The Colorado House Finance Committee met today to hear the legislation for civil unions. It passed 7-6 along party lines, with all six Republicans on the committee voting against it. Once again, Republicans attempted to add an amendment that would allow Catholic Charities to discriminate against same-sex couples in its adoption services, even implying that it functions as a government entity, but the amendment failed. Last year, Catholic Charities testified that it would shut down whether it had exemptions or not. The bill advances to one more committee later this week — House Appropriations — before it can proceed to the House floor for a vote.

Rob Ingersoll and his partner have been using the same florist, Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, in their home of Richland, Washington for years, but now that they are engaged to be wed, Stutzman says she can’t do the wedding. Her explanation for denying them service was her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” as she explained to NBC Right Now (KNDO):

STUTZMAN: And I just took his hands and I said I’m sorry I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ… We hire gay people. I have friends that are gay, that wasn’t the issue. The issue is that I just didn’t want to participate in the marriage. [...]

Because of public outcry, Stutzman posted a response on the Facebook page for Arlene’s Flowers:

Since that day, we have received many comments on same sex marriages. I believe, biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my conviction, yours may be different.

I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay.

I’m sure there are many places you can purchase flowers, if you choose not to purchase them from Arlene’s, because of your beliefs, then I certainly understand.

Watch a clip of her interview with KNDO:

Though he was extremely hurt by her rejection, Ingersoll expressed his regret for posting about it because he does say he respects her right to her views. Numerous attorneys have reached out to him because she blatantly violated Washington’s laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation. (HT: The Advocate.)

Speaking to a group of Catholic students at Iowa State University last month, Jennifer Roback Morse, head of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute, said that Tyler Clementi’s suicide was influenced by a sexual encounter he had with an older man and that gay activists are manipulating young people for “some sort of political vision.” She unsurprisingly didn’t mention the invasive webcam spying his roommate did on more than one occasion nor the taunting Clementi endured online as a result. The Clementi family responded by demanding an apology from Morse for exploiting Tyler’s name “to advance an anti-equality agenda.”

Now, Morse has released a statement in which she not only refuses to apologize, but doubles down on the very duplicitous claims that got her in trouble in the first place:

MORSE: The media and activists groups are mischaracterizing my remarks, in which I urged students to befriend gay students, and also urged them all to adhere to the traditional standards of sexual morality. I believe that engaging in uncommitted sex hurts people of both genders and all sexual orientations. I would be happy to meet with Tyler Clementi’s mom and dad to try to move forward and go beyond the highly charged rhetoric that doesn’t help anyone. I don’t think the Clementis know me or what I believe or think or said. Reaching out across lines of moral difference in a spirit of love is my mission. In the meantime, I would invite anyone to come to the Ruth Institute website and listen to the entire podcast for themselves.

There is no evidence whatsoever that “uncommitted sex” did anything to “hurt” Tyler Clementi. Furthermore, Morse is continuing to encourage young people to engage in the very kind of anti-gay condemning of their peers that clearly did have a profound effect on Clementi’s sense of security and well-being.

It seems unlikely the Clementi family is convinced by this statement that NOM’s agenda is any less “cruel” than they described it. Besides, they still haven’t received an apology.

Today, the Family Research Council sent out a fundraising email blast full of scary rhetoric about the supposed consequences of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Though the only purpose of ENDA is to protect LGBT people from being fired solely for their identities, Tony Perkins described the bill as “dangerous” and “totalitarian” because it limits anti-gay Christians’ ability to discriminate:

ENDA–the Employment Non-Discrimination Act–is dangerous. It feeds on freedom, primarily the freedom of religion and speech: not in theory, but on a practical, everyday level. It leaves few freedoms behind.

Yes, the bill has a fair-sounding name, but in fact, ENDA would give special rights to men and women who engage in homosexual behavior. It will force Christian schools and colleges, Christian-owned businesses, day care centers, and other organizations to employ people who make their sexual behavior an issue as they parade their proclivities into the workplace. [...]

Certainly to you and me, the very idea of ENDA–giving special rights and protections to people based solely on their sexual behavior–is outrageous. But to this pro-homosexual President and the totalitarian homosexual lobby, it’s a reasonable way to advance their cause–and crush the biblical view that stands in their way of fundamentally transforming America. ENDA is massive leap forward in redefining America.

