Maryland inches closer to passing marriage-equality in the State Senate, while Indiana postpones a Valentines Day vote to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

– MARYLAND: Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer said that he will support legalizing same-sex marriage, “bringing the bill to within one vote of the number needed for passage in his chamber.” Advocates of marriage equality “believe that they have the 29 votes needed to cut off debate in the chamber and vote. The bill is expected to be voted out of committee this Thursday.”

– COLORADO: State Sen. Pat Steadman has introduced a measure that would bring civil unions to the state. Coloradans voted in 2006 “to ban same-sex marriage by passing Amendment 43, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, but polls show deep support in the state for civil unions. Last year two national polling firms, Greenberg Quinlan Rossner and American Viewpoint, found support for civil unions in the 70 percent and 80 percent range. This year Public Policy Polling found roughly 72 percent of Coloradans supported civil unions.” Steadman’s bill should easily pass in the Democratic-controlled state Senate. The measure should pass the Democratically-controlled Senate, but may face more difficulty in the House where Republicans hold a one seat majority.

– MICHIGAN: Reps. Jeff Irwin and Sen. Rebekah Warren introduced “bills in both houses of the state legislature to allow unmarried couples, including gay couples, to adopt children in Michigan.” “Studies have shown the importance to children of maintaining a safe, loving home with two stable parents,” Rep Irwin said in a press release. “This bill removes legal hurdles for unmarried couples who want to provide legal rights for themselves and their adopted children.”

– NEW HAMPSHIRE: On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will consider two bills that would repeal New Hampshire’s same-sex marriage law. “House Republican Leader D.J. Bettencourt has said he will ask the Judiciary Committee to keep the bills until next year, but hearings must be held this year under House rules.”

– INDIANA: The House was expected to approve a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions, but the vote has been delayed to allow more members an opportunity to co-sponsor the measure.

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

In an effort to demonstrate the real consequences of the health care cuts proposed in the GOP’s continuing resolution (CR) proposal, the AIDS Institute has put out this release arguing the reductions would devastate HIV/AIDS treatment and research. “While it may help achieve short term goals to reduce federal government spending, this reckless action will have long term impacts on the health and wellbeing of people living with HIV/AIDS and on efforts to prevent HIV infections in the future,” Carl Schmid, Deputy Executive Director of The AIDS Institute said in the release. “In the long run, the costs to society and individual’s lives will be far greater than any short term savings.” Here are some of the cuts:

– $25 million cut from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). ADAP is a program of last resort for the poorest Americans who don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Currently, there is a waiting list of over 6,000 people in ten states to receive benefits from the program.

– $850 million general reduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The organization distributes funding to cities and states for prevention, testing, surveillance, education programs and condoms.

– $1.6 billion cut in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), significantly impacting HIV/AIDS research.

– Prevents DC, a place with one of the highest rates of HIV in the country, from spending its own money on syringe exchange programs.

All of this would have a direct impact on today’s AIDS patients, but it would also significantly undermine efforts to slow the spread of the epidemic and — by underfunding prevention — increase treatment costs down the road. So what’s the logic in all this? Well, as Paul Krugman describes in today’s New York Times, Republicans have adopted the approach of feeding on the future: “Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren’t immediate; basically, eat America’s seed corn,” he writes. By slashing future-oriented programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on voters. And as for the future costs — a population damaged by childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax evasion — well, tomorrow is another day.”

At CPAC this weekend, some commentators argued that gays are “natural conservatives“, and so it will be interesting to see if Republican GOP groups like the Log Cabin Republicans or GOProud will condemn these cuts since they would disproportionately affect the gay community.

This afternoon, during an eQualityThinking Panel titled, “The Truth Behind The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal,” former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) tried to explain why advocates of DADT repeal ultimately bargained away the requirement that the Pentagon implement a new nondiscrimination policy after lifting the ban against open-service. The provision — which would specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — was part of Murphy’s initial amendment but was later removed to improve the chances of passage, as the former Congressman described it. Gay rights leaders are now pressuring President Obama to issue an executive order instituting a nondiscrimination policy to ensure that gay troops have the same rights and protections as straight servicemembers.

