Robert George is a significant — though not often visible — force within the anti-equality movement. As the founding chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, co-author of the anti-gay Manhattan Declaration, and a board member of the homophobic and Islamophobic Bradley Foundation, his fingerprints can be found throughout efforts to oppose the freedom to marry. Today at the Witherspoon Institute, another anti-gay think tank with which George is affiliated, he took time to pontificate on the issue of same-sex marriage and “religious freedom,” explaining exactly how those opposed to equality (supporters of “conjugal marriage”) shifted the goalposts on the issue:

The fundamental error made by some supporters of conjugal marriage was and is, I believe, to imagine that a grand bargain could be struck with their opponents: “We will accept the legal redefinition of marriage; you will respect our right to act on our consciences without penalty, discrimination, or civil disabilities of any type. Same-sex partners will get marriage licenses, but no one will be forced for any reason to recognize those marriages or suffer discrimination or disabilities for declining to recognize them.” There was never any hope of such a bargain being accepted.

Perhaps parts of such a bargain would be accepted by liberal forces temporarily for strategic or tactical reasons, as part of the political project of getting marriage redefined; but guarantees of religious liberty and non-discrimination for people who cannot in conscience accept same-sex marriage could then be eroded and eventually removed. After all, “full equality” requires that no quarter be given to the “bigots” who want to engage in “discrimination” (people with a “separate but equal” mindset) in the name of their retrograde religious beliefs. “Dignitarian” harm must be opposed as resolutely as more palpable forms of harm.

Note the conflation George makes between whether or not religious organizations have to recognize same-sex marriage versus whether society as a whole does. Surely he’s not so narrow-minded as to believe that same-sex couples wanted to get married just so that nobody would recognize their unions! Indeed, the whole goal of marriage equality is ensuring that same-sex couples have equal access to both the legal and societal benefits and protections for their relationship and family. It’s quite pompous to believe that gays and lesbians ever offered any sort of “bargain” in which respect was sacrificed for the mere opportunity to sign a piece of paper.

What the LGBT movement has always conceded is that no church should ever have to officiate a wedding that is out of accordance with its beliefs. Otherwise, married same-sex couples should be treated like all married couples throughout society, including recognition by the government, all public accommodations, and all state-subsidized private organizations. But George doesn’t see it that way — he argues that such a simple expectation of equal treatment is actually “discrimination” against the “religious liberty” of individuals like him.

That is the flipped script that conservatives now operate from. There is no room for compromise, accommodation, or “bargain.” They argue that they have a right to treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens no matter how laws may change, and they will surely advocate that odious position for years to come.

On Monday, a Baptist Press story quoted Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy admitting his company’s anti-gay ideology — a stance the company previously attempted to deny. But after two days of Cathy boasting about the story, the company’s Facebook page now features a message flatly contradicting its head.

In his interview with the Baptist Press, Cathy admitted that the company indeed has an anti-gay political agenda. When asked about reports that the company was against same-sex marriage, he told the paper “Well, guilty as charged,” adding:

We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit … We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.

Cathy reinforced his views in a radio interview, in which he asked “God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.” He continued his anti-LGBT campaign Wednesday on Twitter, twice bragging that the Baptist Press interview had “lit up the gay community.”

Today’s statement on the the Chick-fil-a Facebook page takes the exact opposite view. The company now claims:

The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

The Chick-fil-A corporation has long funded anti-gay organizations. According to an Equality Matters analysis of public records, in 2010 the company’s foundation distributed nearly $2 million to anti-LGBT groups including the Marriage & Family Foundation, the Family Research Council, and Exodus International — and millions more in previous years. But this past March, when Northeastern University rejected a proposed contract to bring a Chick-fil-A restaurant on campus, a Cathy bizarrely claimed that the company had “no political agenda.” He said in a media statement “we are not anti-anybody and Chick-fil-A have [sic] no agenda, policy or position against anyone as some reports continue to represent.”

Chick-fil-A is one of a very small number of major national companies that refuses to offer any employment protections to LGBT employees. In fact, the company received a 0 rating from the Human Rights Campaign and has a record of firing employees it believes engage in “sinful” behavior. This is hardly a tradition of treating everyone “with honor, dignity, and respect.”

Either the company is once again trying to conceal its anti-LGBT activism or Cathy’s intention to “stay the course” lasted just three days.

Ever since Exodus International’s Alan Chambers admitted that ex-gay therapy cannot “cure” homosexuality, there has been a supposed “rift” among various ex-gay activists. In reality, any shaming or curbing of homosexuality is harmful, so the distinction in approaches is negligible, but the in-fighting allows for a particularly candid glimpse at how exactly these purveyors of junk science defend their treatments. NARTH co-founder Joseph Nicolosi has taken particular exception to some of Chambers’ remarks suggesting he uses porn to encourage heterosexuality:

I do not use heterosexual pornography with my clients. I do ask them (if they wish to do this; some clients do not, and I never expect my clients to do anything they do not wish to do) to bring up a compelling image from gay porn that they wish to reduce the power of, and we work on diminishing its power (a technique with which we have had considerable success).

