Speaking at the Family Research Council’s (FRC) Watchmen on the Wall pastors’ conference today, FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg offered some wisdom on the threat of marriage equality. Given Sprigg’s reputation for reinforcing unscientific stereotypes and myths about the LGBT community, it’s unsurprising that he offers some of the most imaginative and preposterous talking points currently heard in the national dialogue.

Take a listen (via Right Wing Watch):

- “POLLSTERS HAVE ACTUALLY CHANGED THE WORDING OF THEIR POLLS”: Sprigg’s first concern is that the LGBT community uses “gay” instead of “homosexual.” Two good reasons for this: 1) “Gay” is the word people who are gay use to identify themselves. 2) “Homosexual” is not a “neutral” term, but reflects a clinical history of treating gay people as diseased or disordered.

- “SOMETHING WHICH IS EMPIRICALLY FALSE: NAMELY, THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS AN INTRINSIC GAY IDENTITY”: Contrary to all the bunk ex-gay propaganda Sprigg frequently promotes, all research indicates that same-sex orientations cannot be changed and that they are at least somewhat impacted by genetics. For example, twin studies demonstrate that genes play a greater role in determining a person’s sexual orientation than they do in determining whether a person will be right- or left-handed. Same-sex relations are also quite common throughout the animal kingdom.

- “HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS DISTRUST AFRICAN-AMERICANS”: Tell that to all the people who are black and gay! This claim is just patently untrue and unfounded, but it is not to be disregarded. It actually reflects the way opponents of equality have been proffering pseudo-alliances with racial minorities to bait them into opposing gay rights and women’s rights.

- “THE REAL GOAL IS TO CREATE A SOCIETY IN WHICH IT IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR ANYONE, EVER, ANYWHERE, TO SAY THAT HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT IS WRONG.”: This claim doesn’t need debunking. It’s true. The only difference is that we see a stigma-free society — one in which LGBT people have equal protection under the law and no physical or mental health disparities — as a good thing.

Students at Oakland, California’s Redwood Heights Elementary School recently participated in a two-day lesson plan about accepting gender differences. Educators relied on toys and animals to teach kids that “not all children will conform to gender norms around areas such as clothing or hair, or the colors they prefer.” “What it does emphasize is that there are differences,” the school’s principle Troy Flint told FoxNews.com. “We should be accepting of these differences in the interest of creating an environment where all children are welcome.”

This afternoon, Fox News invited the Family Research Council’s (FRC) Tony Perkins to opine about the school’s efforts and he quickly shifted the discussion to “same-sex marriage,” accusing the school of participating in a “bigger agenda” to indoctrinate children into homosexuality:

PERKINS: Our children should be able to go into a safe environment. They should be safe from bullying and they should also be safe from indoctrination into homosexuality.… I mean, how far are we willing to go with this? When you consider that only seven percent of the animal kingdom is monogamous in their sexual relationships, is that what we’re saying our kids should aspire to? [...]

Schools should be teaching reading, writing and asthmatic, not comparing their sexuality to fishes…This is part of a bigger agenda and this is the problem that Americans are waking up to as this idea about same-sex marriage and all this is working its way through. This is a part of a process of indoctrinating children at very young ages at the expense of actually teaching them what they need to be successful at.

Watch it:

Perkins’ comments are part of a pro-bullying campaign orchestrated by a nexus of so-called “family values” organizations that malign educational programs and policies that seek to teach children about tolerance for others and help LGBT students feel safe in schools as tools of the “homosexual agenda.” For instance, the right-wing Christian media ministry Focus on the Family has been attacking anti-bullying standards on the federal level, insisting that bullying prevention is being “hijacked by activists” who are “politicizing or sexualizing the issue.” Focus on the Family’s Candi Cushman claims that the anti-bullying bill currently before Congress “cater[s] to a narrow political agenda” that “becomes a gateway for homosexuality promotion in school.”

Perkins’s FRC is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The group “bills itself as ‘the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,’ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians,” SPLC has concluded.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) urged state lawmakers in New York to enact legislation legalizing same-sex marriage during a major address at Coopers Union this afternoon. Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) has placed marriage at the forefront of his legislative agenda, promising to enact full marriage equality for gay and lesbian New Yorkers before the end of the legislative session in June.

The three-term Mayor Bloomberg argued that the struggle for full marriage equality is consistent with “the principles that have guided our nation since its founding” and with New York’s history of staying “at the forefront of movements to expand American freedoms.” “It is not a matter of if – but when,” Bloomberg said, before asking New York state lawmakers, “Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights? Or an obstructionist? On matters of freedom and equality, history has not remembered obstructionists kindly”:

“Not on abolition.

“Not on women’s suffrage.

“Not on workers’ rights.

“Not on civil rights.

“And it will be no different on marriage rights.

