. By declining to defend DOMA, the Obama Administration is following the exact same approach embraced by Roberts.”

Several Republicans have also asked for Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation, despite the long history of past administrations choosing not to defend legislation. In fact, the administration argues that two new challenges to DOMA in November of 2010 brought about the change. As the New York Times explained, “Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people.” The administration decided that sexual orientation deserved a higher level of constitutional scrutiny and that under that standard of review, Section 3 of the law was unconstitutional.

Yesterday, Delaware’s Senate Administration and Elections Committee approved a bill that would allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions that grant all of the same state benefits and obligations of marriage. The measure, which will receive a vote on the Senate floor in the coming days, passed unopposed as the committee’s two Republicans did not take positions on the bill and few elected Republicans have publicly denounced it. The majority of the opposition is being organized by the Delaware Family Policy Council.

Advocates on the ground tell ThinkProgress that the group has conducted a push poll campaign, from a D.C. number, relentlessly bombarding the state with messages about the supposed harmful effects of recognizing same-sex relationships. One such call warns residents that civil unions are a Trojan horse for same-sex marriage and that the measure would use taxpayer dollars to teach children that “it’s okay to have two moms and two dads.” The group echoes the message in this pamphlet on its website:

A recent poll found that more than six out of 10 Delaware voters — 62% — “favor allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions, which is twice the number who oppose such a law (31%).” If the bill passes the Senate, it will then move to the House and Delaware’s Governor Jack Markell has promised to sign the measure.

While equality inches forward in some states, echoes of inequality freshly resound in others. Here’s a round-up of the latest.

- DELAWARE: The Senate Administration and Elections Committee approved the bill and it now moves to the Senate floor for consideration. “The bill restricts civil unions in Delaware to same-sex couples, keeping marriage under state law limited to opposite-sex couples.”

- ARKANSAS: The Arkansas legislature has passed an anti-bullying law that enumerates the attributes of sexual orientation and gender identity (PDF). Meanwhile, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the challenge against the ban on same-sex adoption voted into effect in 2008.

- COLORADO: Hearings begin tomorrow in the House for the civil unions bill that passed in the Senate last week.

- INDIANA: A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has passed both houses. It will need to be passed again in 2013-2014 to complete the amendment process.

- MARYLAND: A bill that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity has hit a snag in the Senate that may lead to the bill’s death in a committee “graveyard.”

- MONTANA: Efforts to repeal the state’s anti-sodomy laws are struggling despite having been ruled unconstitutional 14 years ago.

- NORTH CAROLINA: A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has been introduced and is currently in committee.

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

After the Supreme Court declined a request to hear a lawsuit intending to allow a voter referendum on Washington DC’s same-sex marriage law in January, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) — chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) — told The Hill that he will push for a vote to establish a referendum to overturn the law. Now, Congressional Quarterly is reporting that Jordan is drafting the proposal and expects “to draw strong support from House Republicans”:

He and other conservatives say they are weighing how best to promote the vote as an example of Republicans fulfilling a campaign promise. The GOP’s 2010 Pledge to America vowed that a Republican majority would “honor families, traditional marriage, life and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.” [...]

But several lawmakers said Boehner has resisted making a similar commitment to press measures in opposition to gay marriage.

The Speaker skirted demands from conservatives earlier this month for a vote on a proposal to instruct House lawyers to defend a provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage (PL 104-199) that directs the government to recognize marriages only between men and women.

The level of Republican support is difficult to gauge as the GOP leadership attempts to keep the focus on the economy and remains weary of weighing in too heavily on LGBT issues. In this case, not only does a majority of Americans now supports same-sex marriage, but a Congressional intervention into the D.C. law undermines conservatives’ efforts to present their campaign as a local effort to give DC residents the right to vote on the issue. Any additional focus on anti-LGBT issues could also bolster the presidential candidacies of Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Rick Santorum, who would face the steepest road in a general election.

D.C.’s marriage law was enacted in 2009, after the D.C. Council passed two measures to recognize marriages performed outside and inside the District. Both bills passed though a mandated congressional review period without challenge, even though several conservative Republicans sponsored bills to ban same-sex marriages in D.C.

The Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson is reporting that Republicans on the Armed Services subcommittee have scheduled a Friday hearing about the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, setting up a potentially acrimonious confrontation between opponents of lifting the ban and the Pentagon officials in charge of instituting it:

The House Armed Services personnel subcommittee, which will hold the hearing, is chaired by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who’s renowned for shouting “You Lie!” to President Obama during the 2010 State of the Union address. Wilson was a vocal opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year and cast a “no” against ending the military’s gay ban. [...]

The hearing apparently has the endorsement of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). Asked via e-mail whether the speaker supports the hearing to oversee “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation, Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, replied, “That seems to be appropriate.”

While Congressional oversight of repeal seems like a legitimate end, Republicans have used the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy as a means of drumming up their conservative base and are reportedly planning an additional full committee hearing on April 7. At least three Republican presidential nominees have come out in favor of reinstating the policy and 25 Congressional Republicans are co-sponsoring legislation that would add the four military service chiefs to the list of those who must sign off on repealing the policy before it can be officially scrapped. Two of the sponsors are members of the personnel subcommittee.

Wilson, the committee’s chairman, has said that it was “irresponsible” for Congress to “repeal the ban on openly gay service members without giving the House of Representatives time to hold hearings” and promised to “support the repeal of the repeal.”

Last week, the Connecticut House Judiciary Committee considered HB 6599, a bill to add “gender identity or expression” to the state’s anti-discrimination statute. Testifying against the bill, Peter Wolfgang — President of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action — warned that the bill would “expose” children “to teachers in their schools who one day will be a man and the next day could decide to be a woman” and “alternative lifestyles.” Women and children “would be put at risk,” Wolfgang continued. “Nothing would prevent a male sexual predator from pretending that he is confused about his sex to gain access to a woman’s bathroom.”

During the hearing, Committee Chairman Rep. Holder-Winfield (D) challenged Wolfgang on his fearmongering, “pointing out that laws prohibiting that kind of assault already exist” and would remain in place if the nondiscrimination measure is adopted:

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: You said if this bill passes, nothing would prevent the sexual predators from taking the actions that you suggest might happen. What prevents them from doing that now?

WOLFGANG: Well they’d certainly have more of a reason to do it. And men in general should not be allowed into women’s bathrooms. At issue is the fact that you have an exception for sex but not for gender identity and expression if this bill passes and men can enter women’s bathrooms.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: But my question to you is, what prevents them from doing it now? Your answer, while a response, doesn’t actually indicate what does that.

WOLFGANG: Well, I mean, you know, there are laws that prevent crimes, obviously, from taking place in bathrooms in general. But, I mean, why give sexual predators a pretext? Why give them an excuse to say, “Look, I’m transgendered and that’s why I went into the women’s bathroom.” Obviously it’s – you know, there are laws for registered sex offenders.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: And so those laws would actually exist if the crime was committed after entering the bathroom, even if this law passed – if this bill passed, is that not correct?

Watch it:

As HRC’s Meghan Stabler writes, while momentum for the bill is building, “[s]imilar bills in the past had passed both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate yet died in the state House of Representatives.” A similar bill in Maryland “dropped its public accommodations language in an effort to boost support.”

In 2004, the Connecticut passed a transgender-inclusive hate crime law and in 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) issued a declaratory ruling “indicating that transgender people are protected under existing Connecticut sex discrimination laws.” Still, there currently exists no explicit law “protecting transgender people from discrimination in employment, education, housing, and public accommodations.” (H/T: Equality Matters)

In commemoration of LGBT Health Awareness Week, the Center for American Progress and the National Coalition for LGBT Health have released a new report examining how the Affordable Care Act affects the LGBT community and how they and their allies can “continue to advocate for broad inclusion as the law is fully implemented between now and 2014.” Authors Kellan Baker and Jeff Krehely offer four specific recommendations for how the federal government and the states can ensure that the law is implemented with the community in mind:

- Achieving comprehensive nondiscrimination protections in health insurance exchanges: HHS should issue “explicit antidiscrimination protections regarding gender identity and sexual orientation in all aspects of insurance.”

- Establishing LGBT-inclusive data collection policies: Section 4302 also allows the secretary of HHS to designate additional groups that experience health disparities and would benefit from improved data collection. The Secretary should include sexual orientation and gender identity.

