Michael Farris could perhaps use his computer to research more about sexual orientation and identity.

Patrick Henry College Chancellor Michael Farris threatened to sue a blog run by LGBT students and alumni under pseudonyms, but backed off when he realized he didn’t have a case. But he’s still agitated by the existence of “Queer at Patrick Henry College” (queerphc), and has now said that homosexuals can’t exist at PHC because “they could not sign our honor code,” which demands that students be “sexually pure.”

Farris founded PHC in 1998 to be the home for his Home School Legal Defense Association. He is an ordained Baptist minister who unsuccessfully ran for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993 as a Republican.

Queerphc contributor “Kate Kane” responded to Farris’ “disturbing” remarks:

There’s a stark difference in the definition of our terms. In the eyes of those like Farris, homosexuality is just a sexual action or sexual lifestyle. For us, it’s an orientation, a marker of personal identity. Is it possible that there are no students having gay sex while enrolled at PHC? Entirely possible. But that doesn’t erase the existence of LGBTQ students at the school.

In a student body where there are so many virgins, why is it difficult to believe in the existence of a gay virgin?

It’s difficult if you believe homosexuality is completely synonymous with having gay sex.

In addition, Farris seems to think that any LGBTQ student who signed the honor code would be lying. But if a student’s sexuality has been repressed for years, they may not even realize they are anything other than straight or cisgender [not trans] until after they enroll at the school. Personally, I did not begin to come to terms with my orientation until I was nearly ready to graduate. A student may also realize they are LGBTQ, but attempt to suppress it because they believe that being queer is wrong. Enrollment at a school like PHC could be part of a larger attempt to continue to live as straight or cisgender. Finally, since many parents hold the purse strings, some LGBTQ students might not have much of a choice as to where they attend school.

Kate’s point about the difference between sexual behavior and sexual identity is astute, and describes many conservative assumptions beyond those presented by Farris. Even students who knowingly abstain from acting on their same-sex orientations are still impacted by anti-gay stigma and could consequently feel isolated and demonized. PHC clearly has a long way to go toward creating an inclusive environment for its LGBTQ students, but queerphc is no doubt blazing a trail.

Pope Benedict XVI has presented his message for World Day of Peace 2013, which takes place January 1, and he apparently used the speech to reiterate his condemnation of same-sex marriage. He claimed that attempts to pass marriage equality “harm and help to destabilize marriage” and present “serious harm to justice and peace”:

There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union. Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society.

These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity. The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation.

Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace.

Benedict has previously said that gay people are a “defection in human nature” and that same-sex marriage bears an “immense human and economic cost” that threatens the “future of humanity itself.”

Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has made a lot of absurd claims in an attempt to condemn homosexuality, such as worrying that the children of same-sex couples are more likely to be open to same-sex encounters themselves. He also uses studies about single moms to draw conclusions about married lesbian moms.

This week, in an interview with conservative radio host Janet Mefferd, he tried to suggest that gay identities don’t even exist, that they’re just a “political statement” advanced by heterosexuals trying to normalize same-sex behavior:

STANTON: First of all, we need to understand that “gay” and “lesbian” really are — to use the language of feminist studies people — a cultural construct… “Gay” and “lesbian” are very new kinds of things. Yes, there’s always been homosexuality in human experience, but it was typically something that heterosexuals… did to another person.

“Gay” and “lesbian” are really sort of sociological or political statements or identifications… It’s the signing on to a political sexual sort of agenda… There are lots of people who have homosexual or same-sex orientations that just don’t identify themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” because again, “gay” or “lesbian” is a social political sort of identity…

Being “gay” or being “lesbian” is a thing that’s only been present in maybe the past 50 years or so.

Listen to it, via Jeremy Hooper:

Stanton seems to be subtly trying to drive a wedge into the gay community, as the National Organization for Marriage is intending to do. His distinction isn’t very meaningful; “gay” and “lesbian” are simply words to help people with same-sex orientations identify themselves. Though it may only have been in the past century that the LGBT community achieved visibility in society, that doesn’t mean that being gay is just a political identity. One need not conform to any cultural or social stereotypes of gay men or lesbians to identity as “gay” or “lesbian.”

