Ninth in a series examining how anti-LGBT Senate candidates have worked to hurt the cause of equality.

In June, Montana Republicans nominated Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) to challenge incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D). Unlike Tester, a fairly reliable supporter of LGBT equality, Rehberg has opposed the LGBT community at every opportunity.

Over his time as Lt. Governor of Montana, his unsuccessful 1996 Senate campaign, his 12 years in the House of Representatives, and this Senate campaign:

1. Rehberg proudly pranked a fellow Congressman with a gay-mocking “Idaho Travel Package.” In 2008, after Idaho’s Sen. Larry Craig (R) plead guilty to lewd conduct involving a male police officer in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport restroom, Rehberg decided to leave a care-package for Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID). On a congressional trip to the Middle East, Rehberg reportedly left “a stuffed sheep with gloves attached to it, a Village People CD, books on cross-dressing and sign language and a T-shirt that reads, ‘My senator may not be gay, but my governor is Butch.’” The governor of Idaho’s name is C.L. “Butch” Otter. A spokesman claimed “no offense was intended,” Rehberg boasted that he was proud of the travel package and “spent a bit of time putting the things together.”

2. Rehberg has consistently fought against marriage equality and even domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. In his Senate campaign kickoff, he told supporters: “I will never, ever, ever be ashamed to stand for the life of the unborn child and the sanctity of traditional marriage.” He has indeed shown no shame, voting twice for a federal constitutional amendment requiring “marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” He also voted for a 2011 amendment reaffirming the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 2007 amendment restricting the District of Columbia government from using any federal funding to provide domestic partnership benefits, and a 2004 bill of questionable constitutionality to strip federal courts of the right to review whether DOMA is unconstitutional. In May, he reiterated his support also for his state’s same-sex marriage ban, saying “Montana’s state constitution says ‘Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state,’ and I agree.”

3. Rehberg railed against hate crimes protections for LGBT Americans, calling them “extremist.” In addition to repeatedly voting against adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the federal hate crimes laws, he has also been an outspoken opponent of such “special rights.” In a letter to then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), he decried “extremist hate crime legislation” being attached to a Defense authorization bill. He called the protections “divisive social policy,” dismissed them as a “thinly veiled attack on federalism,” and added that they “violate our nation’s founding principles.”

4. Rehberg thinks it should be legal to fire someone just for being gay. He voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2007, which would have banned employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Worse, he refused to even adopt a non-discrimination policy against LGBT discrimination for employees in his own Congressional office.

5. Rehberg opposed letting LGBT servicemembers serve openly. He voted against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal twice in 2010.

6. Rehberg boasts of an award he received from a designated hate group. He was “honored” by the Family Research Council in 2003 with their “True Blue” award. The group’s president Tony Perkins praised him as a “consistent, stalwart ally of American families,” who should be “commended for his adherence to the belief that strong marriages and families are essential aspects of a resilient society.” Rehberg called it an “important recognition of my commitment to the American family.” The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated FRC as a hate group for its record of “false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science.”

7. Rehberg pushed abstinence-only education, while opposing AIDS funding. In 1994, he opposed funding for Montana AIDS patients, arguing that “the problem with AIDS is: you got it, you die. So why are we spending money on the issue?” He also, as chairman of the relevant House appropriations subcommittee, voted to slash HIV/AIDS prevention funds while adding funds for anti-gay and ineffective abstinence-only sex education programs.

8. Rehberg has been a zero for LGBT Americans — literally. According to the Human Rights Campaign, he has opposed the interests of the LGBT community 100 percent of the time. He earned zero ratings for the 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, and 111th Congresses.

Watch Rehberg dodge a question from a gay constituent about the second-class citizenship of LGBT Montanans:

Though Rehberg says he wants to “get government out of our lives,” he has consistently voted against giving the same respect to LGBT Americans. Rehberg’s election to the U.S. Senate would be a huge threat to LGBT people and families.

Hours before today’s primary elections, Republican state senate candidate Juan Reyes attacked his opponent New York City Councilman Eric Ulrich for being too friendly with the LGBT community.

“Ulrich and his wife became known as frequent dinner companions of an openly gay Democrat Councilman and his husband. No one cared about that,” the mailer stated (emphasis in the original). The pamphlet goes on to accuse Ulrich of such “liberal” misdeeds as hiring openly gay staff members and voting in favor of same-sex marriage while on the city council.

So virulently anti-gay was Reyes’ mailer that his own former boss, longtime ally to the LGBT community and former Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani, nixed his plans to remain neutral during the primaries and instead rushed to defend Ulrich in the Wall Street Journal:

GIULIANI: After seeing what his campaign has done, which is disgusting, Juan doesn’t belong in politics. I don’t know where he belongs, but he belongs someplace else… I find these attacks, the gay-bashing attacks, childish, silly, and a real indication you don’t belong in public service.