Bloomberg also laid out a comprehensive case for marriage and spoke directly to the six or seven swing senators — the measure will almost certainly pass in the State House — who may decide the marriage issue, addressing each major concern individually:

- EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS: “Now, I understand the desire by some to seek guidance from their religious teachings. But this is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. And that is why, under the bill proposed in Albany, no church or synagogue or mosque would be required to perform or sanction a same-sex wedding – as is the case in every state that has legalized marriage equality.”

- CONSISTENT WITH CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES: “Conservatives believe that government should not intrude into people’s personal lives – and it’s just none of government’s business who you love!”

- MARRIAGE EQUALITY WILL BENEFIT ALL FAMILIES: “Marriage has always been a force for stability in families and communities because it fosters responsibility. That’s why conservatives promote marriage – and that’s why marriage equality would be healthy for society, healthy for couples and healthy for children.”

- CIVIL UNIONS ARE ‘SEPARATE BUT EQUAL’: “Long ago, the Supreme Court declared that ‘separate but equal’ opportunities are inherently unequal. It took the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 60 years after Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld disparate treatment of non-whites, to come to that conclusion.”

Bloomberg stressed that the legislature must vote on marriage “in this legislative session,” pushing back against rumors and reports that Cuomo won’t hold a vote in the Senate unless he is certain that the measure has enough votes to pass.

Marriage equality proponents see the speech as an opportunity to build momentum for final passage. “With the steadfast support of the mayor, Gov. Cuomo and a solid majority of New Yorkers, we’re confident that marriage equality will be the law of the land come the end of June,” said Brian Ellner, senior strategist at the Human Rights Campaign in a press release sent out by New Yorkers United for Marriage — the coalition group coordinating the marriage campaign.

States are tightening the budgets, and HIV patients are paying the highest price. States such as Illinois and Florida have limited access to support programs by lowering the income eligibility, Georgia cut $100,000 from its state support, and Texas may not provide the $19.2 million necessary to serve 3,000 anticipated new clients. As a result of these cuts and no additional funding to the federal AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), well over 8,300 patients are now on waiting lists (PDF). This is a record number of HIV patients not able to access the medication they need. It is likely there are even more, considering not every state even has a waiting list.

These cuts come in spite of a new study shows that starting medication immediately helps control the spread of the virus. Individuals who start antiretrovirals (ARVs) upon diagnosis (as opposed to waiting for symptoms to present) reduce their risk of infection by 96 percent. Though ARVs have long-term side effects — both health and financial — and may not be the best choice for all patients, this study affirms the CDC’s recommendation two years ago that patients start medications earlier.

The cuts also reflect a misguided public perception that the AIDS epidemic is under control. In 2009, only 6 percent believed HIV/AIDS was the most urgent health problem facing the nation. The same poll showed that the public still has many misconceptions and stigma about HIV patients. For example, only 44 percent said they’d be comfortable with a coworker who has HIV/AID, and 51 percent said they’d be uncomfortable having their food prepared by someone who is HIV positive. Worse yet, 34 percent still think they could get HIV via a shared drinking glass, toilet seat, or swimming pool and 27 percent think there is already a cure.

This is especially devastating news for men who have sex with men (MSM), who continue to be disproportionately impacted by the virus. The rate for young black MSM is disturbingly even higher. As the LGBT community continues to fight for equality, many are still fighting for their lives. With public awareness still so low and the impact of the disease still so high, one wonders what these legislators think is a better use of the funds that those 8,300+ individuals need to survive.

The Family Institute of Connecticut is using this offensive image to oppose what they call the "Bathroom Bill."

Yesterday, the Connecticut Senate began consideration of HB 6599, an extensive bill that would prohibit discrimination against individuals because of their gender identity or expression. But lawmakers have introduced at least five amendments that would limit the protections afforded and enshrine demonizing transphobic stereotypes into the law:

- THE KIDS CAN’T KNOW: Sen. John Kissel (R) proposed two different amendments related to the discrimination of elementary school teachers who transition. Both would allow for a teacher who begins to transition to be reassigned (though thankfully not fired) at the discretion of a local school board, and only one of them would allow the teacher to return to his or her former position the following year. Nothing reduces the stigma of gender transition like trying to hide children from witnessing it or learning about it.

- PUNISH THE FAKERS: Kissel obviously doesn’t trust transgender people, which is why he also thinks that anyone who fakes their gender identity to commit a crime deserves a harsher punishment. Does he think that people who would do such a thing are being held back by not having non-discrimination protections?

- SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS: Meanwhile, Sen. John McKinney (R) wants to limit the definition of gender identity to only those individuals who are diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder by a psychologist. Such a restriction would eliminate any protections the bill would afford to people based on their perceived gender identity.

- NOT IN MY LOCKER ROOM: The above amendments pale in comparison to an amendment supported by a cadre of 13 Republicans that would create exceptions to the protections for, among other things, bathrooms and locker rooms. Such a suggestion surely stems from the offensive proposition that all trans women are sexual predators (opponents reduce the entire set of protections to a “bathroom bill”). It was the same tactic used in Tennessee recently to push for legislation overturning Nashville’s nondiscrimination protections. There has never been a documented case of a transgender woman misusing a bathroom.