Apparently, in Perkins’s America, simply having a job is a “special right,” and not one that LGBT people deserve. People can be legally fired for their sexual orientation in 29 states and their gender identity in 34, and Perkins wants to keep it that way. Such cruelty and willful discrimination continues to add to the already extensive trove of evidence substantiating FRC’s designation as a hate group.

As always, the tactic of conservatives is to attempt to erase the complete identity of LGBT people, reducing them to people who engage in sinful behavior. Regardless of how FRC distorts reality, LGBT people are raising families and participating in their communities all across this country, and they deserve the most basic protections to their well-being.

Just 17 years ago, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed the U.S. Senate on a devastating 85-14 vote. But since 1996, at least 21 of the Senators who voted for the marriage inequality legislation have changed their minds.

In recent days, several current and former Senators have signed onto amicus briefs, encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down DOMA and/or California’s Proposition 8. The briefs include a quartet of former Senators who no longer believe DOMA constitutional, a group of leading national security and defense experts who believe DOMA harms the U.S. Armed Services, a group of Republicans who believe marriage equality helps children, and a group of Congressional Democrats who believe times have changed since DOMA’s passage.

The growing list of Senators who have evolved since the 1996 vote includes:

• 1. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT). Endorsed marriage equality in 2012, saying adults “should be free to choose who they spend their lives with a committed relationship.”
• 2. Former Sen. and Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE). Endorsed marriage equality in 2012 in an interview, spurring President Obama to do the same.
• 3. Former Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Co-sponsored S. 598, a DOMA repeal bill, in 2011.
• 4. Former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ). Signed an amicus brief with three former Senate colleagues.
• 5. Former Sen. and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen (R-ME). Signed an amicus brief with other national security and defense experts.
• 6. Former Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D). Signed an amicus brief with three former Senate colleagues.
• 7. Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). Signed an amicus brief with three former Senate colleagues and authored a 2009 op/ed in support of marriage equality .
• 8. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA). Signed an amicus brief with more than 200 other Congressional Democrats.
• 9. Former Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA). Told ThinkProgress he no longer supports the law.
• 10. Former Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). Co-sponsored S. 598, a DOMA repeal bill, in 2011.
• 11. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Signed an amicus brief with more than 200 other Congressional Democrats.
• 12. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Signed an amicus brief with more than 200 other Congressional Democrats.
• 13. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). Co-sponsored S. 598, a DOMA repeal bill, in 2011.
• 14. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). Signed an amicus brief with more than 200 other Congressional Democrats.
• 15. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Signed an amicus brief with more than 200 other Congressional Democrats.
• 16. Former Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD). Signed an amicus brief with more than 100 other Republican leaders.
• 17. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). Co-sponsored S. 598, a DOMA repeal bill, in 2011.
• 18. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Signed an amicus brief with more than 200 other Congressional Democrats.
• 19. Former Sen. Republican Whip Alan Simpson (R-WY). Signed an amicus brief with three former Senate colleagues.
• 20. Former Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA, later D-PA). Endorsed DOMA repeal in an 2009 editorial, prior to his 2012 death.
• 21. Former Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN). Wrote that he regretted his DOMA vote, prior to his 2002 death.

In addition to the 40 current Senate Democrats who believe DOMA is unconstitutional, at least four have indicated their opposition to the marriage inequality law in other situations — a significant change from the just 14 courageous Senate Democrats who stood up against it in 1996.

A new poll from CBS News/New York Times shows a significant gulf between what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church teaches and what American Catholics actually believe. Even those who attend Mass frequently are quite far out of step from how the bishops are spending their time and money. Here’s a quick glimpse at the disconnect:

• 62 percent of Catholics favor same-sex marriage.
• 79 percent favor the use of artificial methods of birth control.
• 91 percent believe the next pope should favor using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases.
• 53 percent believe the Catholic Church is out of touch with the needs of Catholics.
• 69 percent believe the next pope should favor allowing priests to get married.
• 69 percent believe the next pope should favor allowing women to become priests.

In addition, Catholics are split on the question of whether health insurance plans should have to cover birth control, but are more likely to see it as an issue of women’s health and rights than one of “religious freedom.” Notably, 53 percent believe the government does not restrict the religious liberty of Catholics, while only 43 percent believe it does.

The Catholic bishops have shown that they wield an incredible amount of influence on U.S. politics, particularly its excessive spending on campaigns challenging marriage equality at the ballots. What’s clear though is that the hierarchy of the Church speaks only for itself and does little to represent its massive constituency, and that’s not likely to change anytime soon — 83 percent of Catholics believe they can disagree with the pope on social issues and still be “a good Catholic.”