The National Organization for Marriage has always attempted to maintain distance between its efforts and the more candid anti-gay rhetoric of groups more publicly identified by their Christianity. Plenty of exceptions have always been found, but NOM no longer seems to be trying to uphold such distinctions. In its efforts to fight marriage equality in Rhode Island, NOM has allied with MassResistance, an extremist group designated a “hate group” for its anti-gay rhetoric.

On its Rhode Island for Marriage page, NOM published two videos as a “preview” of what the “radical homosexualist movement” is all about, each full of hate groups’ rhetoric condemning homosexuality as a disorder and sin worthy of death and calling the LGBT movement a push toward the “collapsing morality” of “atheistic Communism.” That was until Jeremy Hooper called them out today, and without explanation, NOM removed the post from its page. Screenshots preserve the record, and more importantly, the videos can still be viewed on YouTube:

Perhaps NOM did not watch the videos before posting them, or perhaps the organization didn’t count on being associated with the offensive content they contain. Either way, NOM’s new alliances are troubling, and it will be interesting to see how they maintain their new relationships while trying to hide from the resulting bad PR.

Late Monday, House Democrats learned that the Republican leadership had once again secretly renegotiated its contract with attorney Paul Clement to defend the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act at the Supreme Court. This is the third time the contract has been adjusted, raising total costs to $3 million from the original $500,000 cap.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) both sit on the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), the House body intervening to defend DOMA in court in lieu of the Department of Justice’s decision not to. However, they did not find out about BLAG’s new agreement with Clement until after it had already been finalized. They wrote to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to decry the increased spending:

Let us be clear: these steps do not reflect the will of the House or the consensus of the BLAG.  Democrats do not support any decisions to invest taxpayer funds in defense of an indefensible law.  We remain united in our opposition to any effort to preserve, protect, and defend discrimination in our country.

From the start, the Republican-led campaign to defend DOMA has been a practice in futility and a waste of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.  The Republican-appointed, taxpayer-funded legal team has lost in every case.  Courts across the nation have stood on the side of justice and equality for all Americans.  DOMA is on its way into the dustbin of history.

It would be bad enough if Republicans were losing in court and accepting the result.  Yet it is the height of hypocrisy for House Republicans to waste public funds in one breath then claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the next.  With Republicans willing to take our economy and our country to the brink of default in the name of deficit reduction, there is simply no excuse for any Member of Congress to commit taxpayer dollars to an unnecessary – and futile – legal battle.

Despite the apparent hypocrisy, Boehner has not backed down from his intent to fund the defense of DOMA. In December, when the last increase was discovered, he was asked about the spending at a press conference. He angrily responded that if the Department of Justice won’t defend the law of the land, Congress will, before storming away from the podium. Indeed, House Republicans voted the defense of DOMA into the House rules earlier this month.

In a letter responding to questions from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel addressed concerns about his support for LGBT equality in the military. He made it clear that he supports the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the policy that required gay, lesbian, and bisexual troops to hide their identities, and expressed his intent to provide equal benefits to the same-sex partners and families of servicemembers:

I fully support the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and value the service of all those who fight for our country. I know firsthand the profound sacrifice our service members and their families make, and if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I will do everything possible to the extent permissible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members.

Currently, the Defense of Marriage Act prevents the military from recognizing servicemembers’ same-sex spouses, which can result in tragic consequences in addition to the denial of benefits.

Hagel’s nomination has been criticized because of anti-gay comments he made in 1998 about the nomination of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg, calling him “openly aggressively gay.” Hagel apologized for those remarks last month, and Hormel responded that he had accepted that apology. As discussion of his nomination has continued, LGBT groups have been split over Hagel’s nomination, with some groups expressing concern and others imploring him to move past his anti-gay past by embracing further changes to ensure the equal treatment of LGBT servicemembers. His support for finding a way to protect same-sex spouses suggests he intends to do just that. Boxer now says she supports Hagel’s nomination.

