Tim Pawlenty has announced that he won’t be joining Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum in signing the FAMiLY LEADER’s “marriage vow” pledge. “I prefer to choose my own words, especially seeking to show compassion to those who are in broken families through no fault of their own,” Pawlenty said today. While stressing that he respects the group and agrees with “the core principles of the Family Leader’s Marriage Vow Pledge,” Pawlenty nevertheless misspelled President Bob Vander Plaats’ name and incorrectly referred to another of the group’s staffers as “Chuck.”

Despite rejecting the document, Pawlenty has courted the group’s endorsement and shares many of its views. He was the first candidate to appear before the LEADER’s presidential lecture series in February and recently told NBC’s Meet The Press that he too believes that the science was “in dispute” about whether people choose to be gay. Pawlenty did distance himself from the group in April, however, telling ThinkProgress that he did not necessarily agree with its claim (echoed in the Pledge) that homosexuality was a public health risk:

VOLSKY: Governor, you spoke to the FAMiLY LEADER in Iowa in February, and that group has said that homosexuality is a public health risk. They’ve linked it to second hand smoking. Do you agree with that?

PAWLENTY: Well, my view in terms of the FAMiLY LEADER questions is that we have a country that has traditionally respected things like traditional marriage, which I support. But you know, I have my own views on these matters.

VOLSKY: Do you think homosexuality is a health risk?

PAWLENTY: Is it a health risk? … Well, we have some evidence to indicate that if you engage in unprotected sex you might increase the chance of getting the HIV/AIDS. But you know, that’s also true, can be true in heterosexual community as well.

Watch it:

The highly controversial 14-point “Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage” calls for a ban on pornography, argues that homosexuality is a choice, and implies that black people had stronger families during slavery. Since releasing the pledge last week, the influential group has backed down from its anti-porn ban and removed the statements about African-Americans.

Earlier this week, Newt Gingrich also rejected the document, but promised to consider it if certain unspecified changes are made. Mitt Romney’s campaign also announced that he would not sign it because it “contained references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign.” Utah Governor Jon Huntsman said he would reject the pledge  the day it was released because he does not sign pledges.

Republicans have until Aug. 1 to decide if they will endorse the document.

The Advocate’s Andrew Harmon caught up with Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) who told him that he expects Minnesotans to narrowly defeat a ballot measure that would outlaw same-sex marriage in the state’s constitution:

HARMON: Are you confident that Minnesotans will vote against putting discrimination into the state constitution?

FRANKEN: I think we’ll win this one, but I think it will be very close. We’re a very divided state, and on this issue I don’t have the strongest sense on where it’s going to be. I know there are people who just have their views and are against marriage equality.

HARMON: Rep. Michele Bachmann being one of them.

FRANKEN: Yes, I think she’ll vote for the amendment.

Franken — a prominent supporter of LGBT equality in Congress — reiterated that he opposes Bachmann’s views on gay people, but said he liked her personally. “[W]e fly on a plane together, we’ve gone to funerals together, we’ve cried together, we’ve laughed together. Here [in Washington, D.C.,] we had a Minnesota hotdish-off — she was the only Republican who came; she wore a Twins apron. I think she was the only other member in the delegation besides me who actually made the hotdish. She made venison kielbasi, sauerkraut, and noodles, and we had a fun time.”

In a recent interview, Nashville City Paper’s Jeff Woods pressed Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) on his recent decision to sign a bill overturning Nashville’s LGBT non-discrimination protections. The governor said while he doesn’t think businesses should discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, businesses already have “plenty of regulation” from the government and don’t need more. He also refused to comment on whether being gay is a choice or should be a protected class:

WOODS: Did you think about vetoing [the bill that overturned local nondiscrimination protections]?

HASLAM: Yes, we thought about a lot of things there, mainly because there are conflicting principles. I really do think local governments should be able to decide most things for themselves. I really do think that. And it bugged me as a mayor [in Knoxville] when [state legislators in] Nashville told us stuff to do. The flip side is, I honestly believe that businesses have plenty of regulation coming down on them from government. If you asked most Tennesseans, including most people in this restaurant, they’d say there are plenty of regulations. So you had two pretty conflicting philosophies wrapped up in one thing. In the end, it passed by 70 percent in both houses, so I signed it.

