Mark Regnerus has long claimed that his study suggesting gay parents are inferior was not politically manipulated by anti-equality groups. In a comment posted on the National Review Thursday, however, he proved that he shares those groups’ bias against gay parenting, even though he has admitted his study didn’t actually address that question. Regnerus was not impressed by the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsement of marriage equality — not surprising considering the endorsement debunked his research:

I’m neither surprised at the statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsing gay marriage nor at its timing. Whether the statement adequately captures the consensus of pediatricians across the country is, of course, unknown. The report points out the strengths and weaknesses of the social science in this area, and notes correctly that causal arguments here are very difficult to make.

The science on same-sex parenting remains comparatively new, unable to keep up with political and legal developments. But those few population-based studies that exist — that map what’s going on across the country — seem to foster skepticism about moving quickly or universally to deny children their right to a mom and a dad. It’s not a popular position, of course.

In the end, we all want children to thrive. Many organizations and scholars assert that same-sex marriage is a step toward that end, ensuring household stability. Others remain skeptical, and wonder whether this isn’t more about parents’ wishes than those of children.

Regnerus of course ignores the impact of marriage on same-sex couples who are already raising children. Combined with his intention to speak at a National Organization for Marriage conference, he has officially confirmed that he’s a tool of the anti-equality research, not an independent researcher.

Despite significant declines in membership and United Way funding, the Boy Scouts of America doubled down on their outright ban on LGBT Scouts and leaders last July, claiming its “leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization.” But a newly obtained internal survey shows that of those commenting on the issue, 97 percent of Boy Scouts and their parents said that reaffirmation “negatively impacted their loyalty.”

Scouts for Equality, the Scout alumni association dedicated to ending the ban on gay members and leaders founded by Eagle Scout Zach Wahls, obtained a copy of the BSA’s 2012 Voice of the Scout internal poll results. The documents show that loyalty to the organization dropped 11 percent over last year, driven by widespread opposition to the organization’s “membership standards policy.” In a press release, Scouts for Equality noted:

• Of the 5,800 survey respondents who commented on the policy, 95 percent said the “reaffirmation of the membership policy negatively impacted their loyalty.” For Boy scouts and their parents, that number jumped to 97 percent.
• BSA noted that “conservative estimates assign a 15:1 ratio of negative to positive comments about the existing membership standards policy” that prohibits gay scouts or scoutmasters.

Deron Smith, a spokesman for BSA, told ThinkProgress that the survey asked 68,441 respondents an open-ended question about why they provided the rating they did to the BSA: “Of the respondents, 91 percent did not raise membership standards as an issue or concern, and approximately 9 percent cited it as an issue or concern that impacts their loyalty to the organization. Of the 9 percent who mentioned this issue, 97 percent of Boy Scout parents and 95 percent of Cub Scout parents had negative views toward the current policy. Using an open-ended format like this indicates the membership standards policy is a factor, but it doesn’t tell you to what extent the issue impacted loyalty to the BSA, nor does it represent the beliefs of the 91 percent of respondents who did not comment on the issue. Also, this level of feedback is not unusual. Throughout the years, people involved in Scouting and others who are not related to the program have expressed their disagreement with this single policy in a variety of ways.”

The Boy Scouts of America’s National Council will decide at its May national meeting whether to change the policy. BSA is again surveying Scout families on the subject prior to the May vote. It seems clear that the survival of the organization as a national movement depends on standing with the these Scout families and lifting the ban.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has been pressing the GOP to be more accepting of gay people, arguing that harsh rhetoric alienates young voters and jeopardizes the party’s future. But on Friday, Priebus took a big step backward, telling the National Review that the party should take its cues about social issues from former Arkansas governor and Baptist Minister Mike Huckabee:

Priebus cited former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas as an example of someone who could be “a model for a lot of people in our party” in terms of discussing issues like marriage and abortion. “I always tell people: Listen to Governor Mike Huckabee,” he said. “I don’t know anyone that talks about them any better.”

Huckabee — a hard line opponent of marriage equality and abortion rights — uses a warmer and more congenial tone about gay people and women than firebrands like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry, urging conservatives to respect gays and women, even as they organize to deny them legal protections and benefits or access to a full spectrum of health care services. But as the public grows more accepting of same-sex relationships and Roe v Wade, Huckabee’s positions and rhetoric about these issues is out of sync with the nation as a whole and will not serve the party well as it seeks to grow and appeal to more voters:

On Marriage Equality:

– Being gay is a public health risk. “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk”

– Being gay is a sin. “Well I believe it would be — just like lying is sinful and stealing is sinful. There are a lot of things that are sinful. It doesn’t mean that a person is a horrible person. It means that they engage in behavior that is outside the norms of those boundaries of our traditional view of what’s right and what’s wrong. So, I think that anybody who has, maybe a traditional worldview of sexuality would classify that as an unusual behavior that is not traditional and that would be outside those bounds.”

– Marriage equality will lead to polygamy. “If we change the definition to a man or a man and a woman and a woman, why can’t we accommodate a man and two women or a woman and three men.”

On Abortion:

– Supported Todd Akin. “The Party’s leaders have for reasons that aren’t rational, left [Akin] behind on the political battlefield…Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates?”

– Would ban abortion even in cases of incest or rape. In 2011, Huckabee traveled to Jackson, Mississippi to raise money for the Yes on 26 campaign, “in support of the Mississippi Personhood amendment, a referendum on the November ballot that would ban abortions in the state” even in cases of rape or incest.

– Compares abortion to slavery. “What are we saying to the generation coming after us when we tell them that it is perfectly OK for one person to own another human being?” Huckabee said. “I thought we dealt with that 150 years ago when the issue of slavery was finally settled in this country, and we decided that it no longer was a political issue, it wasn’t an issue of geography, it was an issue of morality. That it was either right or it was immoral that one person could own another human being and have full control even to the point of life and death over that other human being.”

As conservatives make their case against marriage equality, they’ve found themselves stuck arguing that biological procreation is what counts and then trying to explain how infertile opposite-sex couples are okay. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who is considered the father of Proposition 8 and who will be speaking at the National Organization for Marriage’s march next week, fell into just this trap in an interview with USA Today.

Here’s how he tried to explain why marriage is still appropriate for opposite-sex couples who cannot conceive but not for same-sex couples:

CORDILEONE: Our bodies have meaning. The conjugal union of a man and a woman is not a factory to produce babies; marriage seeks to create a total community of love, a “one flesh” union of mind, heart and body that includes a willingness to care for any children their bodily union makes together.

Two men and two women can certainly have a close loving committed emotional relationship, but they can never ever join as one flesh in the unique way a husband and wife do. [...]

Treating same-sex relationships as marriage is the final severing by government of the natural link between marriage and the great task of bringing together male and female to make and raise the next generation together in love.

Conservatives have proven repeatedly, particularly in recent weeks, that they are incapable of acknowledging that same-sex couples are already raising children — and effectively at that. What Cordileone’s actually saying here is that gay couples’ relationships are simply inferior to straight couples’. This argument has nothing to do with children; it’s just plain bigotry.

Thursday evening, the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on marriage equality legislation that lasted a staggering 12 hours — until 4:57 AM Friday morning — allowing every single individual who wanted to testify for or against the bill to do so. One of the most compelling testimonies came from 12-year-old Matthew Lannon, who explained about why his two moms and two dads deserve marriage:

LANNON: Both my moms and my dads have been together for 14 years. When I think about what marriage means to me, I think it’s about two people that love each other. My parents certainly fit that description. Although they can’t legally marry, their commitments are very very real. My parents have stayed together through sickness and health, through thick and thin, through good times and bad…

So even though I’m only 12, I have some ideas of what’s important to me. I want to be someone who knows no discrimination. I want to become a man who doesn’t judge someone by the color of their skin, their gender, or who they love. I want to use the gift I was given to help make the world a better place.

In closing, here’s what I believe. If there’s one thing you don’t mess with in life, it’s love. My parents and all the other gay and lesbian people here just want to be happy, just like you. All they want is to be treated fairly. But unlike most of you, they have to come again here year after year and explain over and over why their love is equal to yours. This year, you have the opportunity to change that. I say: choose love.

Watch it (via Providence Journal):

The New Civil Rights Movement has more analysis of the long night of testimony. This is the first time marriage equality has been considered in the Senate, having previously been blocked by Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed (D). The committee did not vote before convening this morning.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments on two legal challenges to laws that limit the government’s recognition of same-sex marriage. While there are various legal nuances to how both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases might be decided, the Justices will actually be weighing a more fundamental question: Do gay people exist?

At the core of conservatives’ argument against marriage equality in both cases is the idea that gay people actually do not exist — only “homosexual behavior” does. In House Republicans’ final reply brief filed this week against DOMA, attorney Paul Clement argued that “sexual orientation is defined by a tendency to engage in a particular kind of conduct.” Proponents of Prop 8 similarly suggested that “sexual orientation is a complex and amorphous phenomenon that defies consistent and uniform definition.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops added in its amicus brief that homosexuality is a “voluntary action” just like polygamy. In other words, people are only really gay when they’re having gay sex — otherwise they’re not.

Herein lies greatest challenge for gay and lesbian civil rights: the fact that sexual orientation is an invisible identity. Unlike race or gender, it cannot so easily be superficially assessed. Thus, conservatives are counting on doubt and distrust, urging the Court to dismiss whatever gay people actually say about their lived experiences — discount every individual’s coming out story, ignore decades of gay culture and gay history, and disregard the scientific conclusions of the entire major medical community. In fact, opponents of equality regularly claim that “the gay agenda” is merely a conspiratorial quest to validate sinful behavior — as opposed to an effort to allow millions of people to participate fairly in society.

The Court will have the opportunity to weigh the question of whether gay men and lesbians exist in both a legal and practical sense. The practical case for recognizing gays is simple, yet compelling: gay people exist and more importantly, are already raising children in families. All of the conservatives’ arguments rely on claims about “responsible procreation” and what’s best for children, but not one of them takes into account the millions of children already growing up with same-sex parents. Besides the fact social science research supports same-sex parenting, it’s quite easy to see how those families would benefit from the securities and protections of marriage equality. The Court could simply accept opponents’ arguments about the values and purposes of marriage, but rather than apply them in conservatives’ imaginary gay-free universe, acknowledge that they should apply equally and fairly to gay couples as well.

The magic words to look for if the Supreme Court legally recognizes gay people is “heightened scrutiny,” which is how the Court determines that the government cannot target a specific group for unfair treatment without substantial justification. For example, classifications based on sex are subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” and classifications based on race are subject to the highest level, “strict scrutiny.” When the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Edie Windsor’s case against DOMA, it determined that intermediate scrutiny should apply. The Supreme Court, however, has not applied any level of heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation in past cases, even when ruling in favor of gay rights, such as Lawrence v. Texas (overturning sodomy laws) and Romer v. Evans (overturning a Colorado amendment banning LGBT nondiscrimiantion protections).

Read more

Earlier this week, the New Jersey Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee voted to advance a bill that would ban ex-gay therapy for minors. Among the testimony the committee heard was a powerful pronouncement from high school senior Jacob Rudolph, who declared, “I am not broken, I am not confused, and I do not need to be fixed.” Rudolph has been petitioning Gov. Chris Christie (R) to announce his support for the bill, but Christie said after the committee’s vote that he was still undecided about the harmful treatment and wouldn’t make up his mind on the legislation until it arrived at his desk. Now he’s clarified that he opposes ex-gay therapy, according to spokesman Kevin Roberts:

ROBERTS: Gov. Christie does not believe in conversion therapy. There is no mistaking his point of view on this when you look at his own prior statements where he makes clear that people’s sexual orientation is determined at birth.

The statement stops just short of indicating whether he intends to sign the legislation, but it’s a powerful endorsement nevertheless. Christie admitted in 2011 that he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is thus not a sin. Still, he vetoed marriage equality legislation, so his actions as governor do not quite align with his respectable basic understanding of homosexuality.

Thursday afternoon, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) officially signed into law civil unions after years of conflict over the issue. It takes effect just six weeks from now on May 1. Colorado joins eight other states that offer civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island.

State Sen. Pat Steadman, who is openly gay and was one of the bill’s sponsors, opened his remarks Thursday by saying, “Dearly beloved… we’re going to make history.” Watch the Denver Post’s video of Steadman and Hickenlooper’s remarks, the signing, and reactions from those who attended:

Earlier this week, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus released an investigation into the party’s 2012 electoral defeat. The so-called “Growth & Opportunity Project” urges the GOP to expand its outreach to minority groups, including people in the LGBT community. The report notes that while Republicans don’t have to embrace marriage equality or nondiscrimination protections for gay and lesbian people, “we do need to make sure young people do not see the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view.”

But on Friday, while trying to explain why gay people should vote for the GOP to MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Priebus used a stunningly tone deaf analogy, saying that he would tell gay people about his own “great marriage” to his wife, with whom he sometimes disagrees.

Responding to a question from The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, the chairman downplayed the disagreements Republicans have with the LGBT community on “one or two things” and stressed that all voters can embrace the party’s strong message on the economy, education, and the military. Then, as if unaware of the GOP’s efforts to prevent gay and lesbian people from marrying, Priebus likened the tiny differences between Republicans and the LGBT community to his strong marital relationship:

STEIN: On the issue of inconclusivity. What would you tell an independent minded gay man who believes the right to marry is a civil right? What would you tell him about why he should vote Republican?

PRIEBUS: I would tell him, look, we might not agree on every single issue but, for the most part, if you look at where we are at in our economy and look at where we are with educational choice and our military positions and positions on a strong defense in our party for the most part, we agree on almost everything and doesn’t make someone a bad Republican. It means we are good Republicans and disagree on one or two things. My God, I don’t agree with my wife on 100 percent of the issues but it doesn’t mean we don’t have a great marriage.

Watch it:

Priebus didn’t mention the the GOP’s decision to spend millions of dollars defending the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), opposition to federal nondiscrimination laws to protect the LGBT community or marriage equality and observed that the party’s values are “entirely consistent” with those of most gay and lesbian people. “I think it’s a human position to take and I think it’s a decent position to take,” he added.