The National Organization for Marriage knows that there is a huge generation gap on the issue of same-sex marriage. A study published last August by the Public Religion Research Institute found that millennials (those currently 18-29 years old) support LGBT rights at significantly (and increasingly) higher rates than older age groups. Unsurprisingly, NOM’s confidential strategy memos released this week reveal an intentional effort to recruit young “elites” as spokespeople for the group’s anti-equality efforts:

By conducting student conferences, speakers and debates, we aim to find, train, and equip young leaders on the marriage issue at Ivy League and equivalent universities. NOM has launched the Ruth Institute for this purpose and is working with the Love and Fidelity Network to replicate the success of the Anscombe Model on the Princeton Campus at other Ivy League schools. [...]

Love and Fidelity Network, centered at Princeton, is building a network of chastity-supportive organizations at Ivy League colleges. the centerpiece of LFN’s networks is an annual student conference that draws 200 to 300 leaders from Ivy League and equivalent universities. NOM will “piggyback” on these existing conferences (and search for other similar venues) to identify, train, and equip next generation leaders on marriage, including media training.

But in keeping with the aims of the Cultural Strategies Project we will not confine our mission to attract and cultivate a community of cognitive elites alone. Through the Love and Fidelity Film Festival and YouTube and Song contest, we will seek to identify a next generation of elites capable of creating pro-marriage culture more broadly construed.

This is another example of the way NOM emphasizes “elites” as spokespeople, but divides them up between “non-cognitive” and “cognitive.” For its “glamorous” celebrities, NOM prefers the “non-cognitive” variety who can parrot talking points and raise controversy merely by taking the anti-equality position. But for its future leaders and spokespeople, NOM wants “cognitive elites,” intellectuals from prestigious universities who can make compelling arguments against the freedom to marry that will help “construe” the broader base of society. In addition to recruiting young people, NOM also seeks out “highly credentialed intellectuals” to serve as expert witnesses who will proliferate its message.

The Anscombe Society NOM references as a “model” is a student group at Princeton University that believes sex should be reserved until marriage but that opposes same-sex marriage, and thus “believes that homosexual persons are called to lead chaste lifestyles.” This position unsurprisingly mirrors that of the Catholic Church — one of NOM’s chief allies in almost every campaign — and its Courage ministry, which condemns gays to either a life without love or harmful ex-gay therapy. NOM’s intent to “piggyback” on this rhetoric demonstrates that it not only opposes an inclusive definition of marriage, but it also intends to further spread religious-based anti-gay stigma for years to come.

"I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

Kansas state Republicans want to make sure residents can discriminate against LGBT people, so much so that they have advanced a bill that would allow individuals to sue the government if they are deprived of the opportunity to do so. Yesterday, the Kansas House overwhelmingly passed HB 2384, the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, which prevents the government from “burdening a person’s exercise of religion”:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless such government demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that application of the burden to the person: (1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

“Compelling governmental interest” shall not include prohibition of a practice or policy of discrimination against individuals in employment relations, in access to free and public accommodations or in housing, except as set forth in K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq., and amendments thereto, and the laws and constitution of the United States.

This is a step beyond the kind of legislation lawmakers have advanced in states like Tennessee that prevent municipalities from establishing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. According to this bill, not only would municipalities be inhibited from protecting against anti-LGBT discrimination, but those who do discriminate would become protected and entitled to do so.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Lance Kinzer (R) claimed his bill is merely about the “free exercise of religion,” but confirmed that an apartment owner could use the measure to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple. It constitutes nothing short of a religious license to discriminate against LGBT people.

The Kansas House has one final vote to take on the legislation before it advances to the Senate, where Republicans also enjoy a supermajority. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has expressed support for the bill, suggesting its inevitability of becoming one of the most wicked anti-LGBT laws in the country.

Ben Jealous speaking at the National Conference on LGBT Equality in January, 2012.

The National Organization for Marriage’s confidential memos released this week reveal the group’s insidious attempts to foster racial divisions to further its opposition to the freedom to marry. The leaders of various groups that advocate for African-Americans are now speaking out to condemn the exploitative tactics.

Adding to comments made by Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond earlier this week, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous rebuked any attempt at creating a wedge as “artificial”:

JEALOUS: This memo only reveals the limits of a cynical agenda. The truth is that no group, no matter how well-funded, can drive an artificial wedge between our communities. People of color understand what it is like to be the target of discrimination. No public relations strategy will make us forget that.

Sharon Lettman-Hicks, Executive Director and CEO of the National Black Justice Coalition, also spoke out, expressing her concern that NOM has exploited the black faith community to advance a hateful agenda:

LETTMAN-HICKS: These documents expose NOM for what it really is—a hate group determined to use African American faith leaders as pawns to push their damaging agenda and as mouthpieces to amplify that hatred. NOM is fighting a losing battle. With these memos made public, the black faith community must refuse to be exploited and refuse to deny their fellow brothers and sisters equal protections under the law.

NOM President Brian Brown responded to the controversy this week by bragging, “We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors.” Clearly, that is not the case.