“[E]veryone played a vital role in passing this major piece of civil rights legislation all being it’s not perfect. The 1964 civil rights legislation was not perfect, but it was a huge step on the way forward,” Murphy said on the call. “We need to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they don’t try to revoke this over in the Congress.”

Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), who was also on the call, reiterated Murphy’s explanation saying, “a decision was made by the leaders of the legislation on the Hill that those provisions would have to be dropped in order to insure more votes, not only in the House Armed Services Committee, but also on the House floor. So, it was a matter of practical necessity and politics.” In May, Murphy had suggested that he received assurances that the government would implement a nondiscrimination policy once DADT is repealed. “I’m fully confident in the public testimony of both Secretary of Defense Gates of Chairman Mike Mullen and our current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, that they have been very clear that they want to have a nondiscriminatory policy in place,” he told me. He did not, however, reiterate this commitment on today’s call or address why Obama dodged the question twice during a recent interview with Kerry Eleveld.

Murphy also added that the certification language — which was also not part of the original repeal amendment — was added to give the Pentagon “buy in” and build support for the measure among more conservative members in Congress. “Putting that language in the bill that was finally passed it gave them buy in, it wasn’t like we were shoving it down their necks,” he said, before adding, “I don’t think this is a gradual phase out, it’s going to be a light switch — it’s just a procedure that needs to be agreed on.”

In September 2009, in yet another effort to plug the state’s budget hole, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) and the state legislature eliminated health benefits for domestic partners, adversely affecting same-sex couples who cannot marry in the state. Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of 10 state employee and in July of 2010, a federal judge rejected the state’s claim that “the elimination of benefits will not harm the families of gay and lesbian employees” and temporarily prevented the benefit cuts, saying that the law “violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause by making it impossible for homosexuals to get health coverage for their partners.”

Today, the state is challenging the decision before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court lifts the injunction, some 480 LGBT families and children could lose their health benefits:

A three-judge panel in San Francisco hears oral arguments today. Arizona spends $625 million a year on employee benefits, of which roughly $5 million went to benefits for all domestic partners.

The state can’t require employees to be married in order to qualify for family benefits when Arizona offers no legal unions for same-sex couples, said Tara Borelli, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based advocacy group that filed the lawsuit.

“The state has set up a legal impossibility for gay couples,” said Borelli, who will argue the case today.

In addition, the state can’t discriminate against a group of people to save money, she said. But the state argues that there’s no requirement to offer benefits to domestic partners. More than half the states and the federal government do not.

The state began offering benefits to domestic partners in 2007, after then-Governor Janet Napolitano (D) implemented a rule change. “That put Arizona in line with 20 states and several Arizona cities, including Phoenix, Tempe, Tucson and Scottsdale,” according to the Arizona Republic.

What’s more, given the state’s opposition to federal health care reform, if Arizona prevails in the 9th circuit and domestic dependents lose their insurance, gay partners will have a particularly difficult time finding affordable coverage. They won’t be able to receive benefits through marriage, because Arizona does not recognize same-sex relationships and may have a hard time taking advantage of the new reforms if the state resists implementing the Affordable Care Act.

Last year, the State Department announced that in recognition of the changing face of the American family, it was altering the parent fields on children’s passports applications from “Mother” and “Father” to “Mother” and “Father” to “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2.″ The change went almost unnoticed until the Family Equality Council publicly thanked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the alteration, prompting the Family Research Council to condemn the revision as a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act. The State Department responded by modify the fields again, this time to “mother or parent 1″ and “father or parent 2.”

But for Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the change is still not enough. He introduced a new bill this week that would require federal agencies to use the words “mother” and “father.” From his website:

The Parental Title Protection Act, H.R. 635, would require all Federal agencies, contractors, and government-sponsored enterprises to use the words “mother” and “father” when describing parents in all official documents and forms.