Reyes is the latest New York Republican to swing far to the right on LGBT issues during an election season in which several Republicans who helped to pass marriage equality last year are facing primary challenges from socially conservative candidates. Last week, State Senator Mark Grisanti (R-NY) was hit with a homophobic mailer in his upstate New York district by the Committee to Save the Erie County Republican Party, while Roy McDonald (R-NY) is facing a competitive race from a local county clerk who already has the backing of the state’s Conservative Party.

The National Organization for Marriage has also dedicated considerable resources to defeating Republicans who voted in favor of marriage equality in New York. In blog posts and email alerts, NOM has spent the last year promising to replace pro same-sex marriage lawmakers with homophobic ones, though given the overwhelming support for same-sex marriage in both the population at large and in Albany, even if NOM’s five endorsed candidates all win their primaries tonight and the general election in November, it’s not likely same-sex marriage is going anywhere in New York.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) have introduced a Senate version of the Military Religious Freedom Act, a bill that ironically restricts the religious freedom of military chaplains. Wicker introduced a similar amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill last year that passed the Senate, but was ultimately removed during the bill’s conference. The House version, introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-IA), passed earlier this summer.

The bill has two provisions. The first allows military chaplains to opt out of performing same-sex commitment ceremonies if they object for “reasons of conscience.” This is completely redundant, because the Pentagon made quite clear after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was lifted that no chaplain would ever be required to perform a ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. This measure serves as cover for the bill’s other provision, which extends the Defense of Marriage Act to prohibits same-sex marriage or “marriage-like ceremonies” from taking place at military facilities, even in states where such commitments would be legally recognized. Inhofe’s statement exemplifies this spin:

INHOFE: President Obama and his administration are dismissing their responsibility to uphold the law of the land by unilaterally deeming DOMA unworthy of enforcement. At the same time, since the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, they have begun to pressure military chaplains to fall in line with their liberal same-sex marriage agenda. This bill protects military chaplains from being forced to go against their conscience and religious beliefs in regard to this issue. This is something the chaplains that serve this country need and deserve.

There is no “pressure” on chaplains, but that fake issue serves as a scapegoat for the bill’s negative consequences. The effect of this overreach of DOMA would be to specifically target gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers and prevent them from participating in perfectly legal activities that remain available to straight soldiers. It would also restrict chaplains from ministering to LGB troops in the same way they do all other servicemembers. It is a gross violation of these soldiers’ religious freedom and serves only to reinforce anti-gay stigma in the wake of DADT repeal.

Admiral Michael Mullen sat down with OutServe magazine to discuss how he came to oppose the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rather than cater to pre-existing sentiment, such as Marine Gen. James Amos’ support of the policy, Mullen insisted on investigating DADT and its impact on servicemembers. Ultimately, he realized that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military was “fundamentally an issue of integrity”:

MULLEN: A lot of commanders on the ground don’t want the chairman to get so close to the fight. I understand that. But I tried to push as far into their world as I could. I also sat down with retired or former military members who were gays and lesbians and just listened to them, to their views, to what they’d been through. All that work got me to a position where it was fundamentally an issue of integrity. Since June 30, 1964, when I went to the Naval Academy, I’ve been taught that honor and integrity define who we are—our core values. How could I reconcile that with the fact that we were forcing men and women who would give their lives for the country to lie every day about who they are?

Indeed, that sentiment is exactly what he testified on February 2, 2012 to the Senate Armed Services Committee, permanently re-framing the issue from one of sexual orientation to one of integrity. In doing so, Mullen proved himself a role model for that very integrity, highlighting the end of his military career championing a profound accomplishment for military civil rights.

This weekend is the Family Research Council’s Values Voters Summit, and Tony Perkins kicked the event off yesterday with a luncheon at the National Press Club. After reiterating his rebuke of the Southern Poverty Law Center for its “bitter characterization” of FRC as a “hate group,” Perkins openly took questions from the audience. At one point, Perkins was asked if he would disown one of children if he or she came out as gay. He responded that he wouldn’t disown, but just like a “lifestyle” of drugs, he wouldn’t condone the “destructive” behavior either:

PERKINS: I would not disown my children for anything, but let me say this… I believe that as a parent that I have a responsibility for the environment in which I raise my children. And I believe as a parent, we have the ability to protect them from a lot of unfortunate experiences that have shaping influences upon their lives…

We can do our very best job as a parent and still something may happen, whether they end up in drugs or whether they end up in some other lifestyle that they end up in… They’re our children. We’ll always love them, but we don’t necessarily condone what they do. And if we really love them, we’ll be wiling to tell them the truth that the choices that they have made to continue in what they are doing are both destructive to them personally and to society as a whole.

Listen to it:

Perkins also let slip this ironic line: “It’s time to dial down your demonization of those who differ with you.” This seems reminiscent of Brian Brown’s admission during his debate with Dan Savage that “just because you believe something is wrong, it doesn’t mean that you make it illegal.” If only these anti-gay activists practiced what they preached.

Watch FRC’s full event at The Press Club: