Kate Baker and Ming Linsley

A Vermont same-sex couple represented by the ACLU is suing the Wildflower Inn for refusing to allow them to have their wedding reception there in blatant violation of the state’s nearly 20-year-old nondiscrimination laws. Under Vermont law, only privately owned inns with five or fewer rooms are exempted from public accommodation protections based on sexual orientation; the Wildflower Inn has 24 rooms. It is also not a religious institution or even a religiously-affiliated business.

Shortly after Kate Baker and Ming Linsley got engaged, Ming’s mother Channie began investigating venues for the wedding and reception. She had an amiable phone call with the Wildflower Inn’s Meeting and Events Director, in which she disclosed there was not a “bride and groom,” but two brides. Shortly after the call, she received an email with the subject “I have bad news”:

After our conversation, I checked in with my Innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.

Baker and Linsley are not suing for monetary damages, but merely for an injunction against the Inn’s discriminatory practices. The Wildflower Inn responded to the suit this week on its Facebook page:

The Wildflower Inn is a small family owned and operated country inn. We are a devout practicing Catholic family who believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians.

Opponents of marriage equality often take umbrage at lawsuits like this one, claiming that the defendants’ religious freedoms are being challenged. Two examples that are commonly referenced are a New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to take pictures of a same-sex wedding and a New Jersey Methodist boardwalk pavilion that refused to host civil union ceremonies; the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund defended in both cases. In this new suit, Vermont’s laws are quite clear about what constitutes discrimination and as a large public business, Wildflower Inn is out of compliance by this rejection of service.

Kate, Ming, and Channie discuss the suit (PDF) in a video from the ACLU. Watch it:

/p>

The FAMiLY LEADER’s controversial 14-point marriage fidelity pledge has caused a rift within the Republican party and led several GOP insiders and 2012 presidential candidates to raise concerns about the group’s extreme conservative ideology and social beliefs. Aside from asking the party to affirm that homosexuality is a choice and that African American children enjoyed stronger families during the period of slavery, the group’s president — three-time failed gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats — has also been caught suggesting that President Obama was born in Kenya and breaking out in laughter at an offensive anti-gay joke.

Vander Plaats’ brand of social conservatism has found success in Iowa. He helped orchestrate Gov. Mike Huckabee’s (R) Iowa primary victory in 2008, garnered an impressive 41 percent of the vote in a three-way Republican primary for governor in 2010, and led a winning campaign to unseat three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who struck down a state law that prohibited same-sex marriages. Yet Vander Plaats would have floundered in obscurity had it not been for the backing of well-connected and deep-pocketed donors, particularly the Wells family behind Wells Dairy.

The company, headquartered in Le Mars, Iowa, is the third largest ice cream maker in the United States and sells its products under the Blue Bunny label. Wells Dairy has 5 percent market share behind Nestlé (Häagen-Dazs, Dreyer’s, Mövenpick) and Unilever (Ben & Jerry’s and Breyers Ice Cream), licenses the Weight Watchers brand of ice creams, sells Chef Duff’s ice cream (of Ace of Cakes fame), and partners with Disney to offer Disney-branded novelties. But the Wells family is interested in more than frozen desserts. Mike Wells, the president and CEO of the company, was a member of Vander Plaats’ council of advisers during his gubernatorial campaign and public records reveal that Wells family members have contributed at least $456,000 to Vander Plaats and his affiliated organizations and campaigns:

– $184,500 from Wells family members for his 2010 gubernatorial race, his largest contributors.

– $246,000 from Wells family members for his 2006 gubernatorial race.

– $25,500 from Wells family members for his 2002 gubernatorial race.

– $25,500 to the Iowa Family Center PAC, a group associates with the FAMiLY Leader.

Mike and his wife Cheryl Wells have also started at least two ministries, including The Living Center and Side by Side Ministries, aimed at spreading “the Word of God to others.” Vander Plaats also serves as a channel of the Almighty — and a loyal customer for the family’s product. As one local NBC news story concluded, after his loss in 2010, Vander Plaats “celebrated the end of the night with ice cream. [He] went 100 days without eating his favorite treat.”

