Tonight, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 aired the first part of a three-part series called, “The Sissy Boy Experiment,” examining the effects of government-funded gender-normalizing therapy on a five-year old boy named Kirk Murphy in 1970. The therapy was carried out by disgraced Family Research Council co-founder George Rekers, whose three decade career in the conservative social movement came to an end last year, after reporters from the Miami New Times caught him traveling with a gay escort.

After ten months of treatment, Rekers pronounced that Kirk’s feminine behavior was “gone” and he used the case to launch his career. Kirk, meanwhile, struggled for the remainder of his life. His “outgoing personality changed and he began to behave in the way he knew his parent and George Rekers wanted him to,” his brother Mark recalls. “He had no idea how to relate to people. It was like somebody came up to him and turned his light-switch off.” Kirk eventually came out as gay in 1985 and after one unsuccessful attempt at 17, committed suicide at the age of 38.

“I used to spend so much time thinking why would he kill himself at the age of 38? It doesn’t make any sense to me. What I now think is, how did he make it that long,” his sister Maris asks.

Box Turtle Bulletin’s Jim Burroway has published a full series of posts investigating Kirk’s story and the harmful effects of ex-gay therapy. Read his blog here and watch the first part of CNN’s series below:

Rekers’ research and the purported success of Kirk’s therapy are still being touted by ex-gay organizations as evidence that homosexuality is a mutable characteristic, despite that obvious tragic consequences of such therapies. Both the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association — among other groups — have ruled that efforts to change sexual orientation have no scientific credibility and can cause psychological harm to patients. As Cooper will likely explore in his series, the ex-gay movement is guided less by research and more by a political and social agenda that opposes gay equality.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who wouldn’t want to live in a state where a man can marry a man, has partnered with the American Family Association (AFA) for a large prayer event this August called “The Response.” On the Response‘s home page, Perry, a Methodist, calls for an “historic response” to America’s “crisis”:

PERRY: Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

The AFA is an SPLC-designated hate group whose spokesperson, Bryan Fischer, recently called gays “Nazis” who commit hate crimes and “virtual genocide” against Christians. AFA has also been unsuccessfully lobbying companies like Home Depot and Pepsi to repeal their non-discrimination policies. Perry has invited all 49 of his fellow governors to the rally, and groups like the Interfaith Alliance and Secular Coalition for America are urging them to reject the invitation due to the extremist nature of the American Family Association and affiliated groups. A protest of the event is also being coordinated on Facebook.

Though the website describes the Response as a “nondenominational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting,” it also dictates AFA’s fundamentalist Christian statement of faith, including the importance of saving “lost and sinful people” because those who aren’t “are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.” Such a tone will likely not be very welcoming for some, like Delaware Gov. Jack Markell (D) who is Jewish and Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) who is not publicly religious at all. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has already declined the invitation, explaining that he’d be too busy “focusing on economic development.”

Many are speculating that the high-profile nature of this event and the way it appeals to conservative Christian voters is an indication that Perry may enter the 2012 Presidential race.

Also of note is the event’s coordinator of church mobilization, Jim Garlow, who this weekend compared adoption by same-sex couples to children losing their parents on 9/11.

(HT: FriendlyAtheist.)

Yesterday, the Wyoming Supreme Court “unanimously reversed a district court ruling, allowing a same-sex couple to obtain a divorce in Niobrara County.” The ruling means that the “state’s courts have jurisdiction to grant the divorce of a same-sex couple who were legally married in Canada.”

The opinion lays out three different types of marriages: legal marriages between a man and a woman that are recognized by the state of Wyoming, marriages that the state does not recognize but are common in other states (like common law marriages) and a third very low form of marriage that is “deemed contrary to the law of nature.” Significantly, the Court found that same-sex marriage fit into the second category and likened them to common law marriages which, while not recognized by the state, can be dissolved within it:

Under common law, this rule of validation, otherwise known as the rule of lex loci celebrationis, is subject to “certain recognized exceptions, namely, marriages which are deemed contrary to the law of nature as generally recognized in Christian countries, such as polygamous and incestuous marriages, and those which the legislature of the state has declared shall not be allowed any validity, because contrary to the policy of its laws.” Hoagland, 27 Wyo. at 180-81, 193 P. at 843-44 (Wyo. 1920).

The policy exception is necessarily narrow, lest it swallow the rule. It is not enough that a marriage would not be valid if solemnized in Wyoming. Common law marriages provide a good example. [...] Likewise, recognizing a valid foreign same-sex marriage for the limited purpose of entertaining a divorce proceeding does not lessen the law or policy in Wyoming against allowing the creation of same-sex marriages.

The Court does stress that the opinion is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage — “The question of recognition of such same-sex marriages for any other reason, being not properly before us, is left for another day,” it says — but it’s certainly moving the state in the right direction.

Wyoming state law defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, but recognizes marriages performed in other states.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is a Christian legal organization committed to challenging the separation of church and state in every way possible, including defending religious displays on public land, political endorsements at the pulpit (through “Pulpit Freedom Sunday“), and various social conservative issues. Anti-LGBT rhetoric is par for the course, and they are representing ProtectMarriage.com to defend California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. Their latest brochure demonstrates that their counsel is entirely agenda-drive, with seemingly little regard for laws that are not informed by evangelical Christianity.

