ThinkProgress filed this report from the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, CO.

For weeks, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her husband Marcus have been dogged by accusations that their Minnesota clinics, Bachmann & Associates, engage in ex-gay therapy to “convert” homosexuals into heterosexuals. This revelation comes on the heels of audio that emerged where Marcus Bachmann is caught explaining that gays are “barbarians” who need to be “educated” and “disciplined.”

Two weeks ago, gay activists used the controversy to stage a humorous protest where a dozen people dressed up as barbarians and walked into Bachmann & Associates, asking for Marcus to come “discipline” them. Watch the video here:

One man did not see the humor in the matter: Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

ThinkProgress spoke with Dobson this weekend at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver and tried to get his reaction to the controversy, but Dobson interjected. Instead, he instructed that what we ought to be asking about is the “attack on Dr. Bachmann by gay activists.” Dobson went on to say that the “thirty homosexual activists” actually “harassed” Marcus and “scared his patients to death”:

KEYES: Obviously we saw in the news in the last week or two, Michele Bachmann and her husband’s clinic, they’re business that they run, is being accused of practicing homosexual reparative therapy. They obviously were afraid to really answer that.

DOBSON: Your question really should deal with the attack on Dr. Bachmann by gay activists. Thirty homosexual activists put on the garb of cavemen and came into his clinic with cameras and scared his patients to death and have harassed that man, who has a right to do what he is doing because that’s what he believes. I think it’s unconscionable that people like you guys don’t report it.

Contrary to Dobson’s assertion that Bachmann’s patients were “scared to death,” the waiting room where the activists congregated was, as the video shows, empty. Bachmann was also not even present at the clinic at the time, despite Dobson’s claim of an “attack” on him.

Though it is unsurprising that Dobson has little sympathy for gays and lesbians, the extent to which he was willing to distort the truth in order to defend Marcus Bachmann shows that ex-gay therapy is a practice still very-much accepted among social conservatives. Indeed, Focus on the Family sponsored its own ex-gay therapy program — “Love Won Out” — until 2009. Michele Bachmann spoke before the group during its 2004 convention in Minnesota, claiming that it will “present the truth about homosexuality.”

In a setback to conservatives hoping to overturn New York’s same-sex marriage law, Sen. Greg Ball (R) — who opposed marriage equality in June — is defending the process through which the vote came about:

BALL: Rarely has democracy been as active or alive as it was the day of that vote. While some, like this group, would have liked to [have] seen dysfunctional Albany bottle up any vote or debate, democracy won the day over Albany’s old dysfunctional politics. The votes were there, the vote was held, and the bill passed. This group apparently would have liked to see old Albany rear it’s ugly head, where a small minority controlled by the extreme and petty interest, could have killed democratic action. Democracy won.

Capitol Tonight suggests that Ball’s statement is meant to defend the actions of the Republican majority, but it also directly contradicting the misleading rhetoric of the National Organization for Marriage and other opponents calling to “Let The People Vote.” Because New York does not have a referendum process, NOM would have to win enough seats in both the Senate and Assembly for the legislature to reverse its equality vote with a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Given a majority of New Yorkers supported the measure and most feel it was a positive development, attempts to overturn it seem unlikely to pan out. Regardless, Ball seems to think democracy has already triumphed.

 

ThinkProgress filed this report from the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, Colorado.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) did little to alleviate his “Google problem” this weekend, lashing out at Dan Savage — who spearheaded the campaign to redefine Santorum’s last name — and calling the gay activist “below the dignity of anybody.”

Santorum and Savage first crossed paths in 2003 when the latter responded to the Pennsylvania senator’s repeated comparisons of homosexuality to incest and bestiality by rebranding the word “Santorum.” The result has been a major headache for the presidential candidate, as the new definition tops Google results every time someone searches “Santorum”.

Now, Savage is threatening to take Santorum’s Google problem a step further. Last month, Savage, who founded the It Gets Better Project in the wake of an epidemic of suicides committed by bullied gay teens, threatened to redefine Santorum’s first name if he continued attacking gay people.

ThinkProgress attempted to ask Santorum about Savage’s challenge this weekend at the Western Conservative Summit. However, before we could get through the question, Santorum interrupted and declared, “I’m not going to talk about Dan Savage. He’s below the dignity of anybody”:

KEYES: I’d love to hear your response, I know that obviously you and Dan Savage have a very checkered history. He’s made a threat recently…

SANTORUM: I’m not going to talk about Dan Savage. He’s below the dignity of anybody. Thank you.

Watch it:

Given Santorum’s response to ThinkProgress, it appears unlikely that he will heed Savage’s call to end his attacks on gays and lesbians in this country.