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) placed the question of repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act within the context of New York’s landmark marriage-equality law, noting that when New York begins issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbians this Sunday, they still won’t have access to the over 1,000 federal benefits and protections to which opposite-sex couples are entitled. “In the eyes of the federal government, these couples will remain strangers,” Schumer noted at this morning’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “with none of the responsibilities or privileges or matrimony. The same is true of course of couples in five other states and the District of Columbia.”

As an example, Schumer pointed to the burden same-sex couples face in securing health benefits for their partners:

SCHUMER: I want to draw your attention to one particular way in which DOMA adversely impacts gay couples, the federal tax exemption for health benefits…Because of DOMA, gay couples must include the costs of insurance — and we all know that health care isn’t cheap — in their taxable income. That means that even though they’re married in the eyes of their state, their company is being fair and generous, the federal government hits them with a heaping tax burden every April 15. Or the employer is required to pay FICA taxes on the benefit. That’s right, because of DOMA, major employers are forced to pay…extra taxes.

Watch it:

The taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits costs couples $1,069 per year more in taxes than a married employee with the same coverage. Employers also pay a total of $57 million per year in additional payroll taxes because of the unequal tax treatment. A separate 2010 study also concluded that “the federal income tax burden on dependent employer-sponsored coverage for same-sex couples (as well as other factors) results in lower levels of insurance for partnered gay and lesbian men as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.”

Schumer closed the hearing with what he called his favorite quote, “I would say to many in the audience who have waited for a very long time for many different things that, one of my favorite expressions is what Martin Luther King said…and that is the arc of history is long,but it bends in the direction of justice.”

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) recently invited Rabbi Yehuda Levin to join them at a rally protesting New York’s same sex marriage bill, despite Levin’s long history of offensive comments. Just a few days ago, however, Levin went a step too far, using his religious radio broadcast to blame the murder of an eight-year-old Jewish boy on Jews who supported gay rights and abortion clinics. Here are Levin’s comments:

“Why was this [death of Kletzky] allowed to happen? Let’s think about it. If we go back to the cause, the effect was he was the victim, but the cause was a Jew [Yiddish] that the evil will come to destroy you within your midst. [...] For too long we have been turning our cheek, we have been turning away and ignoring the agenda of the descendants of Amalek [evil] — first they [Gay's] wanted rights, then they wanted adoption, they wanted special protections, and ultimately they wanted marriage — and we all know that we did precious little. If those three or fourth thousand people [who searched for the boy when we went missing], at the direction of the greater Israel and their leaders and their common sense, would have come out, maybe, against the marriage, against this final nail in the coffin of morality…maybe we wouldn’t have had to had this episode of Amalek [evil] replay itself. This is a time for introspection…This came in the very aftermath of the marriage bill, my dear friends, and not doing anything.”

Watch it (around 7:00):

NOM has long associated itself with questionable characters, relying on bigotry and hateful, intolerant rhetoric to oppose the advancement of LGBT rights. –Sean Savett

In today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery testified at length that same-sex marriage puts children at risk. In his written testimony, he cited many studies about the struggles of children who are raised without fathers to suggest that children raised by two moms are worse off for it and thus, those couples should not be recognized through marriage. His written testimony concludes:

In a nutshell – an analysis of more than 100 studies on parent-child relationships found that having a loving and nurturing father was as important for a child‘s happiness, well -being, and social and academic success as having a loving and nurturing mother. Some studies indicated father-love was a stronger contributor than mother-love to some important positive child well-being outcomes.

Unfortunately for Minnery, these claims and studies are completely irrelevant to any conversation about same-sex marriage. Besides the fact these conclusions rely largely on gender stereotypes and thus don’t have a legitimate scientific foundation, they aren’t even studies of same-sex couples. Opponents of marriage equality regularly refer to studies about children raised by single mothers to draw conclusions about children raised by committed same-sex female couples. For example, one of the chief witnesses called to defend California’s Proposition 8 was David Blankenhorn, author of a book called “Fatherless America.” Despite expectations he’d make a compelling case against marriage equality, under cross-examination, he actually conceded that allowing same-sex couples to marry would benefit children!

During the testimony, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) called out the fact that Minnery misrepresented a study that showed children fare best with “nuclear families.” Franken pointed out that in the study, “nuclear families” does not, as Minnery posited, refer to opposite-sex families, but in fact any family with “two parents.” Franken concluded: “I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies this way.”

The real consensus among social scientists is that same-sex couples are just as effective at raising children and children benefit when those couples are allowed to marry. Minnery cited journalist Jonathan Rauch’s review of the research, but omitted the fact that Rauch’s conclusion was that same-sex marriage provides important security and affirmation for children. The American Psychological Association resolved back in 2004 that “children reared by a same-sex couple benefit from legal ties to each parent,” and reaffirmed in 2010 that “children raised by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and social functioning.”

During a public forum on marriage in the Iowa House of Representatives, 19-year-old Zach Wahls provided compelling testimony about his experience being raised by two moms. Watch it:

This morning, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is holding a hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery — a strong opponent of marriage equality — admitted during the hearing that children living with same-sex parents are hindered by the lack of legal protections and benefits that are denied to them by DOMA:

LEAHY: Are they not disadvantaged by not having the same financial benefits that an opposite sex family would have?

MINNERY: Well, as I say, not knowing the details of which families you are speaking off, certainly children are better off with parents in the home.

LEAHY: Yes or no, it’s not a trick question — if you have parents legally married under the laws of the state — one set of parents are entitled to certain financial benefits for their children, the other set of parents are denied those same financial benefits for their children…are not those children of the second family, are they not at a disadvantage, yes or no?

MINNERY: That would be yes, as you asked the question earlier Senator.

Watch it:

During his opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) vehemently defended the discriminatory law and reiterated the conservative meme that opponents of extending federal legal recognition to same-sex couples were being victimized by them.

Grassley said one outspoken opponent of marriage equality had refused to testify before the committee out of fear that she would be attacked by proponents of same-sex marriage. The witness in question could very well be the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Maggie Gallagher, who was noticeably absent from the GOP’s witness list:

GRASSLEY: The minority very much hoped to call a witness today at this hearing to testify in support of DOMA. I’m sure she would have done an excellent job. She declined, however, citing as one reason the threats and intimidations that have been leveled against not only her but her family as a result of her public support of DOMA. She will continue to write on this subject but will no longer speak publicly.

Watch it:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing and providing benefits to same-sex couples. Following us on Twitter (@TPEquality) for live updates and read the background on today’s witnesses and some of their prepared remarks:

Watch Live

FAMiLY LEADER President Bob Vander Plaats repeatedly suggested that President Obama was born in Kenya during a May 2010 event in Glenwood, Iowa. In video obtained by ThinkProgess, Vander Plaats is seen praising Donald Trump for launching an investigation into the origins of his birth certificate. “What kind of leader wouldn’t just show the birth certificate?” Vander Plaats asked just days before Obama released the long-form of the document. “[Trump] is more and more convinced that this guy is born in Kenya,” he said.

VANDER PLAATS: If I’m Obama, which I’m not. I’ve got a birth certificate — which means I’m more prepared to be President than he is, for a lot of reasons.

Watch the video:

Vander Plaats — who was also captured bursting into laughter over a derogatory gay joke — hasn’t been shy about his birther leanings. In a fundraising email from April 13 celebrating Vander Plaats’ birthday, the FAMiLY LEADER included a post-script playing up the issue and ironically asked conservatives to donate money to help Vander Plaats stand “for Truth”:

Throughout the early primary process, Vander Plaats — a three-time unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate who helped propel Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) to victory in the state in 2008 and ran a successful campaign to recall three justices who overturned Iowa’s anti same-sex marriage law — has sought to position himself as a gatekeeper to the conservative voters who participate in the Iowa caucuses. He has hosted a presidential forum with almost all of the GOP’s 2012 contenders and traveled to Washington, DC to present himself as a national Tea Party leader. Since releasing a highly controversial 14-point marriage fidelity pledge that only two candidates signed, however, Vander Plaats’ influence seems to be waning.