The Baltimore Sun published a detailed endorsement Tuesday of Question 6, Maryland’s referendum on marriage equality. Not only did the editorial board affirm that the law would “treat everyone the same” and protect religious freedom to not solemnize same-sex unions, but they took ample time to dispel opponents’ “scare tactics,” rebutting claims made about straight victims and kids learning about same-sex marriage. Instead, the Sun points out that marriage equality will benefit children and families:

As for Maryland’s children, this law only improves their welfare. Thousands of Maryland children are being raised by same-sex parents in this state already. Allowing their parents the chance to marry strengthens their families and provides them with crucial protections under the law. More fundamentally, it recognizes that their families are equal to everyone else’s.

The board also points out that out-of-state same-sex marriages are already recognized because of a recent court decision, so rejection Question 6 is pointless sacrifice of state income that helps nobody:

If that happens, Maryland will lose more than the money those couples would have spent here on cakes, photographers, caterers and florists. Some couples, no doubt, will return to Maryland to settle down, but others will surely decide to stay someplace where the law fully recognizes their value as members of the community.

Nothing short of marriage equality will accomplish that. Civil unions and domestic partnerships in some states have sought to afford gay families the same packages of rights and benefits as married couples — a difficult and usually incomplete task, given the number of laws that reference marriage in one way or another. But that approach creates two kinds of marriage — one for straight people and one for gay people — and that inevitably relegates same-sex couples to second-class citizenship.

Polls over the past few months (August 2, September 26, October 1, October 18) have all shown strong support for marriage equality, though a new poll this week shows a much tighter race. The Baltimore Sun has spelled out a very clear case for supporting the measure, but now it’s up to voters to ignore conservative fear-baiting and vote in the best interest of Maryland families.

Last week, two students at Celina High School celebrated “Twin Day” with T-shirts that read “Lesbian 1″ and “Lesbian 2,” but they were forced to remove them. In response, some 20 students went to school Tuesday wearing home-made T-shirts that read “I Support… [Rainbow] Express Yourself” and “Straight but Supportive,” a show of support organized by sophomore Jimmy Walter. Assistant Principal Phil Metz forced all the students to remove the shirts because they were “political,” and those who did not were given detention with the threat of suspension.

Though Metz and Principal Jason Luebke have yet to respond, Superintendent Jesse Steiner offered this weak defense for the disciplinary action:

STEINER: The only reason they would be told that they couldn’t wear something is if it is a disruption of the educational process, or if it’s not allowed in the handbook. And there’s a line in our handbook about drawing undue attention to yourself.

It’s true that the student handbook limits dress that could “materially interfere with school work, create disorder, or disrupt the educational program,” but Steiner’s interpretation of that policy in this case is grossly unconstitutional.

ACLU Ohio points out that this is considered a “heckler’s veto,” an attempt to shut down free speech that the administrators in the very conservative district happen to disagree with. Erick Warrner, a Celina junior who brought attention to this situation on Reddit, points out that plenty of “political” dress is regularly tolerated at the school, including “Students for Life” anti-choice T-shirts with pictures of fetuses, as well as blatantly political shirts supporting Mitt Romney for President or calling President Obama a socialist. In fact, just this week the school hosted a Romney campaign event at which Paul Ryan spoke.

Both the students and the school are consulting lawyers, but it’s clear the students would have a winning case. In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that “state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism” and students are entitled to free speech so long as it does not “interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” Benignly gay-supportive t-shirts come nowhere close to meeting that standard. If anybody disrupted the educational process, it was the administrators who removed the students from the classroom and violated their First Amendment rights.

Rebecca Kadaga

Uganda’s Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, took umbrage to the threat that Western countries like the U.S. and Canada would cut aid because of the country’s persecution of homosexuality. Instead, she suggested that the anti-homosexuality (“Kill The Gays”) bill that has persisted in the legislature be brought to the floor for a vote:

KADAGA: I will not accept to be intimidated or to be directed by any government in the world because we are independent. We are Ugandans. We are not a colony of Canada; we’re not even a protectorate. [...]

I will now instruct the chair of the Committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to quickly bring the report of the anti-homosexuality bill so that we discuss it and so that Uganda can take a position. [...]

If the price of aid is going to be promoting homosexuality in this country, I think we don’t want that aid. I don’t think we want it.

Watch a news report featuring her remarks:

As Box Turtle Bulletin notes, the bill was slyly changed to remove the proposed penalty of “suffering death,” but was replaced with a reference to another penalty law that also includes the death penalty. Sodomy is already illegal in the country, and the only purpose of the bill is to increase stigmatization against both gay citizens and their allies.