A National Public Radio segment this morning suggested that ex-gay therapy is still up for “debate,” misrepresenting it as a “controversy” on which “the jury is still out.” Even though ex-gay therapy is roundly condemned by professional medical organizations as ineffective and harmful, the segment attempted to create a false balance by including stories from both sides of the “debate.” Ex-gay Rich Wyler, founder of People Can Change, had the opportunity to  reiterate many untrue ex-gay talking points, including unfounded “causes” for a gay orientation, the misguided notion that it’s ethical to support a patient who wants ex-gay therapy, and a completely inaccurate comparison between ex-gay and transgender patients. Ex-gay survivor Peterson Toscano countered by explaining the traumatic harm he faced in ex-gay therapy, but many of Wyler’s points went unaddressed. Take a listen:

The reality is that there is no debate about ex-gay therapy, and by providing a platform for Wyler to continue propagating the myths about its potential, NPR is contributing to a culture of harm. The ex-gay movement suggests many supposed “causes” for a same-sex orientation — Wyler mentions how his mother was “domineering and controlling” and his father was emotionally absent — but there is no proven connection between sexual orientation and such vague notions of gender stereotypes. Ex-gay proponents offer many generic, invalid explanations for sexual orientation to coax people to buy in to the therapy’s outcomes, but none of them reflect any actual psychological research. Thus, it’s disconcerting that NPR reported Wyler’s matter-of-fact story without caveat.

As both Toscano and psychologist Lee Beckstead explained, people can be convinced to believe their sexual orientations have changed through repression, but that doesn’t mean they actually have. In fact, a recent Regent University study found that for ex-gays living in opposite-sex marriages, their sexual attraction to the same sex actually increased over the time they were married. Disturbingly, young people are particularly susceptible to the harmful false promises of ex-gay therapy. This morning’s NPR feature allowed those false promises to further spread in the media under the guise of a “controversial debate” that nobody’s having.

While ex-gays like Wyler are certainly entitled to believe what they will about their identities, NPR has no obligation to highlight their harmful, anti-scientific, and anti-gay views as having any merit. The responsible journalist would have done the opposite.

Full disclosure: I co-host a weekly podcast with Peterson Toscano.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) touted his long-standing opposition to marriage equality during a speech in Denver Colorado on Friday, and claimed that the media and gay rights activists had misrepresented his now-infamous 2003 comparison of same-sex marriage to bestiality or polygamy. Santorum clarified that he wasn’t directly likening those relationships to same-sex marriage. Rather, he was predicting that polygamy and incest could be legalized if the Supreme Court ruled, as it did in Lawerence v. Texas, that consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment:

SANTORUM: If the Supreme Court gives the right to consensual sexual activity then you have the right to incest, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to all sorts of — you have the right to anything if it’s consent. When I said that, the gay community went ballistic and they came after me. The mainstream media called for me to resign because I was comparing homosexuality to incest and other things. No I wasn’t, I was saying if the standard is consent than how do you rationally draw to the line, you can’t. And they aren’t. And subsequent to that the Massachusetts decision and others came down and I stood for marriage. [...]

It is not fine with me that New York has destroyed marriage. It is not fine with me that New York has set a template that can cause great division in this country. There is not 50 definitions of marriage.

Watch it:

But in Lawrence, the Court did draw a line, noting that the right to consent has its limits. “The present case does not involve minors,” the majority ruled. “It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.”

Santorum’s “slippery slope” argument is ultimately a red herring. Lawrence itself was about whether government can criminalize sex, not whether it is required to provide a legal benefit to certain relationships. That question has been left to the states and six that have extended benefits to same-sex couples have not, as Santorum so proudly predicted, legalized polygamy or incest — recognizing those relationships has never even been considered. In fact, it’s hard to find any evidence of how marriage equality states have “destroyed marriage.” If anything, they’ve only strengthened the institution by allowing more people to enter into it.

The GOP Presidential candidates will soon have to take a stance on New Hampshire’s efforts to repeal the state’s 2009 same-sex marriage law, as Republican lawmakers plan to schedule debate on the measure ahead of the state’s primary. From the Associated Press:

New Hampshire is among those six states and also home to the first Republican primary next winter. According to conservative activists in the state, none of the major GOP presidential candidates has yet taken a public position on the ongoing effort by some Republican legislators to repeal the 2009 state law legalizing same-sex marriage.

Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, predicted that most of the GOP contenders would continue trying to dodge the issue because of lukewarm public support for repeal.

However, David Bates, one of the lawmakers pushing for the repeal, says he and his colleagues intend to put some heat on the GOP contenders by scheduling debate on the repeal bill in the weeks leading up to the primary.

“We will be seeing to it that each candidate addresses it,” Bates said. “They will not be able to duck it.”

Back in February, House Republicans agreed to hold back three separate repeal bills until 2012 so lawmakers can focus on fiscal issues. Democratic Gov. John Lynch is prepared to veto a repeal bill, but “Republicans hold super majorities in both the House and Senate which would be enough to override a veto.”

The issue is tricky for Republicans, however. A University of New Hampshire poll released earlier this year found that 62 percent of New Hampshire voters are opposed to repealing the marriage law, while just 29 percent of voters supported the effort. The polls showed that almost half of those voters were ambivalent: 13 percent favor of respondents favor repeal, but wouldn’t be upset if marriage is not repealed. Just five percent of respondents who favor repeal who would be “very upset” if the marriage law is not repealed.