The Virginia House of Delegates and Senate approved a package of judges Tuesday, including Tracy Thorne-Begland. The House of Delegates had blocked his nomination in May over his sexual orientation, but endorsed him by a 66-28 margin this time.

In May, House Republicans blocked the confirmation of Thorne-Begland, a former Richmond prosecutor and Navy pilot, to a District Court judgeship. Delegate Bob Marshall (R) led the opposition, calling Thorne-Begland “a homosexual activist.” The House’s discrimination was widely panned and the Richmond Circuit Court opted to appoint him to the vacancy the House of Delegates had left open by rejecting his nomination.

With his temporary appointment about to expire, the House Republicans changed their mind and allowed his confirmation. The Senate unanimously approved the package moments later, meaning Thorne-Begland will get a full six-year term.

Mike Erre is the senior pastor at the First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton, a mega-church in California. Responding to last week’s controversy over the withdrawal of Pastor Louie Giglio from the Inauguration ceremony over his past anti-gay remarks, Erre posted an “open letter to the LGBTQ community” on his Facebook page. At first, it seems Erre is truly apologizing for the harm done to LGBT people by the condemnations of Christian conservatives:

I want to begin by simply confessing the great deal of harm that we Christians have done to you in the name of Jesus. Our anger, hostility, and antagonism toward you have no place in the community that is supposed to represent Him. I am so sorry. Far too frequently we in the Christian community are rightly characterized as homophobic, mean-spirited, and narrow-minded.

I have several friends who are gay, and they have enlightened me to the heavy burden that many of you carry when you are rejected, mocked, and discarded by those in the church. Instead of offering helpful care, wisdom, and encouragement, we have often turned you away in disgust. We have done too much talking and not enough listening. I grieve this. And I know that Jesus does also. He had a very tender place in His ministry and priorities for those who were marginalized by the religious leadership of his day.

Unfortunately, Erre isn’t really interested in righting wrongs. He goes on to subtly double down on the belief that gays and lesbians have to abandon their attractions in order to be right with God:

Some of us have also said to you that salvation or coming to Jesus means being automatically transformed into a heterosexual. I do think transformation is possible, but often we seem woefully naive of all the factors involved in this issue. As far as I can tell, one’s sexual orientation is not the determining factor in one’s eternal destiny. If my friendships are any indication, many yearn to follow Jesus fully and completely and yet continue to struggle to reconcile their faith with their desire for intimacy (sexual or otherwise) with someone of the same sex. We have failed to live out the good news of Jesus. Please forgive us.

I also believe that, at times, the homosexual community isn’t entirely truthful to you either. For one thing, the gospel of Jesus Christ announces that our desires are not our destinies. They can be overcome and placed in their proper context. Our wants don’t have to become our needs. Entrance into the kingdom of God through Jesus makes possible those things that, prior to Him, were thought to be impossible. We don’t have to live at the mercy of desire. Salvation isn’t found in self-gratification, nor is it found in unhealthy repression or denial. Jesus offers a third way.

One last thing. I disagree with those who think your sexual orientation is the most important thing about you. The most important thing about you is that, as a human being, you are made in the image of God. As an image bearer, you are a person who has intrinsic dignity, honor, and worth. You, like the rest of us, are also broken and bent toward what is worst for us. But the good news is that Jesus has come to make things right. He invites you into that redemption. Please don’t hold the sins of the church against Him.

Erre seems to recognize that condemning homosexuality is harmful to gays and lesbians, and yet he proceeds to do so anyway. He fails to recognize that sexual orientation is experienced at all times, not just when individuals are being intimate. Expecting gays and lesbians to repress their identities to find “transformation” is the very harmful message Erre claims to be distancing himself from.

Read more

This afternoon, the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Coalitions have already formed on both sides of the issue with Rhode Islanders United for Marriage supporting equality and the National Organization for Marriage’s Rhode Island for Marriage opposing it. It seems conservatives will not be holding back in their assault on the rights of same-sex couples, as demonstrated by the testimony Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kellie Fiedorek will offer at today’s meeting:

FIEDOREK: Religious freedom belongs to everyone, not just a handful of people. The government cannot limit constitutionally protected religious liberties in a way that’s foreign to our Constitution. This bill fails to ensure that those liberties of every Rhode Island citizen will be respected. The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans is not limited to the four walls of a church.