Preserve Marriage Washington (PMW), the campaign against Referendum 74 to approve marriage equality in the northwest state, apparently felt the need to buy friends to look like a relevant player. Washington United for Marriage (WUM) researched some conspicuous activity on the anti-gay group’s Facebook page and found that its growth was marked by huge sudden spikes in “Likes” corresponding with days the “most popular city” supporting the page was in a foreign country.

The first spike took place between August 20 and 22, when PMW jumped from about 2,500 Facebook fans to over 10,000. During the same time, the most popular city was New York City, then finally Makati, Philippines. Shortly thereafter, Facebook started cracking down on fake “Likes” and PMW suddenly lost 4,000 fans. Since then, there have been three additional spikes, corresponding with apparent popularity in Chemnitz, Germany; Bangkok, Thailand; and Vilnius, Lithuania. Every spike had a similar drop-off days later as Facebook weeded out the fake fans. In total, the group has tried to add 16,000 fake “Likes” since August (click to see full-size):

WUM campaign manager Zach Silk pulled no punches in calling out PMW’s blatant dishonesty:

SILK: It’s probably not surprising that the same group that distorts the truth and tries to confuse voters would go so far as to buy their supposed ‘grassroots’ fan base and violate the terms of Facebook. Clearly, our opponents don’t give a hoot about the truth. It’s just hard to believe that people in Southeast Asia or Northern Europe care all that much about Referendum 74 in Washington.

There does seem to be a fair correlation between a campaign’s honest advocacy and the support that it garners. The Approve 74 campaign showed what a normal progression of Facebook support looks like:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been the main funder of Maine’s anti-marriage equality ballot efforts. And while it has yet to disclose its donors, NOM is proudly promoting the large sums of money flowing to Protect Marriage Maine — from NOM.

In a post titled “Maine Opponents of Question 1 (Gay Marriage) Raise Almost $1M in Final Weeks,” on NOM Blog Tuesday, NOM highlighted a Morning Sentinel story about amount Protect Marriage Maine, the main group opposing Question 1:

We’re closing the gap in Maine!

The Morning Sentinel:

Opponents of same-sex marriage raised nearly $950,000 in October, a major push toward the end of the campaign as voters get ready to head to the polls Nov. 6.

But, the article continues to note, “The bulk of the money came from the National Organization for Marriage, which donated $800,000, and the Knights of Columbus, which chipped in $100,000, according to a campaign finance report filed with the state just before midnight Friday.”

NOM claims momentum based solely on its own contribution accounting for more than 84 percent of the October fundraising. Polls continue to show marriage equality likely to win next Tuesday.

Mark Regnerus

Mark Regnerus’s “family structure” study has been a hot topic since it was released in June, namely because every single anti-gay conservative organization has cited it as evidence that same-sex couples are inferior parents. An internal audit by the academic journal that originally published it found the conclusions to be “bullshit” because Regnerus’s criteria was whether a kid’s parent ever had a same-sex relationship, regardless of how long it lasted or what role in played in parenting. In a new interview with Focus on the Family — a group invested in continuing to cite the study to oppose LGBT equality — Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made:

REGNERUS: I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t “out” in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never “came out of the closet,” so to speak. So, I didn’t want to make the assumption that these young adults would identify their parents as gay or lesbian, so I kept the focus on relationship behavior. [...]

And when pushed, a lot of people who were critics of mine will say: “Yeah, we know that, obviously, family structure matters,” and then they’ll complain, “Why didn’t you find many stably coupled lesbians?” Well, they just were not that common in the nationally representative population. There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population. I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad. [...]

I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them.

So, Regnerus’ study was not about parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,” because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children.

Focus on the Family may be invested in the fraudulent portrayal of Regnerus’s study, but by conducting this interview to draw more attention to it, the anti-gay organization managed to prove that the research has no applicability to the marriage equality and same-sex adoption debates to which it has been applied.

As a result of either desperation or just increased media access, Christian conservatives seem to be sinking to a new level of spiritual warfare to achieve their desired result in the election. Insensitive chicken-lover Mike Huckabee is the latest political talking ahead to threaten voters’ very souls if they do not make the “right” choice at the polls this year. In his new video, Huckabee warns Americans that their vote has to to withstand the “test of fire” when it comes to issues like abortion, contraception, and marriage equality:

HUCKABEE: Many issues are at stake, but some issues are not negotiable: The right to life from conception to natural death. Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the Church to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life.

Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity. Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? This is Mike Huckabee asking you to join me November 6th and vote based on values that will stand the test of fire.