“Symbolism is important and this legislation seeks to preserve the sacred relationship mothers and fathers share with their children. Referring to parents as “Parent 1” or “Parent 2” on official government documentation is a bureaucratic attempt to redefine traditional parent roles. These subtle, but nonetheless significant, changes undermine the traditional American family relationships that have served as the bedrock of our nation since its inception,” Forbes said.

The State Department says that the changes will provide the government with more accurate information and allow for a better description “of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families” and allows different types of families to apply for a service without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family. It is estimated that 1 million gay and lesbian people are raising 2 million children in the United States.

“The question of forms is one that every gay and lesbian faces,” Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council told me during a phone interview last month. Forms provide “a great opportunity to educate” the public about different kinds of families. (H/T: The Hill’s Daniel Strauss)

The Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson reports that Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness Clifford Stanley has sent a memo to the military service secretaries outlining a “framework” for implementing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Under the legislation passed by Congress last year, the policy prohibiting gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces cannot be lifted until 60 days after the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President certify that repeal does not undermine the goals of the military.

The memo divides implementation into four parts: pre-repeal, certification, implementation, and sustainemnt and gives the service secretaries until March 1 to file a progress report in their efforts. Read the full memo here.

The Pentagon has pledged to accelerate the certification process, but has come under criticism for failing to issue a new nondiscrimination policy that would protect LGBT servicemembers. On Wednesday, the group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) urged Obama to “issue an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the armed forces based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“Signing legislation that allows for repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was a necessary first step, but it is not sufficient for ensuring equality in the military,” Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director for SLDN said. “We call upon the President to issue an executive order so that sexual orientation and gender identity are not barriers to applying for a job or advancing in your career.”

In an interview with Equality Matters’ Kerry Eleveld last month, Obama twice dodged questions about the policy, after endorsing it during his presidential campaign.

On Monday, in a vote of 8-4, Indiana’s House Judiciary Committee passed an amendment to Indiana’s state constitution “that would ban gay marriage and civil unions in the state,” even though existing state law already prohibits legal recognition for same sex marriage or for any relationship between same sex couples. Yesterday, lawmakers went a stop further, defeating a measure that would have taken out a clause prohibiting civil unions:

Supporters of the ban also have said the “substantially similar” clause would not affect the rights of unmarried couples or stop private companies from giving gay employees health benefits that cover their partners. But opponents worry that all kinds of arrangements — from health plans to wills — could be affected.

Of about 30 states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, about 20 also have constitutional bans on civil unions. Some opponents also were concerned that courts would be tasked with defining “substantially similar.”

Eric Turner, R-Marion, who authored the measure, said the language of the ban had been thoroughly reviewed by lawyers. A co-author of the measure, Dave Cheatham, D-North Vernon, said the resolution “is not against anyone; it’s not trying to hurt anyone.”

The House and Senate are expected to approve the amendment, but under Indiana law, it “would have to pass again in 2013 or 2014 in order to get on the ballot in 2014.” A similar ban passed the House in 2005, but ultimately failed when the Democrats took over in 2006.

Currently, Indiana has almost no protections for LGBT residents. Discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation is not explicitly prohibited under Indiana law.

Tomorrow, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) will address CPAC. On Monday, he was brandishing his conservative credentials by appearing at a forum in Iowa sponsored by The Family Leader, a conservative group spearheading the repeal same-sex-marriage campaign in Iowa. Pawlenty repeatedly emphasized his Christian faith during the event, even going so far as to suggest that his opposition to expanding marriage to gays and lesbians was a “universal” value that was “embedded in our culture”:

REPORTER: Is it appropriate for policy to be driven by values that are not necessarily shared by everyone, yet have a very significant effect on everyone?

PAWLENTY: Well, these values that come from God and that our county was founded on, even if you personally…doesn’t necessarily codify them in their religion, these are universal values not based on some mythical idea but it’s based on things like we’re going to make sure we respect life, we’re going to make sure we respect traditional marriage. We’re going to make sure we’re going to promote not discourage parenting…So I don’t think those values ore demeaning or disrespectful to somebody else’s religion. These are values that are embedded in our culture, our society, they have been for a long time and they’re appropriate subjects for public debate and discourse.

Watch it:

Ironically, by refusing to recognize same-sex relationships and families — and by specifically advocating for legislation that would take away these protections from families in Iowa — Pawlenty is discouraging parenting and families. He’s also disrespecting the many denominations of Christianity — Evangelical Lutherans, Unitarian Universalists and Episcopalians — who recognize same-sex couples.

A new poll in New Hampshire finds that just 29 percent of residents support repealing the state’s same-sex marriage law, while an opponent of marriage equality in Maryland has said that degrading testimony about gay couples may push him to support the effort. Below is today’s State Marriage Watch:

- NEW HAMPSHIRE: The House Judiciary Committee will consider two bills on February 17th that would repeal the state’s new gay marriage law and an earlier law allowing civil unions. “The effort comes as a University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll released Wednesday indicates a majority of state residents oppose repeal and want the Legislature to focus on jobs and the economy.” The poll found that “62 percent want to keep gay marriage in place while 29 percent want to repeal it.” “Predictions on both sides are that the repeal will pass in the House and Senate, will be vetoed by Gov. John Lynch, and the battle will come over the effort to overturn or sustain the veto. A two-thirds affirmative vote is needed in both houses to overturn.”

- RHODE ISLAND: Yesterday, hundreds of people turned out “to testify or hear from advocates and opponents of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.” The bill will have to “pass through committee before going to the House for approval. The major obstacle could be in the Senate, where Democratic Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed opposes same-sex marriage. The Senate is seen as having a more conservative membership than the House.”

- MARYLAND: On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate held a seven-hour hearing on the marriage equality bill. Following the testimony, Maryland state senator James Brochin (D) said he may now support marriage equality after hearing degrading remarks about gay couples. “The demonization of gay families really bothered me. Are these families going to continue to be treated by the law as second class citizens,” he asked. The senate is expected to vote on the measure before the end of the month.

- NEW YORK: Yesterday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) said that “he intended to ask the Legislature to take up the matter in its current session, which ends in June.” “We’ll be working very hard to pass it,” he said.

- HAWAII: “Hawaii’s house of representatives will soon vote on a bill to legalize civil unions after the house judiciary committee approved the legislation with an 11-2 vote Tuesday.” The vote could occur as soon as Friday.

- INDIANA: On Monday, in a vote of 8-4, a House Committee passed an amendment to Indiana’s state constitution “that would ban gay marriage and civil unions in the state,” even though existing state law already prohibits legal recognition for same sex marriage or for any relationship between same sex couples. “If the full House approves the proposed amendment as expected, it would move to the Republican-led Senate, where it has met little resistance in previous years. If both chambers pass the proposal, it would have to pass again in 2013 or 2014 in order to get on the ballot in 2014.”

- IOWA: Yesterday, an Iowa House subcommittee considered and ultimately tabled House Study Bill 50, a measure that would allow an “Iowa business owner who cites religious beliefs to refuse to provide jobs, housing, goods or services to people involved in a marriage that violates his or her religious convictions.”

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

Last week, Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper put together a video exposing the anti-gay rhetoric of The Family Leader, a conservative group spearheading the repeal same-sex-marriage campaign in Iowa. President Bob Vander Plaats publicly presents the organization as a traditional religious group that is more interested in restoring biblical values than slandering gay people, but more quietly describes homosexuality as a public health crisis akin to smoking, and endorses discredited ex-gay reversal therapies.

Yesterday, I interviewed Iowa State Rep. Dwayne Alons (R) — a co-sponsor of Iowa’s anti-gay marriage bill — in the state capitol and asked him if he agreed with the Family Leader’s characterizations. Alons did, reciting some bullet points from the Family Leader’s “fact sheet” and suggesting that defining marriage between a man and a woman would reverse these “problems to society”:

TP: There is also this argument that argues that homosexuality is a public health hazard, that there are higher rates of STDs and higher rates of other diseases. Do you agree with that view?