- Recognizing and including LGBT families in all health reform activities: HHS should issue rules ensuring that, to the extent permitted by law, the full diversity of families in the United States, including LGBT-headed families, are eligible for new benefits and programs.

- Supporting community-based health interventions that are LGBT-inclusive: the definition of “community” must be expanded beyond physical boundaries toward an understanding of communities shaped by shared identities and common health disparities.

The report notes that America’s health care crisis is only magnified in the LGBT community, which suffers from discriminatory laws that limit access to dependent health care coverage and — given burden of minority stress — “also faces elevated risk for substance use and mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation.” For instance, “gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults are roughly twice as likely as the general population to be without health insurance coverage, and rates of uninsurance are even higher for transgender individuals.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs found that the federal income tax burden on dependent employer-sponsored coverage for same-sex couples (as well as other factors) directly result in lower levels of insurance for partnered gays and lesbians as compared to their heterosexual counterparts. “Partnered gay men are less than half as likely (42 percent) as married heterosexual men to get employer-sponsored dependent coverage, and partnered lesbians have an even slimmer chance (28 percent) of getting dependent coverage compared to married heterosexual women,” the study found.

These disparities will likely decrease as the government implements the new health law, but as Baker and Krehely argue, policy makers should consider taking additional steps to ensure that all of the community’s health care needs are properly met.

In response to a proposed regulation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development prohibiting discrimination in its programs based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has cried out that the regulation will interfere with their religious beliefs and threatened to end their support and sponsorship of tenants for HUD programs (PDF):

Specifically, the regulations may force faith-based and other organizations, as a condition of participating in HUD programs and in contravention of their religious beliefs, to facilitate shared housing arrangements between persons who are not joined in the legal union of one man and one woman. By this, we do not mean that any person should be denied housing. Making decisions about shared housing, however, is another matter. Particularly here, faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple, be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Given the very large role that faith-based organizations play in HUD programs, the regulation, by infringing upon that freedom, may have the ultimate effect of driving away organizations with a long and successful track record in meeting housing needs, leaving beneficiaries without the housing that they sought or that the government intended them to receive.

HUD’s decision reflects a growing awareness of the discrimination actually faced by people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. A recent study revealed that one in five transgender individuals has experienced homelessness. An estimated 40% of homeless youth are LGBT, and LGBT elders are at higher risk for homelessness due to the compounding financial inequities they experience over their lifetimes.

This is only the latest of several threats from the Catholic Church to suspend charity support in the face of LGBT progress. In 2009, when the District of Columbia was preparing to pass marriage equality, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington threatened to discontinue all social services for the city if the same-sex marriage law was passed. After the law passed, DC Catholic Charities dropped all spousal benefits for newlyweds and new hires. In Maine, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland pulled its funding of a homeless shelter because of its support of same-sex marriage.

But, while the Bishops feel that it is more important to discriminate against LGBT people than to actually provide them housing, a recent study revealed that 74% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage or civil unions. In conjunction with its new proposed policy (PDF), HUD is also conducting its own study of housing discrimination against LGBT people.

Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner reports that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is planning to re-introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this week, even as he acknowledges that the bill won’t be considered in the Republican-led House of Representatives. “It’s an organizing tool,” Frank told Geidner, explaining that introducing the bill will help build more support for the issue.

Last year, the measure—which would prohibit public and private employers from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment decisions–never even received a hearing before the House Education and Labor Committee, but Frank told Geidner that ENDA stands a better chance of eventually passing a Democrat-controlled Congress than the recently introduced legislation to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act:

MW: What about those who are concerned that DOMA repeal efforts will overtake ENDA passage efforts?

FRANK: I’d say that you seem to want to ask contradictory questions. We’re not focusing on DOMA. DOMA is being done – did you hear what I just said? – DOMA is being done in the courts. We’re not doing it legislatively.

MW: But you were at the Respect for Marriage Act introduction two weeks ago.

FRANK: The energy is going to be – the chances of passage are greater on ENDA than on DOMA [...]

ENDA will pass before DOMA will be repealed congressionally. I believe that, with regard to DOMA, the goal is to win it in court. I do not think there is a good likelihood of getting DOMA repealed through the Congress. I think there is a good likelihood, in a Democratic Congress, of getting an inclusive ENDA. The number of folks we have to shift to get ENDA passed with transgender inclusion is smaller than the number of votes we have to shift to get DOMA repealed. And I have consistently said that all along.

