In President Obama’s public endorsement of marriage equality, he noted that he arrived at his position partly because he wants to impart the value of equality to his daughters, Sasha and Malia, who have friends with same-sex parents. In Michelle Obama’s statement on marriage equality today — a response to a question posed on Twitter about the Obama family’s discussions surrounding gay marriage — the First Lady echoes these sentiments:

MICHELLE OBAMA: This is an important issue for millions of Americans, and for Barack and me, it really comes down to the values of fairness and equality we want to pass down to our girls. These are basic values that kids learn at a very young age and that we encourage them to apply in all areas of their lives. And in a country where we teach our children that everyone is equal under the law, discriminating against same-sex couples just isn’t right. It’s as simple as that.

Watch it:

Since Obama came out in public support of same-sex marriage, a growing number of African-American figures and the NAACP have also spoken out in favor of marriage equality.

Another school is trying to “protect” kids from learning that some families have two moms or two dads, a lesson that some parents feel they need to consent to. At Davis County School District in Utah, a whopping 25 parents petitioned the board of librarians arguing that the book In Our Mothers’ House should not be publicly available to kindergartners. The book was not outright banned, but will be kept behind the librarian’s desk and must be specifically requested.

Fox 13 reached out to the book’s author, Patricia Polacco, for comment. She described what once happened during a classroom visit that inspired her to write the book:

POLACCO: What if you are raising a gay child and the child doesn’t know they’re gay and all they’ve heard is derision and criticism for that way of life? [...]

One little girl stood up, started to read about her family, and was immediately stopped actually by an aide — not the teacher, I think the teacher had left the room — [who] said “Oh no, Virginia, you don’t come from a real family. Sit down.” That little girl actually came to me at the end of the day sobbing and said, “Mrs. Polacco, are you ever going to write about us? About families like us?” And I said, “You know, I promise you I will.”

Listen to it:

In situations like both this one and the Illinois school discussed earlier today, it’s important to note that there is nothing to substantiate claims that kids are incapable of understanding diverse families. The problem is that the parents are uncomfortable answering questions about the existence of same-sex couples. This raises the question: How do these families respond when their kids’ classmates have same-sex parents?

Now that same-sex couples in Illinois are suing for marriage equality, conservatives are whining that same-sex couples aren’t content with civil unions, which the state passed last year. Here are Laurie Higgins and David Smith of the Illinois Family Institute telling the American Family Association their complaints about the new legal challenge:

HIGGINS: For those conservatives who were saying, Oh, just give them civil unions and that’ll be the end of it — they were naïve and ignorant. I don’t mean [they're] stupid — I mean [they're] unaware, not knowledgeable; and they should have been [aware] that this was what was coming… Because yes, they do want the benefits — but what homosexuals want centrally is cultural approval. They want there to be no formal public recognition that homosexual unions are different from heterosexual unions.

SMITH: It’s now painfully obvious that the purpose for securing civil unions legislation last year was to gain legal leverage in the left’s attempt to overturn the Illinois Defense of Marriage law.

Civil unions were invented in the year 2000 in Vermont. By design, they are a compromise to grant same-sex couples legal recognition without granting them full marriages. They have been proven not to provide equality, but in the absence of marriage, they do at least provide some important legal protections for families. When hate group representatives like Higgins and Smith point out that civil unions are, in fact, inferior to marriage, they are absolutely correct, and the intention behind their remarks should not be ignored.

Anti-gay activists like those at IFI have devoted their lives to opposing LGBT equality. When they accuse civil unions of being a “stepping stone” to marriage, they’re admitting that they want same-sex couples to be treated as inferior second-class citizens without any recognition. What’s worse: their children should have less family security solely because their parents are gay. It’s no secret that gay activists want full equality, not semi-equality, so comments like these should evoke no surprise or outrage.

Furthermore, nothing has changed in the Illinois state constitution since civil unions became law last year. When the judges rule in these cases, the legal foundation for their ruling will be exactly the same as it was before there were civil unions. Higgins and Smith are just bitter that same-sex families have any respect in society at all.