ALONS: I think that whole lifestyle has brought a lot of problems to society…For the most part when you look at some of the issues that have been brought up by homosexuals’ lifestyle, there are a lot of negatives that have been brought into society and I think government is trying to deal with that and should be dealing with.

TP: And what kind of negatives, do you think?

ALONS: Well, look at all that has been spent, you know, with the AIDS and with the issues related to the dying at an early age. I think life, longevity, of a lot of these folks is below 50, when you know, the normal people that do not enter into that kind of relationship, their either late into their 70s or early 80s for longevity. A lot more actual productive years and contributing to society. [...]

TP: So do you think there are ways for the state to discourage this kind of behavior that leads to the kind of public health problems that you’ve described?

ALONS: I think having a limitation on one man and one woman would be a pathway to get that as a basic foundational direction.

Watch it:

Alons supported Vander Plaats in his recent gubernatorial campaign, even nominating the GOP gubernatorial candidate “for the Lieutenant Governor slot on the ticket” at the Republican Iowa convention. Plaats ultimately lost to Governor Terry Branstad’s pick of Sen. Kim Reynolds.

Transcript: Read more

This morning, an Iowa House subcommittee will consider House Study Bill 50, a measure that would allow an “Iowa business owner who cites religious beliefs to refuse to provide jobs, housing, goods or services to people involved in a marriage that violates his or her religious convictions.” The bill is just the latest in a long-string social of conservative measures introduced by the Republican House majority that is likely to die in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth offers these details:

House Study Bill 50, called the Religious Conscience Protection Act, would allow a person, business or organization such as a charity or fraternal group to deny services without fear of facing a civil claim or lawsuit if they think doing so would validate or recognize same-sex relationships.

The same-sex exclusion is by itself constitutionally troubling, several legal scholars and civil rights activists said.

However, the bill is so broad that it would legalize a wide spectrum of other discriminatory acts, they said. They raised questions about whether services could be denied if, say, a Christian were married to a Jew or if a woman who is 60 married a man who is half her age and the couple could not procreate.

“We want to hang on to our religious identity and continue to provide services by doing what we believe our religion calls us to do,” Tom Chapman, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference told the Iowa Independent. That “identity” is already protected in Iowa, since religious organizations are in no way compelled to perform same-sex marriages, which were legalized in the state through a Supreme Court ruling in 2009.

Opponents of the measure argue that the bill “opens the door to discrimination against interracial and interfaith couples” and raises serious constitutional concerns. But the “identity” argument is novel, because taken to its extreme it would then permit Catholics to discriminate against divorcees, contraception users, and anyone else who rubs against their religious grain.

Last month, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) made waves when he suggested that he would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy if elected President. This morning, Pawlenty went a step further, telling me that he would support rescinding the funds necessary for the Department of Defense to implement the repeal. Appearing at the Family Leader’s Presidential Lecture Series in Iowa, Pawlenty reiterated his argument for why the policy should not have been repealed and then, when pushed, agreed with me that taking away the funding “would be a reasonable step”:

PAWLENTY: We have to pay great deference, I think to those combat units, their sentiments and their leaders. That’s one of the reasons why I said we shouldn’t have repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and I would support reinstatement.

TP: And rescinding the funds for implementation, implementation of repeal?

PAWLENTY: That would be a reasonable step as well.

Watch it:

Interestingly, the idea to rescind funding has also been suggested by the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, on whose radio show Pawlenty originally said he would like to bring back the DADT policy.

Last week, in a vote of 62 to 37, the Iowa House passed House Joint Resolution 6, effectively overturning the state’s 2009 unanimous Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriages. The bill would put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman and eliminate civil unions or any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples in the state. The measure is now in the state senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) has vowed to “fight attempts to pass the amendment.” On Saturday, he told the Des Moines Register that he would not put the rights of a minority to a vote:

GRONSTAL: We did not put it to a vote of the people when Iowa took out … the prohibition on interracial marriage. We did not put the right of different-race couples to a vote of the people. We didn’t put to a vote of the people whether or not women should be admitted to the bar. We didn’t put to a vote of the people whether Ralph should be put back into slavery — in the first decision of the Iowa Supreme Court.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to put your rights to a vote of the popular will of the people. I believe that’s what the constitution is there for, to protect everybody’s rights and to avoid the tyranny of the majority. [...]