The GOP’s refusal to consider the bill is still somewhat surprising, given the party’s efforts to run on a “jobs” platform during the 2010 midterm elections and its constant attacks against Democrats for failing to create enough jobs. “Make no mistake, we are coming to Washington to rein in the deficit, to tear down barriers to job creation and to reform a government that has grown out of touch with the governed,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) wrote in an op-ed shortly after the election. Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to extend to LGBT Americans who have been fired because of discrimination.

Last year’s ENDA legislation had 45 Senate cosponsors and 199 House cosponsors. Asked about the Democrats’ failure to pass the bill in early January — despite a majority in both chambers of Congress — then Press Secretary Robert Gibbs promised that the White House would “certainly work to make progress on those fronts in obviously a much more challenging Congress.”

Polling data has long suggested that Americans are increasingly accepting and supporting same-sex marriage and the latest data from the General Social Survey — a respected survey from the University of Chicago — is no exception. As CAP’s Ruy Teixeira points out, in just-released data from their 2010 survey, the survey finds that “46 percent of Americans now say that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married, compared to 40 percent who are opposed. That compares to 12 percent in favor and 73 percent opposed in 1988 when the question was first asked”:

So why the drastic drop in opposition between 1988 and 2004? Aside from the higher visibility of out-gay people (42 percent of Americans now live in states that recognize some form of gay and lesbian union) a 2010 study by Brian Powell of Indiana University suggests that the GOP’s own fixation on anti-LGBT initiatives — especially President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign — may actually be expanding support for same-sex marriage by increasing the visibility of LGBT issues and making “a topic that seemed taboo a little bit less taboo.” “One of the fascinating things is that with all this discussion out there whether positive or negative, being able to say the words, just made people more comfortable,” he told me during an interview in September. “With all this discussion about same sex marriage…I think it made people more attuned to who there friends and relatives [are].”

An article in today’s Boston Globe suggests that Republicans may be slowly waking up to this realization. It notes that “the first reaction of House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, to the president’s announcement was a bland critique of the timing — not the substance — of Obama’s decision” and points out that even though Republicans have decided to defend the law, the party bypassed “the opportunity to hold a floor debate and a vote before the public.”

Joe Sudbay correctly observes that we’ll still “see lots of hate and homophobia spewed during the GOP presidential nomination process” — particularly since conservatives in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire are hoping to repeal same-sex marriage. But these polls indicate that candidates who make a big deal out of these issues will have a difficult time appealing to Independent voters during the general election.

Of the many groups that canvass in front of its stores, the Target Corporation has singled out California grass-roots activist group Canvass For A Cause. Target is suing the group–which supports progressive issues such as same-sex marriage–for violating its solicitation policy, but court documents reveal that Target’s primary concern may be its fear of being seen as a pro-LGBT establishment.

As first reported by Ken Williams of the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News, the lawsuit specifically targets CFAC, ignoring other groups who continued to canvass throughout the trial. While the suit (PDF) claims aggressive tactics by CFAC canvassers, the testimony provides no concrete evidence of such tactics—only anonymous hearsay—and focuses on the “controversial” and “sensitive” topics CFAC promotes, only mentioning one (repeatedly): gay marriage. The supporting testimony (PDF) of Daniel Brown, an Executive Team Lead for Assets Protection at the store in Poway, California, states that CFAC’s message is offensive and “too sensitive” for children (reinforcing the perception that homosexuality—and thus all who identify with it—is harmful to children):

Target has long had a good reputation in the LGBT community. Last summer, however, Target gave $150,000 to support anti-gay Republican candidate Tom Emmer in Minnesota. Despite apologizing, Target didn’t compensate for the donation and continued to contribute to right-wing, anti-gay candidates.

More recently, Lady Gaga had brokered a deal with Target that would have allowed the store to sell her new album exclusively in return for the corporation “making amends” with the LGBT community by affiliating with pro-LGBT charities and ending support for anti-gay groups. But Gaga dissolved the deal because “she and Target didn’t see eye to eye on Target’s policy of political donations and how they affect the LGBT community.”