If Stanton believes that people who have orientations toward the same-sex are still somehow heterosexual, he doesn’t understand the basic concepts of the issue he’s discussing. It makes perfect sense for gays and lesbians to openly identify so they can relate to each other and find partners for loving relationships. Given how organizations like Focus on the Family encourage bullying against LGBT teens, it’s particularly offensive that he would try to minimize the lived experience of those young people as a “political sexual sort of agenda.”

A new study shows that marriage significantly lowers psychological distress for people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Researchers note that marriage provides the same “higher perception of social integration and support” for same-sex couples as it does opposite-sex couples. According to the study’s abstract, the benefits of legally recognizing same-sex couples were indistinguishable from the benefits for heterosexuals:

Results. Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship; married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than nonmarried heterosexuals. In adjusted pairwise comparisons, married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legalized relationships had the highest psychological distress (P < .001). Psychological distress was not significantly distinguishable among same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in registered domestic partnerships, and heterosexuals.

Conclusions.Being in a legally recognized same-sex relationship, marriage in particular, appeared to diminish mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Researchers must continue to examine potential health benefits of same-sex marriage, which is at least in part a public health issue.

According to study author Allen LeBlanc, the research suggests that policies banning same-sex marriage “may indeed harm sexual minority populations.” Conservatives often boast the importance and benefits of marriage for opposite-sex couples, but it seems gay couples can expect the same from their marriages.

New York Sen. Mark Grisanti (R) won re-election despite an anti-gay campaign against him.

Thursday’s New York Times featured an article about the “costly toll” of the election for the four Republican Senators in New York who broke from their party in 2011 to vote for marriage equality. The National Organization for Marriage waged a campaign of vengeance against James Alesi, Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti, and Stephen Saland, and because only one of those four will be returning to office in 2013, conservatives have claimed a victory. Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms was all too happy to boast:

MCGUIRE: People just don’t forget these things. I hope that what the Senate Republicans will have learned in the last election cycle is that policies of appeasement always fail. And essentially that’s what they did: they caved to the governor and really more liberal-minded interests rather than their core constituency.

Of course, several of the Senators explained that their minds had actually changed and they were voting their consciences, but conservatives only see the marriage equality as a betrayal. There are two main problems with the vengeance campaign. First, the likelihood of it actually impacting the fate of marriage equality in New York was marginal, if not “futile,” because New York doesn’t even have a referendum process. Secondly, the campaign didn’t actually work, because three of the seats are still occupied by Senators who support marriage equality.

Sen. Alesi chose not to seek re-election, so it’s difficult to say that he was “defeated.” He was also mired in a controversy that had nothing to do with his vote on same-sex marriage. The seat was filled by Democrat Ted O’Brien, who also supports marriage equality. Not only was this a failure for the vengeance campaign, it was a loss of an otherwise conservative seat for Republicans.

Sen. Saland faced a tough primary challenge from Neil Di Carlo, who stayed in the race as a Conservative candidate after losing the primary. Because Saland and Di Carlo split support from conservatives, Democrat Terry W. Gipson squeaked out a victory after Saland finally conceded this week. Like O’Brien, Gipson also supports marriage equality. Here again, conservatives lost Republican control of a seat because they insisted on championing an alternative candidate who opposes marriage equality.

Sen. Grisanti retained his seat. Though Conservative candidate Chuck Swanick took 11 percent of the vote, Grisanti still won handily over his Democratic opponent Mike Amodeo, garnering 50 percent of the vote. This easy victory was in spite of bullying tactics employed by NOM, including a “You’re Next” billboard.

Only Sen. McDonald counts as a true win in the vengeance campaign. He lost his Republican primary to conservative challenger Kathleen Marchione, who went on to win in the general election.

If the measure of the effort is how many marriage equality-supporting Republicans did not return to office, then the anti-gay front can claim success, but that is merely a manufactured rhetorical victory. Three of the four seats are still occupied by marriage equality supporters, and Republicans lost control of two of them. It’s impossible to frame that outcome as anything but a net win for LGBT equality and progressive values.