Because if I can do that to gay people, I can do it to Catholics, I can do it to Methodists, I can do it to Baptists, I can do it to blacks, I can do it to Hispanics. If I can put to a vote of the people, people’s constitutional rights, then you may be popular today — old white guys like us might be popular today and our rights will be fine — but someday the baby boom will be gone and there won’t be enough old white guys left to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

Watch it:

Despite some misgivings from Democrats, however, at the end of January, the marriage bill failed a crucial test vote in the Senate and went down on a procedural matter along party lines.

Meanwhile, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R) has said that the Iowa Supreme Court erred in legalizing gay marriage in 2009, but stressed that he doesn’t want to “impose my will on the people” and won’t talk about whether he supports an effort to overturn the court’s unanimous decision. He has previously said he does not support impeaching the remaining the justices over the decision.

Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper has put together a video exposing the anti-gay rhetoric of The Family Leader, a conservative group spearheading the repeal same-sex-marriage campaign in Iowa. The organization’s president, Bob Vander Plaats, has embarked on a 99-county tour in which he presents The Family Leader as a traditional religious group that is more interested in restoring biblical values than slandering gay people. “The Family Leader affirms sexual relations within the bond of marriage, and opposes distortions of sexuality or special rights to those practicing distorted sexual behavior,” the group’s website states.

But as Hooper discovered, a slight alternation of the organization’s website reveals SecondHandEffects.com, a site which describes homosexuality as a public health crisis akin to smoking and endorses discredited ex-gay reversal therapies:

In fact, one doesn’t even have to change the URL or search for the “Second Hand Effects” of same-sex marriage. I signed up for The Family Leader’s email alerts and was taken to this page, which prominently displayed the offending website:

SecondHandEffects.com offers the following “facts” about homosexuality:

– Reduces life expectancy by about 20-35 years.

– Homosexuals are 20x more likely to be abused by partner than heterosexual.

– CDC reports cancer rate is 90x higher in homosexual men – while smokers is only 10-30x.

– Yes, they CAN change! (Sept. 1, 2009 NARTH report).

Plaats and the Iowa Family Policy Center, which is a subsidiary of the Family Leader, have a long history of anti-gay bigotry. In June 2010, the Iowa Independent reported that Iowa Family Policy Center president Chuck Hurey called a group of pastors who supported same-sex marriage “confused at best and blatantly evil at worst.” Earlier this year, Family Leader official Danny Carroll predicted same-sex marriage in Iowa will lead to polygamy and Plaats himself compared gay unions to incest.

The group has also established lecture series with potential presidential candidates like Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Newt Gingrich. And that, Hooper concludes, creates “a national interest” “that exceeds the gay marriage conversation altogether.” “The Family Leader has every right to connect gays to cigarette smoking, and conservative leaders have the right to align themselves with this kind of advocacy,” he says. “But if they do, then perhaps the big election question of 2012 will be, is this really the kind of change any of us should believe in?”

The fight for marriage equality in Maryland received an endorsement from an influential Republican, while a Utah lawmakers continues to try and write discrimination into that state’s constitution. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

- RHODE ISLAND: Rep. Jon Brien (D) will introduce a bill “calls for a 2012 ballot question to give voters a chance “to approve or reject a constitutional amendment specifying that ‘only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the State of Rhode Island.” The measure is expected to fail. The House Judicial Committee was scheduled to hold a hearing on Wednesday on a separate bill that would allow same-sex marriage bill, but it was “postponed one week due to the weather.”

