A new Public Opinion Strategies poll commissioned by the Retail Association of Nevada finds that a majority of Nevada voters would support repealing the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. With divides along partisan and generational lines, 54 percent would favor removing the Protection of Marriage provision from the Nevada Constitution, with 43 percent opposed. Only those who identified as deeply conservative had winning support for maintaining the ban — by 76 percent.

Matt Barber

The Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber has penned a letter to gay teens — which he condescendingly qualifies as “gay” teens — that confirms the clear animus he and his fellow conservatives have for LGBT people. His outright condemnation that homosexuals are sinner going directly to Hell is offensive enough, but worse yet, he suggests that gay teens are not depressed because of the homophobia they experience, but merely because they’re sinners:

God’s word also says that when we sin sexually, it’s particularly egregious because our bodies are the temple of Christ. This separation from God – a natural result of sexual sin – can lead to depression and even despair.

If you feel such despair, know this: it is not “homophobia” causing it, as adult enablers might tell you, but, rather, it is the sin itself that causes it (or struggling alone, absent Christ, with the temptation to sin). [...]

If you continue down this wide, empty path, make no mistake: it will not “get better.”

It gets much, much worse. [...]

Kids, take your sexual confusion – your struggle with sin – to Christ.

No one else can give you rest.

Of course, by telling young people to reject the very core of their identities and deny themselves the opportunity to experience love in their lives, he is reinforcing the very despair many LGBT youth struggle with. (HT: Jeremy Hooper.)

Two Republican Texas lawmakers have filed bills that would cut funding for schools and universities that have policies supporting their LGBT students and staff.

Last fall, the Pflugerville School District announced it would be the first in Texas to offer domestic partner benefits to the same-sex partners of its teachers and staff. State Rep. Drew Springer (R) isn’t happy about this, and has filed a bill (HB 1568) to cut 7.5 percent of a district’s healthcare funding if it offers such benefits. In his press release introducing the legislation, Springer didn’t shy away from his intention of punishing Pflugerville for recognizing same-sex relationships:

SPRINGER: Our tax-dollars are for educating kids, not for enacting policies that attempt to get the state to recognize homosexual relationships. To think Pflugerville has sued the state for more funding, while at the same time bankrolling a lifestyle most Texans do not agree with is quite disturbing to me.

Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Krause (R), an attorney with the Liberty Counsel, has introduced HB 360, a bill not unlike one that just passed in Virginia that would cut funding for any university that does not allow its religious student groups to discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Of course, these are groups that are using campus funding that all students pay into, and thus all students should have equal access. The bill claims that forcing religious groups to accept students who do not abide by their beliefs “violates the organization’s members” First Amendment rights” of free exercise of religion and freedom of association. Unfortunately, the First Amendment does not include “the right to receive university funding and recognition even while discriminating against university students.” Krause’s chief of staff explained the the bill is being redrafted to be more narrow, but its core legislation is offensive regardless.

These two bills suggest that for Texas Republicans, discriminating against LGBT people is more important than funding education. Nothing but animus can motivate such priorities.

On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a ruling protecting the rights of same-sex couples to both be recognized as the legal parents of the children they are raising together. The case involved two women, Marci Frazier and Kelly Goudschaal, who had been raising children together, but then faced a custody dispute after they separated. The Court ruled that the coparenting contract the couple had signed is valid and should be recognized, because their children are better off having two parents than just one:

To summarize, the coparenting agreement before us cannot be construed as a prohibited sale of the children because the biological mother retains her parental duties and responsibilities. The agreement is not injurious to the public because it provides the children with the resources of two persons, rather than leaving them as the fatherless children of an artificially inseminated mother. No societal interest has been harmed; no mischief has been done. Like the contract in Shirk, the coparenting agreement here contains “no element of immorality or illegality and did not violate public policy,” but rather “the contract was for the advantage and welfare of the child[ren].”

The decision remands the case back to the district court with this guidance to work out the details for the couple.

The conclusion in this case is simple and poignant: a child’s parents are the people that have legally committed to caring for them, not necessarily who they are biologically connected to. Interestingly, the justices do not even address the question of same-sex marriage, recognizing that protecting the interests of children is what takes priority. In this case, the children deserve to enjoy the continued support of both of their moms, and nothing in Kansas law prevents that.

Over the weekend, allegations came to light that the United Kingdom’s most senior Catholic official, Cardinal Keith O’Brien of Scotland, had engaged in inappropriate behavior with priests over the past few decades. The full details of the allegations are not yet known, but one priest alleges that O’Brien had an extended relationship with him that resulted in the need for long-term psychological counseling and others acknowledge unwanted sexual contact. Though O’Brien contested the claims, he has officially resigned from the Church, effective Sunday. He was due to retire next month anyway, but now he will not be able to represent Britain in the papal conclave to replace Pope Benedict XVI.

O’Brien has been a virulent opponent of LGBT equality, having launched a “war on gay marriage” last year, describing same-sex marriage as a “grotesque subversion.” In November, the gay rights group Stonewall unapologetically named him “bigot of the year” for his constant condemnations of gay people and their families. Just last week, O’Brien reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage, but surprisingly suggested that straight priests ought to be allowed to marry.