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) has joined fellow potential Republican presidential contenders Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) and Mike Huckabee (R-AR) in supporting the reinstatement of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, telling America Family Foundation’s Brian Fischer that he supports rolling back repeal out of fear that “amorous mindsets” would interfere with “saving people’s lives and killing bad guys”:

BARBOUR: Let’s look at the best evidence that we have. They did research to see what military people thought about this idea. The closest to the ground, the soldier on the ground, was the most opposed to this. And it’s not necessarily over homosexuality. Its over the fact that when you’re under fire and people are living and dying of split-second decisions you don’t need any kind of amorous mindset that can effect saving people’s lives and killing bad guys. You look at the data and it is the foot-soldier that is the person who is out there, boots on the ground, who was most against this. And it’s because they live or die with this and that’s who we ought to be listening to, that’s who we ought to be caring about and that’s why I am against it. I think it ought to be rolled back. I just don’t see how you can take any other position if the person you are trying to protect is the soldier who is actually in combat.

Watch it:

Despite Barbour’s rather insulting concerns about “amorous mindsets” in the ranks, a majority of servicemembers who participated in the Pentagon’s survey of the policy — upwards of 70% — didn’t believe that gay troops would undermine unit morale or cohesion. According to the report, combat units expressed more negative views about open service (40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties) because of inexperience with gay servicemembers — opposition that would likely deteriorate with proper leadership and training.

Of the three Republicans who have publicly called for reinstating the ban, only Pawlenty has called for recalling the funds necessary for implementing repeal. None of the presidential hopefuls explained how bringing back the policy would actually play out operationally, however. (H/T: Right Wing Watch)

Yesterday, the Colorado State Senate passed SB 172, which would allow same-sex couples (or any two unmarried adults) to obtain a civil union. During the debate, the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Pat Steadman (D) — who is openly gay — said the measure provided “very basic, but very important legal protections… that no family should be without.” Opponents of the measure disagreed. Led by Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R), this group of lawmakers predicted that state recognition of same-sex relationships could lead to a breakdown of traditional marriages and pointed to Europe, where they claimed the family has been “abandoned”:

LUNDBERG: We need not go back centuries, in fact we cannot go back centuries, because it is such a foreign concept to human experience, save the last few decades. But we do have some examples. We can look to the nation of France, which instituted civil unions in the 1990s. We can look at some of these Scandinavian countries that have gone down this same road and what we see is not a reinforcement of marriage and the family unit. But what we see are cultures that have abandoned the family unit as a foundation of human society…This would change the very concept of what marriage is.

Watch it:

Conservatives made this very same argument after Massachusetts began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, warning against a rapid deterioration of heterosexual partnerships and broken families. Their European statistics were wrong then — after Denmark’s passed its registered-partner law in 1989, marriage rates climbed, as did the rates in other Scandinavian countries — and their doomsday projections never materialized in the states that do recognize same-sex unions today.

In fact, Massachusetts recorded the “the lowest divorce rates in the entire country” and Iowa has posted the lowest number of divorces since 1970. As FiveThirtyEight.com pointed out last year, “states which have tended to take more liberal policies toward gay marriage have tended also to have larger declines in their divorce rates,” while the seven states with the highest rates “all had constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage in place throughout 2008.” And although the causation may still be unclear, it’s certainly not the case that same sex marriage results in the disintegration of the institution as a whole.

During yesterday’s debate, Lundberg also disputed claims that same-sex couples are sometimes denied hospital visitation rights because their unions are not recognized by the state. Characterizing such hardships as “beyond my experience,” Lundberg concluded, “They don’t occur by my observation, anyway.”

The civil unions bill will face a final vote this morning and will then go to the House, where Republicans have a one-seat majority. Advocates believe they have the votes to pass the bill on the floor, but suspect that it could face a challenge in committee. Polling has shown that 72 percent of Coloradans and 61 percent of Republicans in the state support civil unions. In 2006, however, voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage and voted down a measure that would have established civil unions. (H/T: Daniel Gonzales at Box Turtle Bulletin)

Since 53 percent of Americans — including a 53 percent of white Catholics and 57 percent of nonevangelical Protestants — now support marriage equality, Republican presidential candidates who speak out against gay initiatives risk positioning themselves at the very extreme end of political spectrum. Yesterday, my CAP colleagues Noel Gordon and Jeff Krehely released an interactive of the likely GOP candidates’ positions on LGBT issues. As it turns out, all of the potential GOP hopefuls are firmly outside the American mainstream:

