Last Friday, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) assembled a “distinguished panel” for a House Judiciary Committee hearing on “defending marriage,” including vocal opponents of marriage equality, Maggie Gallagher (National Organization for Marriage) and Ed Whelan (Ethics and Public Policy Center). During the hearing, Whelan claimed that President Obama attempted to “sabotage” the Defense of Marriage Act and now this “distinguished” witness is going a step further, calling for Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against California’s Proposition 8 to be vacated because Walker is gay. Right Wing Watch‘s Brian has this catch:

Because Walker was deciding how the law in the very jurisdiction in which he lived would directly govern his own individual rights on a matter that a reasonable person would think was very important to Walker personally, it is clear that Walker’s impartiality in [Perry v. Schwarzenegger] “might reasonably be questioned.”

Whelan is referring to Section 455(a) of Title 28 the United States Code, which requires a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” He argues that because Walker has a same-sex partner with whom he could marry if Prop 8 were overturned, he had a bias to overturn it.

The odious implication of such an argument is that only a member of the predominant group can determine the rights of a minority group—members of the minority group would not be “qualified” to rule. But as Equality Matters noted in response to other conservatives who have made the same argument, claims of Judge Walker’s “bias” also assume that a heterosexual judge would not have a “personal interest” in the outcome of the trial. This is anathema to the primary argument made by defendants of Prop 8: that same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriages.

Watch the highlights from Franks’ “defending marriage” hearing:

Yesterday, at the request of the House Republicans, former Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a motion to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Clement’s firm is charging less than their typical $900 an hour to defend the discriminatory law, but taxpayers will still be on the hook for a rate of “$520.00 per hour for all reasonable attorney time” with “a sum not to exceed $500,000.00.” “[S]hould the $500,000 cap be reached before the Litigation is complete, and if the cap has not then been raised by written agreement…contractor shall not be obligated to continue providing legal services under this Agreement,” the contrast states, suggesting that the government may end up paying much more for Clement’s services.

Boehner’s willingness to spend taxpayer dollars defending DOMA contrasts sharply with the GOP’s rhetoric from last week. Then, Republicans almost brought the federal government to a standstill over what they perceived as out of control spending, holding out until the very last minute to secure a deal. Boehner voted for the agreement, even as he insisted that “we need to cut more” and promised, “there are many more steps, more cuts, and more reforms to come.” The contrast is quite stark: 11 days ago, the GOP was willing to shutdown the government over the smallest of cuts, now it is paying a top lawyer $520 an hour to undo some of those hard-earned savings. Below is a list of the cuts that will likely be diminished if Republicans seriously pursue their DOMA defense:

- Agriculture Department Administration: – $1M from FY11

- Public Telecommunication Facilities Planning: – $1M from FY11

- Non-defense Environmental Clean Up: – $1M from FY11

- Bureau of Public Dept: -$1M from FY11

- Geographic Programs: -$1M from FY11

- Rural Health Programs: -$1M from FY11

On Friday, Boehner said, “The American people have demanded that the Washington spending binge end because they understand that we can’t continue to spend money we don’t have.”

This morning, President Obama hosted his second annual Easter prayer breakfast, welcoming more than 100 attendees from various Christian congregations. Two of the event’s chosen speakers were religious leaders who take very public anti-LGBT positions.

Opening the breakfast, Obama spoke of the “magnificent grace” of how Jesus took on the sins of the world, a grace that he said calls him to reflect, pray, and ask God for forgiveness for his transgressions. He then offered the podium to two evangelical leaders who preach that homosexuality is among the sins for which individuals should seek repentance:

- BISHOP T. D. JAKES: Head of the Potter’s House black megachurch in Dallas that has more than 30,000 members, he has said he would not hire a gay person, calling homosexuality “brokenness.” Jakes also apparently showed his son “correction” and “restorative grace” after he was arrested for soliciting gay sex in a public park in 2009.

- PASTOR TIM KELLER: Founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Keller has insisted his church “allows for political diversity,” but he also takes the traditional Christian point of view that homosexuality is a sin.  In a 2009 profile, he admitted “you can’t teach what we teach—that you must be born again through belief in Jesus Christ—without saying most of the world is wrong.”

One of the other speakers was Rev. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President of Disciples of Christ Christian Church, who previously delivered the sermon at the President’s inaugural national prayer service. Unlike the other anti-gay pastors featured at the breakfast, she has actually spoken out against anti-gay bullying.

ThinkProgress filed this report from Concord, New Hampshire.

During a recent trip to Concord, New Hampshire, to cover a Tax Day Tea Party sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, I asked attendees how the state’s 2009 same-sex marriage law has affected the state or their private lives. New Hampshire Republicans have promised to repeal the law next year and conservatives in the state have promised to turn the marriage issue into a litmus test for potential 2012 presidential contenders.

But at Friday’s event, not a single Tea Party activist told me that expanding marriage to gays and lesbians has undermined their relationships or in any way changed the state. In fact, everyone I spoke to insisted that changing the marriage law was not a priority:

- “Have I seen any changes?…No, not really.”

- “No, not really, it hasn’t really affected me. And I don’t think that this is a priority right now for most people.”

- “It’s not an issue for me. Love is love, I don’t care one way or another…we have much bigger problems to worry about than that.”

Watch it:

While conservative activists don’t seem riled up about gay marriage, Republican House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is still trying to milk the issue for political purposes. Yesterday, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. House of Representatives filed a motion to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “This decision was necessitated by the extraordinary announcement by the current Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declining to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of that Act,” Boehner said in a letter to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), apparently ignoring the fact that conservative groups will continue to “litigate these ongoing cases regardless of the involvement of the House.”

Interestingly, Boehner’s decision to spend government funds opposing same-sex marriage comes as a growing number of Americans now live in areas of the country that recognize same-sex relationships. A CNN poll released today found that 51 percent of Americans think that “marriages between gay and lesbian couples should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.”

Yesterday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed Senate Bill 1188, requiring state-funded and private adoption agencies “to give primary consideration to adoptive placement with a married man and woman, with all other criteria being equal.” This doesn’t mean that gay couples wouldn’t be able to adopt in the state, but they would have to fall to the back of the line simply because of their sexual orientation. As Tom Mann of Equality Arizona put it:

The governor’s action today is harmful to children in foster care and group homes who are seeking a permanent home and the support of a loving, caring family. SB 1188 takes the focus off of what’s in the best interest of a child when adoption decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, according to what’s in a child’s best interest. Each case is unique. For example, adoption authorities may have the choice between placing a child with a beloved single aunt — or complete strangers. The only consideration should be determining what’s in the best interest of the child.

Numerous studies dispute the notion that kids fare better in heterosexual households, showing that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in different-sex households.

A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that “children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.” The researchers also found that “children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”

This isn’t the first time Brewer has taken an anti-gay stance. In 2009, the Governor signed budget legislation that prohibited gay state employees from enrolling their domestic partners in health coverage. Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of 10 state employee and in July of 2010, a federal judge rejected the state’s claim that “the elimination of benefits will not harm the families of gay and lesbian employees” and temporarily prevented the benefit cuts, saying that the law “violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause by making it impossible for homosexuals to get health coverage for their partners.” The lawsuit is now before the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.