Complete with mocking quotes around “marriage,” the “How does dame-sex ‘marriage’ affect you?” brochure is bullying at its worst (PDF). Below are some of the inaccurate points they make about the supposed differences between “traditional marriage” and ‘same-sex ‘marriage’”:

CLAIM: “Marriage is the first institution ordained by God… a crowning achievement of His Creation.”

FACT: This is a fine religious belief, but it has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage, which has no faith requirement. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’” Civil, not religious.

CLAIM: “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a rebellion against God by a small band of activists… centered on adult satisfaction and demands for endless legal privileges.”

FACT: Marriage equality advocates are not trying to change how churches define religious marriage, only how the law recognizes civil marriage. To suggest that wanting access to the 1,138 rights and protections afforded to married couples is merely “adult satisfaction” is an insult to all marriages. The demand is not for “endless” legal privileges, just exactly the same amount that heterosexual couples already have.

CLAIM: “Marriage is the best producer of well-adjusted children… who enjoy better physical and emotional health and greater educational and career attainment than any other circumstances.”

FACT: Opponents of marriage equality often use studies about “fatherless” families (where the father in an opposite-sex couple abandons the mother to raise the child as a single parent) to cast judgments upon committed lesbian couples. ADF is trying to compare marriage to “other circumstances” that have nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

CLAIM: “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is harmful to adults and children… who experience sexual confusion, insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, anxiousness, low self-esteem, and perform more poorly in school.”

FACT: Not only is this untrue, it’s an outright lie. There is no research that confirms any of those conclusions. In fact, some research shows that same-sex couples are better parents than opposite-sex couples. This lie feeds off the myths that people who are gay are pedophiles and that children can be “recruited.” If children of same-sex couples face any unique challenges, it is only the stigma they face for having same-sex parents — stigma perpetuated by groups like ADF and brochures like this.

CLAIM: “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a threat to the future” and “societies that cease to value marriage between one man and one woman decline.”

FACT: There is no historical evidence to suggest that marriage equality has ever had a direct negative impact on a culture. Besides, any examples that predate the last century would be incomparable, as understandings of sexual orientation and gay identities are uniquely modern. The Netherlands recently celebrated 10 years of marriage equality and Dutch civilization is thriving just fine. Even heterosexuals are still getting married!

CLAIM: “Same-sex ‘marriage’ leads to religious persecution” as “Biblical belief and witnessing are being criminalized where same-sex ‘marriage’ is advancing.”

FACT: There have been no attempts to limit what individuals can believe or practice. There have been attempts to ensure that organizations offering a public service not discriminate. If that is too much to ask of Catholic Charities or other groups, it is those group’s choice to end their services to avoid having to recognize same-sex couples. Likewise, same-sex couples should be free from public harassment and condemnation (whether it’s in the name of faith or not). Calling a person’s identity sinful is harmful and contributes to stigma.

CLAIM: “Marriage is constitutionally affirmed” because the Supreme Court set precedence by refusing to hear an appeal of a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling against same-sex marriage in 1972.

FACT: In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court did not even consider the merits of whether the Constitution protects marriage equality. Nothing was “constitutionally affirmed.”

CLAIM: “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is an attack on the Constitution… and opens the legal door for polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, and child ‘marriage,’ among other disturbing changes.”

FACT: The slippery slope argument is fallacious. Besides being an insult to committed same-sex couples, no one is currently advocating for legal recognition of any of the mentioned “disturbing” changes, particularly those that would require the consent of animals or minors. Even if someone were, this argument would clearly fail because people who have sex with animals or children do not meet the Supreme Court’s standard for heightened constitutional protection; gay couples do.

If ADF wishes to defend Christianity instead of the law, perhaps they should get out of the legal business.

As the White House claims that it’s not concerned about a delay in certifying the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military reports that “roughly half the armed forces — have been trained on the new law.” And so far, “there has been none of the turmoil or dire consequences predicted by opponents of what had been expected to be a wrenching change in military culture”:

There has been no widespread resistance, no mad rush for the door by enlisted members opposed to the policy and no drop in recruiting.

“So far this seems to be a nonevent,” Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff for the Army, told reporters recently. But, he warned, “This is not going to happen without incident — I’d be crazy to say that. Somewhere along the line something is going to occur. But we’re doing everything we can to head that off in training.” [...]

The Navy expects to finish the bulk of its training by the end of June. The Army will finish its training of the active duty force largely by mid-July, and the reserves by August 15. The Marines and Air Force have the bulk of their troops trained. All together about half the 2.2 million members of the active and reserve military have been trained.

Under the repeal legislation, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell cannot be lifted until 60 days after the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff certify that it would not undermine military readiness and unit cohesion. Advocates are pushing for certification to be completed by the end of the summer, although Gates has previously pledged to hold off on lifting the ban “until the Service Chiefs are comfortable that the risks to unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of a change have been addressed to their satisfaction and to my satisfaction.”

Significantly, the experiences of the 25 nations that allow open service suggest that there is no reason to delay certification of repeal any further. As the Palm Center has pointed out, “in many of those countries, debate before the policy changes was highly pitched and many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions.” In Britain and Canada, for instance, “roughly two thirds of military respondents in polls said they would refuse to serve with open gays, but when inclusive policies were implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned.” “Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.” Read their full report HERE.