Pastor and Mrs. Dennis Leatherman

Maryland Pastor Dennis Leatherman is the latest conservative religious leader this week to attempt to walk back his comments supporting the killing of gay people. In a recent sermon, he told his congregation at the Mountain Lake Independent Baptist Church that his “flesh kind of likes the idea” of killing all gay people, but that doing so would be “wrong” because it “violates scripture.” On the church’s website, Leatherman now offers this significant retraction:

Pastor Dennis Leatherman and the Mountain Lake Independent Baptist Church never has, does not now, and never will advocate the incarceration, mistreatment, and especially not the killing of homosexuals (or any other group of people).

In a recent 50 minute message on homosexuality, Pastor Leatherman made a 5 second reference to his “flesh.” The term “flesh” in the Bible simply refers to our fallen, sinful nature. It is through the “new birth” of trusting Jesus Christ as Saviour that our nature is changed (2 Cor. 5:17, Galatians 5:19-24).  Here is the full quote in question, “First of all, there is a danger of reacting in the flesh, of responding not in a scriptural, spiritual way, but in a fleshly way. ‘Kill them all. Right?’ I will be very honest with you. My flesh kind of likes that idea. But it grieves the Holy Spirit. It violates Scripture. It is wrong.” You cannot get any clearer, “it is wrong” to respond to homosexuality in any other way than a scriptural, spiritually mature and firmly compassionate way. To suggest that Pastor Leatherman or the church advocates violence of any type toward homosexuals is to completely misconstrue what his message was saying.

We DO NOT advocate (or like) the idea killing of any individuals or group of people. Though we understand the Bible to teach that homosexuality is wrong (like many other sins mentioned throughout scripture), we also understand that the Bible teaches we are to be kind to all men, regardless of their lifestyle.

So Leatherman is willing to admit that he kind of likes the idea that all gay people should be killed, but that doesn’t mean he actually likes the idea of killing them himself. This seems to be a superfluous distinction.

Far-right church leaders like Leatherman, Curtis Knapp, and Jeff Sangl should stop trying to have it both ways. If they preach anti-gay hate, they should own it. In all three cases, they’ve attempted to manage damage control without actually correcting their positions. They clearly all believe that gay people are going to Hell and should be treated as such in life. Reaffirming their anti-gay disdain in a less violent way doesn’t help their public image — it’s just fuel on the fire.

Attempting to respond to anti-gay comments by Kansas pastor Curtis Knapp, CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield said yesterday that incest and pedophilia “are not by choice and are crimes” whereas “homosexuality is a lifestyle choice by people. It is voluntary.” She later clarified on Twitter that “being gay is not a choice. Being in a consensual relationship is. I support LGBT people.” This morning, she walked back her original comments on air:

BANFIELD: When I said that incest and pedophilia involve people who don’t have a choice — victims who don’t have a choice — and then said a gay relationship, you do have a choice, they are not crimes. Gay people involved in relationships are not committing any crimes at all. However, those who perpetrate incest and perpetrate pedophilia are committing crimes.

I don’t know that my comments were taken in that light and I certainly hope they were, but in no way did I ever want to suggest that being gay is a choice. It is not. And I probably used the word “lifestyle choice” — not what I meant to say at all. Being gay is not a choice; being in a voluntary gay relationship is a choice. It is not a crime.

So I hope that at least clears up any of the comments I made after that story of the pastor. And in no way do I agree with or stand by any of the comments that that pastor made either.

Watch it:

No doubt, Banfield made a big gaffe by using language that anti-gay activists regularly use. A sexual orientation is not a choice, nor is it a “lifestyle.” It’s a core part of who people are, defining their lives, not their style. It was right to criticize her word choice and good of her to walk back the comments and clarify what she meant. Allies are only helpful if they know how to be helpful.

In Banfield’s defense, the point she was trying to make was a valid one. Instead of “voluntary choice,” the language she was looking for was “consent.” Pedophilia is definitely a violation of consent, and incest often is as well. They are crimes for that reason. In same-sex relationships, both individuals consent to be together just as in opposite-sex couples. Banfield seemed to be trying to validate gay families as healthy and normal, and hopefully organizations like GLAAD can continue to work with her and other newspeople to help them use the best possible language in that effort.