- NEWT GINGRICH: “I stand on some kind of legal rights. I’m not sure where I stand on civil unions. It’s like marriage without marriage. I’ll give you a specific example of what I believe. People ought to have the ability to have people visit them in the hospital, which is the most obvious and awkward situation.” [The American View, 2005]

- “[T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us.” [O'Reilly Factor, 11/14/2010]

- MIKE HUCKABEE: “While discussing marriage for gay couples: “There are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. … there are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?” [Politico, 6/22/2010]

- “I believe that we’re in denial about potential problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families. Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood.” [A Simple Government]

- GOV. HALEY BARBOUR (R-MS): “I’m proud that Mississippi cast the highest percentage of its vote of any state in the country for the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” [Jackson Free Press, 1/11/2011]

- TIM PAWLENTY: “My general view on all of this is that marriage is to be defined as being a union of a man and a woman. Marriage should be elevated in our society at a special level. I don’t think all domestic relationships are the equivalent of traditional marriage.” [Newsweek, 12/20/2009]

- MITT ROMNEY: “I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman… Of course, basic civil rights and certain appropriate benefits should be available to people in nontraditional relationships. But marriage is a special institution between a man and a woman, and our constitution and laws should reflect that.” [Stump speech, 4/28/2007]

- SARAH PALIN: “Well not if it goes closer and closer toward redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and woman and unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead. But I also want to clarify if there’s any kind of suggestion, at all, from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves. You know, I am tolerant. And I have a very diverse family and group of friends.” [CNN, 10/2/2008]

- RICK SANTORUM: “Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” [USA Today, 4/23/2003]

Click here to see the interactive and download the complete report [PDF].

It seems that Apple has finally responded to the nearly 150,000 petitioners and removed the harm-promoting Exodus International app from its iTunes store, as we reported on yesterday.

Apple has not yet released an official statement, but overnight, Truth Wins Out and Change.org claimed victory in their effort to have the “ex-gay” app rejected. Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, confirmed the app’s demise via Twitter:

From the TWO press release:

Truth Wins Out and Change.org praised Apple today after the company removed a virulently anti-gay iPhone app launched by Exodus International that promoted “curing” gay people. The move came after 146,000 people signed a Truth Wins Out petition on Change.org calling on Apple to remove the app from iTunes.

“Apple made a wise and responsible decision to dump an offensive app that demonized gay and lesbian people,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. “The real winners today are LGBT youth who are safer and less at risk for receiving Exodus’ malice and misinformation.”

“We’re thrilled that Apple has removed this ‘gay cure’ app from the iTunes store after more than 146,000 people signed this petition,” said Mike Jones, Editor at Change.org, the platform used by Truth Wins Out to launch the petition. “The message Apple is sending here is clear: there is no place for ‘ex-gay therapy’ on the Apple platform.”

Civil Unions made a big step forward in Colorado while same-sex marriage took a big step back in Indiana. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

- CALIFORNIA: The Ninth Circuit has denied a request to lift the stay on same-sex marriages while Proposition 8 is appealed.

- COLORADO: The Colorado Senate approved a second reading of SB 172, which would allow same-sex couples (or any two unmarried adults) to obtain a civil union. Meanwhile, the Colorado House approved a second reading of HB-1254, an anti-bullying bill for Colorado schools.

- DELAWARE: A bill has been introduced in the legislature to allow for civil unions, and Governor Markell has offered his support for the bill.

- INDIANA: Indiana’s Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-3 to move a same-sex marriage ban forward, despite a poll this week showing a plurality of Hoosiers oppose the ban.

- MARLYAND: Despite recent setbacks on the marriage equality bill, a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity passed out of the Government Operations Subcommittee of the Health and Government Operations Committee.

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the states click over to our comprehensive State Marriage Watch page.

Over 125,000 individuals have joined Truth Wins Out in petitioning Apple to remove a new app from Exodus International. As an umbrella organization for hundreds of “ex-gay ministries” worldwide, Exodus and its app promote the fraudulent and harmful idea that sexual orientation can (and should) be changed. Apple has allowed the app to persist in its store, despite removing a similar anti-gay app last summer.

Apple’s lengthy list of potential reasons for rejecting an app includes many that the Exodus International app arguably violates, such as:

Any app that is defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited, or likely to place the targeted individual or group in harm’s way will be rejected.

Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected.

Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected.

Apps containing references or commentary about a religious, cultural or ethnic group that are defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited or likely to expose the targeted group to harm or violence will be rejected.

Apps that contain false, fraudulent or misleading representations will be rejected.

Both the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association (among other groups) have indicated that efforts to change sexual orientation have no scientific credibility (“fraudulent”) and can cause psychological harm to patients. These groups also point out that such therapies are not guided by research, but a will to oppose the full civil rights of gays and lesbians, often increasing the stigmatization they experience (“defamatory”).

Last April, Sue Spivey and Christine Robinson of James Madison University published a study entitled “Genocidal Intentions: Social Death and the Ex-Gay Movement.” The study provided compelling evidence that the efforts of the ex-gay movement, as led by Exodus International, constitute four of the five definitions of genocide laid out by the United Nations.

Exodus International makes no secret of its effort to reach out to youth through its newly rebranded “Exodus Student Ministries.” In fact, in 2011, it put forth a new goal to “Simplify, Amplify, and Intensify” its focus on reaching young people with harmful, fraudulent messages. Exodus’ Student Blog features prominently on the new app, designed to take advantage of curiosities and insecurities young people have about their sexuality.

As of now, the Exodus International app continues to be available for download. It has a 4+ rating in the iTunes store, a rating that Apple reserves for apps that “contain no objectionable material.”

(Check out Truth Wins Out’s video challenging the app. Bryan Safi also chimed in about the controversy on his That’s Gay segment.)

Earlier this year, presidential explorer and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) said he would support reinstating the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and cutting funding off to implement the repeal. Now, his potential rival Mike Huckabee is following suit. Speaking to the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, Huckabee said that he too would support re-imposing the ban against open service by gays and lesbians:

“I would — because that’s really what the military wants,” says Huckabee. “There’s been some talk that the military is fine with having same-sex orientation people. But if you really surveyed the combat troops, that is not at all the case.”

According to Huckabee, currently a political analyst for Fox News, politicians should back out of the picture. “…I don’t think that these are decisions that politicians should make. These are decisions that soldiers should make,” he says emphatically. “And when the soldiers in the foxholes make the decisions, they choose something different — and we should listen to them.”

A majority of servicemembers who participated in the Pentagon’s survey — upwards of 70% — didn’t believe that gay troops would undermine unit morale or cohesion and the study’s co-chairs argued that combat units expressed a more negative view about open service (40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties) because of inexperience with gay servicemembers.

“One of the factors that causes a difference in the Army and the Marine Corps combat arms responses when compared to the overall responses is that we find in those two communities, Army and Marine Corps combat arms, — and this is probably unsurprising — that those communities have lower rates of actual experience of having served alongside a gay or lesbian servicemember,” the study co-chair Army Gen. Carter F. Ham explained last year. “We did find in the survey that there is a difference between servicemembers who have and those who have not served with gay and lesbian servicemembers. And I think this may be one of the significant contributors to the differences between combat arms responses and the force overall,” he added.

Ham also rebuffed Huckabee’s suggestion that combat troops should decide the policy outcome. “I can’t think of a good outcome that comes out of that,” he said, adding, “We don’t poll the force about potential military operations. We didn’t poll the army that says, you know, do you agree with 12 or 15 month-long combat tours.”

Finally, it’s unclear how reinstating the policy would work operationally. Reimposing DADT would require gay servicemembers who come out after repeal is certified to suddenly go back into the closet or face discharge. Straight soldiers would also have to pretend they did not know about the sexual orientation of formerly-out gay members. (H/T: JoeMyGod)

Republican presidential candidates who are positioning themselves as social conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage will be speaking to an ever diminishing portion of the religious base, last week’s ABC News/Washington Post poll found. That’s because a majority of Americans — 53 percent — now support marriage equality (up from only 32 percent support in 2004), including 53 percent of white Catholics and 57 percent of nonevangelical Protestants. As CAP’s Sally Steenland observes, the public has finally “moved ahead of the religious institutions they belong to and the politicians who represent them”:

It’s true that white evangelicals remain widely opposed—only 25 percent support marriage equality. But even that number is an 11 percent increase from 2004, when only 14 percent showed support. [...]