WOODS: What about gay rights? You have said you think businesses should adopt nondiscrimination policies that include gay people.

HASLAM: I think this. I’ve said a hundred times, I think the people who hire the best team are going to win. If you take any part of the population and say I’m not going to hire those people willfully, I don’t think that’s a really smart business plan. I think businesses should have diverse hiring practices. That’s really different, though, than having city governments tell businesses what their HR practices should be. Businesses are going to go out and hire the best people they can.

Haslam went on to say that he would be against adding sexual orientation as a protected class in the state’s laws and declined to comment on whether sexual orientation is a choice, saying, “In my role as governor, I just don’t think that’s a topic that we need to get into.”

Haslam also admitted that the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce supported the discriminatory bill right up until he signed it, then immediately changed their position. But, Haslam says, if they had changed their position sooner, he still probably would have signed it.

Despite its reputation as a leader for LGBT equality, Massachusetts still does not have non-discrimination protections based on gender identity, which means transgender people have no recourse should they be treated unfairly in employment, housing, education, credit, and public accommodations. Bill HB 502/SB 764, currently under consideration by the state legislature, would end those disparities, but the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) is running an offensive “No Bathroom Bill” campaign against it.

MFI’s campaign is built upon the single false idea that allowing transgender people to use the restroom of the gender by which they identify will somehow endanger women and children. A new series of radio ads fraudulently claim that the law eliminates all bathroom gender boundaries:

You know, pretty soon you won’t want her to go into a bathroom by herself anymore. You’ll have to worry about who could be in there with her. You haven’t heard about the “bathroom bill”? Yeah, Beacon Hill is about to pass a bill that lets men use women’s bathrooms. Our legislators are really going to make it legal for men to use women’s bathrooms to somehow help transgender people.

The ad goes on to suggest that bathrooms “won’t be safe anymore” because of peeping toms and sexual predators. Listen to the ads:

The reality is that there has never been a recorded case of a transgender person misusing such protections. The bill does nothing to protect “peeping toms” and “sexual predators” as the ad claims, but actually makes sure that people can use the bathroom that fits with their identity. At the bill’s hearing last month, Gunner Scott of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition responded to a question from Rep. Sheila Harrington about whether transgender people can switch genders on a “day-to-day basis.” He told her that opponents of the bill (like MFI) say “someone like me who looks male should be going into the women’s room. And I know that that’s wrong because I would make women uncomfortable.”

These insidious ads use fear to smear transgender people as pedophiles and rapists in order to ensure that they can continue to be discriminated against in society.

Earlier this week, a handful of LGBT organizations launched a new effort to bring marriage equality to Maryland modeled after New York’s successful coalition and now Governor Martin O’Malley (D) is also considering supporting legislation to legalize same-sex marriage next year:

O’Malley spokeswoman Raquel Guillory said O’Malley has had recent discussion with lawmakers who would like him to make a same-sex marriage bill part of his formal legislative package next year.

“It’s definitely an option that’s on the table,” Guillory said. “We are in discussions as to what steps we might take next. . . . We’re looking at all options to ensure success.”

Advocates were optimistic about the success of the legislation this year, but the effort fizzled partly because O’Malley’s support for the measure was largely contained “to private conversations with lawmakers. He made no mention of the legislation in his agenda-setting State of the State speech.” Supporters also “failed to mount the kind of vigorous, multimillion-dollar grass-roots campaign that their allies in New York ran this spring” or build greater support within minority communities. “We all started running toward getting a bill passed without building a campaign in advance,” said Del. Heather R. Mizeur (D), a leading advocate of the legislation. This time, she said, “we’ll be running a very aggressive campaign that targets specific districts and regions where we need to shore up our vote count.” The measure passed the Senate but died in the House without a final vote.

Interestingly, after the bill was withdrawn, O’Malley suggested that the question should have been put to a vote. “I would have hoped that we could have resolved this issue and then let the people decide,” he said. “I think an issue like this was bound to go before the people in a referendum, and I would have hoped that we would have been able to have accomplished that today.”

The new campaign for same-sex marriage will include Equality Maryland, Progressive Maryland, the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Service Employees International Union, among others.