In other words, anybody who doesn’t vote against the healthcare of women and family security of same-sex couples is going to Hell. Watch it:

Green Bay Bishop David Ricken

Another member of the Catholic hierarchy has used his godly decree to condemn liberal social values, calling them “intrinsically evil,” including homosexuality and abortion. Green Bay, Wisconsin Bishop David Ricken penned a letter to parishioners last week urging them to consider social values when they vote for president, though mentioning neither candidate by name, including five “non-negotiables” that they must consider lest they risk putting their “soul in jeopardy”:

I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.

They are:

1.  abortion
2.  euthanasia
3.  embryonic stem cell research
4.  human cloning
5.  homosexual “marriage”

These are intrinsically evil. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.” Intrinsically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger.

But what does this have to do with the election?  Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.

These are clearly the words of a religious leader abusing the power of his position. Ricken may not mention Barack Obama or Mitt Romney by name, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t clearly threatening Church-goers with the fate of their souls in this election. One’s fear of Hell should not be a factor in making a thoughtful vote, and Ricken’s letter makes evident how little respect the Church has for the people impacted by these issues. (HT: Towleroad.)

The campaigns against marriage equality in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington are all running some variation on an ad featuring David and Tonia Parker, a Massachusetts couple who in 2005 objected to their kids learning in school that same-sex marriages existed. Conservatives regularly highlight David Parker as a victim to scare voters, but his story is told in incredibly misleading ways.

There is a big difference between mentioning that some kids — including students in the class — have same-sex parents and teaching about same-sex sexuality. The former is what happened in schools, but the latter is what the Parkers claim they objected to. In fact, David Parker so objected to the use of materials including all families that he appeared at the school to protest and refused to leave, forcing an arrest for trespassing. Parker then sued and a federal judge dismissed his complaint, saying that schools are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” Parker has since become an outspoken enemy of LGBT equality; Jeremy Hooper has a round-up of his various interviews, in which he calls homosexuality a disease, claims that gay people “use” and harm their children, and urges schools to promote harmful ex-gay therapy.

Parker responded to Hooper’s clips to make one clarification about whether homosexuality is a “disease,” choosing instead to describe it as an “addiction” that people are “drawn in” to:

PARKER: I could have been more clear about the “disease” correlation. If you really listen — I was led down this thought path unprepared — and went reluctantly and clumsily. Let me clarify — I believe that engaging in homosexual conduct becomes more addictive with practiced frequency until a person “feels” like that’s “who they are.” It shouldn’t be contriversial [sic] that a “sexual feeling” has a physiological addictiveness — when something “feels good” to a person — psychologically, they are compelled to do it more. I also believe that intense love for the same gender is NOT “homosexuality” — as is commonly understood. I also, VERY strongly believe that sexuality is fluid — especially when young. And, I do not look down on persons with same-sex attraction; my worldview informs me that ALL of humanity has urges and temptations  — and the more you “give in” the more you are “drawn in.” I hope you except [sic] the authenticity to genuinely put forth my clarification, though, I know this is not an explanation that you will embrace.

David Parker does not have any known psychological qualifications to inform his positions, which is likely why his understanding of homosexuality in no way aligns with what all professional social science organizations have been saying for decades. Given that many consider addictions like alcoholism to be a disease, his clarification here is a distinction without a difference. He clearly sees gays and lesbians as disordered and troubled and not worthy of respect in society, which is why he has no problem serving as a spokesperson against equality at every opportunity.

Watch a mash-up of the Parkers’ ad as it’s running in all four state campaigns, with comparisons to fear-mongering ads of the past:

Pastor Robert Anderson

At a recent panel hosted by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, Pastor Robert Anderson claimed that according to the Bible, both gay people and their allies are “deserving of death,” calling on voters to oppose marriage equality so as not to “approve these things that are worthy of death.” The group’s executive director, Derek McCoy, was seated next to Anderson and laughed approvingly when Anderson condemned gays and lesbians to the “wrong side of eternity.”

Media backlash was swift, but McCoy called any implication that this was a “call to harm gays and lesbians” as a false “distraction from the real issues of this campaign.” Anderson was quiet on the matter until this weekend, when he issued an “apology” that his comments were misunderstood, essentially doubling down on his biblical condemnations of death and an eternity of Hell:

I regret that many have misunderstood my comments regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage to mean that I endorse or support physical violence in any shape or form against anyone. The statements in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:32 (KJV) can stand for themselves. The Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality, and I do not need to apologize for God’s word, but I do want to be perfectly clear that I am not promoting violence, bullying, or hatred toward homosexuals and neither is God.

Either the Bible verses he cited do call for gays to be put to death, or they do not, and if they “can stand for themselves,” then they very much do. McCoy could not have been more wrong about what the “real issues of this campaign” are. It’s quite clear that his group’s blatant animus against gays and lesbians and their families is at the very root of this challenge to marriage equality.