The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins has had a prominent role in shaping the Republican Party’s platform, including support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The Bridge Project noticed an interview Perkins did with CNSNews.com today in which he claimed that only a “very small minority” of Americans support marriage equality:

PERKINS: I think this is the year of contrast.  This is the year of contrast when you look at the party platforms. The Republican Party has very strong language as it pertains to natural, traditional marriage.The Democratic Party going the way of a very small minority in this country and embracing same-sex marriage, which undermines the 32 states that have voted on this, the 30 states that have constitutional amendments. I think that’s in your face to those states that have constitutional amendments.

Watch it:

Apparently Perkins believes a “very small minority” means the same thing as a “consistent majority” and “the Democratic Party.” Over the past two years, polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. Of course, the Democratic Party has also endorsed this position, in stark contrast to the platform Perkins helped draft. Like all other issues related to LGBT people, Perkins has convinced himself of something that contradicts with the reality of the world around him.

TAMPA, Florida — A longtime GOP congressman predicted that this year’s Republican Party platform will be the last to embrace marriage discrimination.

Former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), who served in Congress from 1985 to 2007 and came out of the closet in 1996, told ThinkProgress in an interview Wednesday that he thinks his party will drop the anti-gay planks when it holds its 2016 convention. “This is a purely generational issue,” Kolbe argued. “I would predict four years from now, the gay issue will not be mentioned on the party platform. It’s just going to disappear as an issue.”

KOLBE: The second thing I would say is that I think that this is a purely generational issue. It’s going to go away. In fact I would predict four years from now, the gay issue will not be mentioned on the party platform. It’s just going to disappear as an issue. Just as the no gays in the military disappeared this year from the party platform. That issue is settled now as far as the country is concerned. So I think this issue is settled, may not be in four years, but I’m predicting that it probably would be dropped from the platform in five years.

Watch it:

For Kolbe’s prediction to come true, it would require a massive shift among Republican attitudes towards LGBT rights. Due to the influence of social conservatives like Tony Perkins, this year’s Republican platform is “as anti-LGBT as ever,” according to ThinkProgress LGBT editor Zack Ford. Even the Log Cabin Republicans called the platform, which rejects recognition of both marriage equality and civil unions, “bad with a capital ‘B.’”

A new study from the University of Michigan has found that simply overhearing the expression “that’s so gay” used to describe something in a disparaging way can have negative consequences for gay, lesbian, or bisexual students. Practically every college student interviewed for the study had heard “that’s so gay” at least once in the past year, with more than half hearing it with much more frequency. Those who heard it more frequently were more likely to report feelings of isolation, as well as negative health symptoms, such as headaches, poor appetite, or eating problems.

Study author Michael Woodford, assistant professor of social work at U-M, describes the results:

WOODFORD: Given the nature of gay-lesbian-bisexual stigma, sexual minority students could already perceive themselves to be excluded on campus and hearing “that’s so gay” may elevate such perceptions. “That’s so gay” conveys that there is something wrong with being gay.  And, hearing such messages about one’s self can cause stress, which can manifest in headaches and other health concerns.

Woodford suggested that colleges must do more to address “low-level hostility,” which clearly still has a documentable impact on LGBT young people. The study is the latest in a series of studies in the past few years that show how LGBT health concerns among young people can be traced to bullying and stigma, not homosexuality itself, as conservatives constantly allege.

The Ad Council and GLSEN launched ThinkB4YouSpeak.com a few years ago to advocate against such negative rhetoric. Here is one of the campaign’s ads, featuring out comedian Wanda Sykes:

In an interview with SiriusXM’s Michelangelo Signorile, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that while he opposes same-sex marriage, he believes the question should be left up to the states. When told that this put him at odd’s with Mitt Romney’s position, Hatch expressed disbelief.

Romney, who as Governor actively sought to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts, has signed the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-marriage equality pledge to push for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.” He has proposed a three-tier system to allow already-married same-sex couples to remain married, but preventing any state from offering same-sex marriage licenses henceforth.

Hatch told Signorile that he’s a “believer that the states should be able to make their own determination” and that he’s no longer even thinking about a constitutional amendment to take that right away.

HATCH: There are about, what, six states that have done it? They’ve chosen to do that. I don’t agree with that, because I believe in the sanctity of the marriage covenant and the traditional definition, but the states have a right to do it.

SIGNORILE: But Mitt Romney wants to pass a federal amendment though that would stop those states?

HATCH: I’ve never heard that — never heard him say that. I don’t think that’s his position. But I don’t know.

Hatch previously had co-sponsored constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

The Family Equality Council has released a new platform that addresses the need of “Modern Families,” those being raised by same-sex parents. The new document serves as an alternative to the anti-gay condemnations of the Republican Party platform and fleshes out just how marriage equality and other protections will help children:

We are a nation of blended and multi-generational families, adoptive and foster families, families headed by single parents, divorced parents, unmarried parents, same-sex couples, and more. American families may be diverse, but we all have at least one thing in common—we want our children to be safe, healthy, happy and supported. When our families are rendered invisible, our ability to provide for each other and our children comes under attack. As a nation, we must honor and support the many kinds of families that exist, rather than dismiss the vast majority of households in this country as second-class. We call for the full inclusion of all families, including familiesheaded by  lGBT people and same-sex couples, in the life of our nation. all families are entitled to equalrecognition under the law with responsibilities, benefits and protections.