However, I do not use straight porn; I use pictures of women they find attractive in mainstream magazines and we work on developing a physical attraction to them, through their imagination, while looking at these non-pornographic pictures.

I would like you to set the record straight on this. You have been publicly denigrating reparative therapy and misleading people about its nature.

Perhaps the only ex-gay idea more absurd than using images designed to sexually arouse is using images that aren’t. In either case, the admission that Nicolosi’s therapy consists of just sitting around imagining different attractions than the person has demonstrates how foolish the notion of ex-gay therapy is. His closing remarks remind that the therapy is harmful as well, rooted in sinful shame and stigma, not healing or affirmation.

If homosexual acts truly constitute sin, as you say you believe, then people deserve to be able to avail themselves of all reasonable therapeutic tools to diminish unwanted SSA and explore their OSA potential. You are discouraging them from having such tools, and also as a Christian, you are reassuring them that they are OK whether they “fall” or not, which gives people very little reason to struggle against a condition which has very deeply negative implications for both themselves and for our culture.

Nicolosi and his disciples are, as ever, motivated not by what’s best for the patient, but by blatant animus toward homosexuality. They believe they are saving society by “saving” gays, but they are having the opposite effect in both regards.

Jeremy Hooper points out that the National Organization for Marriage is blatantly revealing its own lies in regards to its laughable “Corporate Fairness Project.” When promoting its recent impotent boycotts of Starbucks and General Mills, NOM’s Jonathan Baker has made the following claim:

BAKER: The proper business decision is to stay neutral so as to respect the diverse views of your employees, customers, communities in which you operate, and, for publicly traded companies, your shareholders.

But this week, Chick-Fil-A president and COO Dan Cathy said that he is “praying for God’s mercy” for marriage equality activists, who he described as “prideful” and “arrogant” for having the “audacity to define what marriage is about” — hardly a “neutral” position. How did NOM react?

President of Chick-Fil-A Proud to Stand for Biblical and Family Values

The Baptist Press profiles a corporate hero for marriage:

So, a company that takes an un-”neutral” position in favor of equality deserves a boycott, but a company that boldly condemns equality activists for inviting God’s judgment and subsidizes other anti-gay organizations? That’s a “corporate hero.”

This concept of neutrality is such a farce that NOM can’t even abide by its own spin. Its obvious hypocrisy is a reminder that the anti-LGBT harm associated with invisibility and exclusion are directly tied to inaction and silence.

In an interview with Philadelphia Gay News, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who chairs the Democratic National Committee, said that she is very proud of the DNC’s support of LGBT rights, and she expects its party platform will include marriage equality this year:

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I expect marriage equality to be a plank in the national party platform. President Obama has declared his support for it … Now, our platform committee process is a people-powered process. We have a platform committee and the platform is developed by our Democratic activists and the platform committee members, so they’ll go through a process. I hope that marriage equality, and expect that marriage equality, will be part of our platform.

Several state Democratic parties have already included marriage equality in their platforms, and numerous Democratic Party chairs have expressed their support for the plank.

Wasserman Schultz suggested last year that the DNC will “certainly consider” assisting in state ballot fights over the issue of same-sex marriage, but that was not apparent in North Carolina’s Amendment One fight this spring. She reaffirmed that the DNC is opposed to anti-gay amendments like North Carolina’s and Minnesota’s, but avoided committing any resources to the various state campaigns:

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We are publicly opposed to all of those that are trying to roll back LGBT rights and we will continue to oppose them. The president has publicly come out against those that would roll those back.

Though the Boy Scouts of America has not yet explained what conclusions led it to reaffirm that discriminating against gay scouts and leaders was “absolutely the best policy” for its organization, plenty of conservatives have made clear which fallacious anti-gay myth they believe motivated the decision. On his radio show yesterday, Mike Huckabee spelled out in no uncertain terms that he believes the policy is “right” because it protects boys from abuse. He welcomed a call from a listener who had been abused by his scout leader, and Huckabee agreed that part of the definition of “homosexual” is molesting children:

CALLER: I believe homosexuals try to target groups like that, to get a leadership area in, and if there hadn’t have been a homosexual in my troop, I wouldn’t have been traumatized for about three years. [...]

HUCKABEE: I think if anybody wants to argue about this case, they need to hear your story. That’s very powerful. I thank you for having the candor to share it with us, and again, you make us all understand why the Boy Scouts made a decision that I at least think was the right one.

Listen to it:

Comments like Huckabee’s (and the Liberty Counsel’s) are egregiously offensive and harmful. Drawing a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is the same weak argument John Briggs was making 40 years ago in an attempt to ban gay teachers in California. It’s unfounded slander against the entire gay community.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which individuals have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in children. It in no way defines or relates to an individual’s sexual orientation — it refers only to age and level of sexual development. That gay men are attracted to men makes them no more likely to abuse children than straight men because they are attracted to women. As psychologists have stated for years, “There is no inherent connection between an adult’s sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others.”
Read more