Those in the pews are expressing a lived reality that is dynamic and complex. More and more, people have openly gay and lesbian friends, co-workers, and family members. They have neighbors who live in committed same-sex unions. When real people bump up against religious ideology, most often it’s the ideology that breaks and gets swept away.

But that’s not the only reason religious people are increasingly supportive of marriage equality. Many faith communities are working hard to welcome gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people into their congregations and stand up for LGBT moral equality. From study groups that wrestle with sacred texts to prophetic witnessing for nondiscrimination policies, religious institutions are increasingly including LGBT issues as part of their justice mission and seeing LGBT people as reflecting the image of God just as they are.

A 2010 study by Brian Powell of Indiana University found that the GOP fixation on anti-LGBT initiatives may actually have expanded support for same-sex marriage by increasing the visibility of LGBT issues and making “a topic that seemed taboo a little bit less taboo.” “One of the fascinating things is that with all this discussion out there whether positive or negative, being able to say the words, just made people more comfortable,” he told me during an interview in September. “With all this discussion about same sex marriage…I think it made people more attuned to who there friends and relatives [are].”

So if Republicans focus on gay marriage during this election cycle, they won’t just be talking to a smaller group of voters. They’ll also be helping a growing number of Americans come out in favor of marriage equality.

Today former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) announced that he is exploring a Presidential run. In his announcement video, he presents a folksy midwest charm and extols the “brave men and women throughout this country’s history that have asked for nothing more than the freedom to work hard and get ahead without government getting in the way.” But when it comes to LGBT folks and their families, Pawlenty’s actions don’t live up to his lofty rhetoric. Below are eight things you should know about Pawlenty’s record on LGBT issues:

1. Pawlenty proudly opposes recognition of any same-sex unions: In a recent interview on FOX News, he told Greta Van Susteren that he will “never be at the point where I say all domestic relationship[s] are the same as traditional marriage. They are not.” He similarly bragged to the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer in January about helping to craft a same-sex marriage ban in Minnesota.  As part of his recent tour of speeches in Iowa, he also endorsed The Family Leader, a conservative group who promotes the idea that same-sex marriage is worse for people’s health than smoking.

2. Pawlenty supports maintaining Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, rescinding funding to implement its repeal, and perhaps not allowing gays and lesbians to serve at all: In January, he stated he would support reinstating the policy and that doing so would have no impact. Then, in February, he added that he would support rescinding the funding for its repeal as “a reasonable step.” He also refused to indicate whether he thinks gay and lesbian troops should have the right to serve in the military whatsoever.

3.  Pawlenty regrets his vote as a state legislator supporting nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity: Citing its protection of “cross-dressing” and how confusing it would be for third-graders if Mr. Johnson showed up the next day as Mrs. Johnson, Pawlenty lamented his 1993 vote in support of the antidiscrimination law, earning the ire of LGBT groups for his distasteful remarks.

4. Pawlenty vetoed a bill extending end-of-life rights to same-sex couples: As a result of his veto, same-sex couples in Minnesota still have to go through the process of setting up a will to be protected if one partner dies. In addition, same-sex couples continue to be limited in the ability to seek restitution for wrongful death.

5. Pawlenty vetoed an anti-bullying bill adding sexual orientation and gender identity to Minnesota’s bullying policies and training: Despite numerous concessions made to get the governor’s support, he still vetoed the bill, claiming it was redundant and ignoring the new protections it offered the state’s LGBT students.

6. In 2001, Pawlenty opposed labor unions’ efforts to offer benefits to employees’ same-sex partners: The controversy led to a union strike in the fall of 2001, and then in February of 2003, the unions were forced to accept a compromise that stripped benefits from 85 same-sex partners who had previously been receiving them. [Star Tribune, 10/4/2001 and 2/18/03]

7. Pawlenty vetoed a bill allowing local municipalities in Minnesota to offer domestic partner benefits: The bill would have allowed cities, counties, and school districts to offer domestic partner benefits in the same way more than 300 private companies already do in the state.

8. Pawlenty vetoed a bill allowing state employees to use their accrued sick leave to take care of seriously ill family members: Domestic partners were removed from the bill in hopes that it would prevent a veto, but Pawlenty vetoed it anyway, stating that it would cost too much.