Here are some of the calls to action offered by the platform:

• Standardize the definition of “family” on forms and documents without assuming there is always a “mother” and a “father.”
• Pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act to ensure same-sex couples’ right to adopt or serve as foster parents.
• Achieve full federal recognition of same-sex marriage to allow all families to access the same economic benefits and legal securities.
• Pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act and Student Non-Discrimination Act to create safe learning communities for LGBT youth and the children of LGBT parents.
• Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act to ensure LGBT families are not vulnerable to workplace discrimination.
• Expand healthcare provisions to ensure same-sex families have equal access to the care they need.
• Pass the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act to make sure LGBT people are protected from housing discrimination.
• Pass the Uniting American Families Act, the DREAM Act, and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to ensure same-sex families are never separated by antiquated immigration laws.
• Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with explicit domestic violence protections for LGBT people.

The Family Equality Council has also released a video about the impact of inequality on children:

Our guest bloggers are Crosby Burns, Research Associate, and Jeff Krehely, Vice President of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund

Just last year Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed: “I favor gay rights.” But as CAP Action has thoroughly documented before, Mitt Romney has been a stalwart opponent of marriage equality and civil unions, would oppose a federal workplace nondiscrimination law for LGBT workers, and has a history of halting anti-bullying initiatives as governor.

For policies related to relationship recognition, workplace equality, and bullying, we can be fairly certain that Mitt Romney does not, in fact, fully favor gay rights. However, for other LGBT issues Romney has either remained silent or offered vague support for laws and policies that level the playing field for these Americans and their families.

To see if Romney has any clear policy positions that back up his bold claim of supporting gay rights, CAP Action released an issue brief asking the candidate to answer the following six questions:

1. What policies would you support to help workers with same-sex partners legally access the same benefits as workers who are married to someone of the opposite sex? Mitt Romney has offered vague support for extending benefits to employees with same-sex partners. What benefits would Mitt Romney support extending and which would he not? Would he sign into law bills passed by Congress that extend the full range of existing benefits that are currently afforded to federal employees’ opposite-sex spouses but not to federal employees with same-sex partners?
2. As president, which policies would you and your administration (if any) support to help end workplace discrimination against LGBT workers? Mitt Romney opposes laws like ENDA, which would make it a federal crime to discriminate in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But he has stated that he is personally supportive of nondiscrimination in the workplace. Does that mean he would issue an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees?
3. Would you halt or continue the Pentagon’s current efforts to extend benefits to members of the military with same-sex partners? Despite the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, gay service members with same-sex partners do not have access to the same kind of workplace benefits afforded to straight service men and women. The Pentagon is currently reviewing which benefits it can legally extend to service members with same-sex partners. Would Mitt Romney halt those efforts in their tracks, or would he work to ensure all service members are treated equally under the law, gay or straight?
4. Would you use your power as president to help end the rampant bullying of LGBT youth in our country’s schools? Mitt Romney has an ambiguous past as governor with respect to anti-bullying efforts. Does Mitt Romney support strong federal laws such as the Student Nondiscrimination Act or the Safe Schools Initiative Act that would give a much needed lifeline to our country’s LGBT youth?
5. Do you support laws that expand or restrict same-sex couples’ ability to adopt children? Mitt Romney has been particularly vague with respect to adoption, noting that same-sex couples have a “legitimate interest” in doing so and that he is “fine” with same-sex couples. But one day later he quickly backtracked those comments to note that he “simply acknowledges” that same-sex couples can adopt in certain states. Given these confusing statements, which public policies related to same-sex couples adopting children would President Romney support or oppose?
6. 6. Would you continue Obama Administration policies and programs that promote the rights and equality of LGBT people internationally? Late last year, President Obama took a major step to help advance LGBT rights abroad by issuing a memorandum directing all federal agencies to ensure their foreign assistance programs “promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.” Would Romney build off President Obama’s work to ensure foreign aid is used to advance the rights of LGBT people abroad, or would he end those efforts altogether?

If the GOP’s official policy platform informs Mitt Romney’s worldview—which as the head of his party it almost certainly does—then we probably know that Mitt Romney supports few actual laws or policies that would level the playing field for LGBT people. The GOP’s policy platform, for example, accuses the Obama administration of advancing a “homosexual rights agenda” abroad. It outlines policies intended to roll back rather than advance equality for gay service members.

For all his talk, we still have heard little from Mitt Romney when it comes to actual laws and policies that would reflect his statement that he “favor[s] gay rights.” If he actually supports gay rights, will he disown his party’s platform with respect to LGBT issues? Or will he continue to embrace the anti-gay values his party stands for? Unfortunately for LGBT Americans and their families, it appears that for the time being the latter triumphs over the former for Mitt Romney.