The OneNewsNow article highlighting Fiedorek’s remarks clarify her intention that justices, judges, court commissioners, business owners, and counselors should all have protections to not recognize same-sex marriages.

Unfortunately, this is a realistic problem for the Rhode Island legislation. When lawmakers attempted to pass marriage equality in 2011, they ended up settling on a civil unions bill with some of the most extreme “religious exemptions” of any similar bill in the country. According to that law, administrators at religion-run schools, hospitals, and businesses can simply refuse to treat civil unions as valid if doing so violates their religious beliefs, essentially making legal recognition of civil unions pointless. Combined with the access and recognition of same-sex marriages from neighboring states, it’s unsurprising that civil unions have been “a complete failure” in the state, with less than 100 couples bothering to get one after the law had been in effect over a year.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who is eager for the new legislation to pass, issued an executive order last May requiring all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The kind of exemptions ADF is demanding could essentially roll back protections married same-sex couples already enjoy. Fortunately, there is little reason for lawmakers to cave to such inordinate invitations to discriminate, as 56 percent of voters support marriage equality.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against two British Christians who claimed their religious beliefs entitled them to discriminate against gays and lesbians. In one case, Lilian Ladele was a city registrar who refused to officiate civil partnership ceremonies between same-sex couples as part of her duties. In another, Gary McFarlane was a counselor for a confidential sex therapy and relationship counseling organization who refused to provide support for same-sex couples. In both cases they were removed from their positions, so both brought complaints that their religious beliefs had been violated.

In its ruling against them, the Court argued that their beliefs did not justify the discrimination against same-sex couples:

The Court considered that the most important factor to be taken into account was that the policies of the applicants’ employers – to promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a way which did not discriminate against others – had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, which were also protected under the [European Convention on Human Rights]. In particular, in previous cases the Court had held that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation required particularly serious justification and that same-sex couples were in a relevantly similar situation to different-sex couples as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship.

The authorities therefore had wide discretion when it came to striking a balance between the employer’s right to secure the rights of others and the applicants’ right to manifest their religion. The Court decided that the right balance had been struck.

This judgment represents a significant blow to conservatives’ argument that their religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate against the LGBT community. Indeed, they are entitled to hold their anti-LGBT beliefs, but not to infringe on others’ rights.

Last June, Utah’s Davis County School District caved to the complaints of 25 parents and removed the book In Our Mothers’ House by Patricia Polacco from general circulation in the elementary school library. The book, which features a family with two moms, was not outright banished, but was held behind the librarian’s desk such that students could not access it without first obtaining permission from their parents. The ACLU filed suit in November, and now the school has come to its senses and returned the book to general circulation. In a letter explaining the decision, the district’s assistant superintendent, Pamela Park, explains that a committee actually had positive things to say about In Our Mothers’ House, including that it will help prevent bullying:

I have considered the written summary and recommendations of the District Reconsideration Committee. I agree with and support the Committee’s conclusions regarding the book as follows:

• “Removing the book completely is not a good option.”
• “We all know many non-traditional families” with students attending our schools.
• “It could help those children in same sex families see their family in a book.”
• “[T]his book teaches acceptance and tolerance.”
• “The book could help prevent bullying of kids from same sex families.”
• “It could be used by a family to discuss the issues . . .”

Parents can still restrict their children from checking out certain books, but that policy would not prevent students from reading the book in the library.

Another wrinkle in this situation is that Utah’s sex education law prevents the use of instructional materials that include “the advocacy of homosexuality.” However, the ACLU argued and the school agreed that library books not incorporated into a curriculum are not covered by the law.

The parents who complained about Polacco’s book may now have to deal with questions about same-sex families. It’s quite likely, however, that they may have already faced such questions given the existence of same-sex families in the school their kids attend. Now, those kids have one extra resource for understanding the diversity that surrounds them.