- MARYLAND: After stepping down from the leadership position over his support for civil unions, State Sen. Allan Kittleman (R) has announced that he will support legislation to allow same-sex marriages. “The decision came just one day after the Senate Republican Caucus -made up of those Kittleman used to lead – decided to oppose the same bill.” In a statement Kittleman said, “While my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. Therefore, while my spiritual life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.” Meanwhile, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown also told the Washington Blade Wednesday “that he supports marriage equality for lesbians and gays and favors the approval of a same-sex marriage bill pending in the Maryland Legislature.”

- UTAH: State Representative LaVar Christensen (R), who pushed through the state’s same-sex marriage ban, has introduced HB 270, a bill that would require state law to say “married heterosexual families are the ‘fundamental unit of society.’” The measure also says, “marriage is “consistent with the laws of nature and nature’s God, The Creator and Supreme Judge Of The World.” LaVar Christensen has also reintroduced a bill he tried to run in 2006 which “prohibits same sex couples from making contractual arrangements such as wills and financial arrangements.” HB 182, slides in under the generic title ‘Voiding Transactions Against Public Policy’ but would “strip even more rights away from the same sex couples who desperately depend on contractual arrangements as Utah denies them any of the inherent protections afforded to any other couple.

- IOWA: Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) is vowing to kill a House bill that would allow Iowa residents to vote on a referendum recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. “I cannot cooperate in taking away the rights of a significant number of Iowans,” he said. “That is fundamentally what the Constitution is there to prevent — to make it exceedingly difficult for the majority to choose to discriminate against a minority.” The measure passed the House on Tuesday in a vote of 63 to 37.

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

Equality Matters’ Kerry Eleveld has a smart piece about the Pentagon’s reluctance to implement a nondiscrimination policy in the wake of DADT repeal. If you recall, the measure was included in the original repeal bill offered by former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), but was eventually dropped in an effort to (presumably) win support for repeal from the Pentagon and Congress:

Last week, headlines suggested that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation was on the move even though Pentagon officials gave no target date for when it would be complete.

But here’s what the reports missed: President Barack Obama and Defense Department officials are preparing to provide lesbian and gay service members the space to serve openly without risking expulsion while simultaneously affording them absolutely no legally enforceable anti-discrimination protections once they are visible.

Sure, they may not be at risk for being discharged after implementation, but they will have no means of sustainable legal recourse if they are discriminated against in any other way (or if the political environment shifts) on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Eliminating discharges is only part of the battle in terms of protecting gay service members, and candidate Barack Obama was extremely clear on this point.

Obama was supportive of instituting a nondiscrimination policy as a candidate, but recently dodged the question twice during a recent interview with Eleveld, refusing to say if he would issue an executive order implementing the measure. Obama’s elusiveness is somewhat surprising because, in May, Murphy had suggested that he had received assurances that the government would implement a nondiscrimination policy once DADT is repealed.

“I’m fully confident in the public testimony of both Secretary of Defense Gates of Chairman Mike Mullen and our current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, that they have been very clear that they want to have a nondiscriminatory policy in place,” Murhpy told me. “Having a nondiscriminatory policy in place was impossible because U.S. law for 17 years was that we’ll continue discrimination that we currently do as under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman could put clearly a policy in place that would not discriminate against men and women because of their sexual orientation. And I have full confidence that they will.” Well, we’re still waiting.

Yesterday, during a wide-ranging debate at George Washington University with former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Newt Gingrich reiterated his opposition to expanding marriage to gay and lesbian people, insisting that he came “out of a tradition that is several thousands of years old that says marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Dean took the opposite position, arguing that marriage provided gay and lesbian Americans with equal protections. “For those people who are willing to stand up for themselves, I root for them because I want them to express the idea of America that everybody deserves equal rights under the law” Dean said. This irked Gingrich, who jumped in to say that the real victims of discrimination in today’s society were Christians whose “freedom of religion” is “rapidly being subordinated”:

GINGRICH: Let me just suggest one conundrum to this…In Massachusetts today, there are no Catholic adoption services because it is illegal to run an adoption service following Catholic doctrine. …So it’s very important to weigh this balance because it goes very rapidly from what we want is tolerance, what we want is openness…we are in a real complex balancing point where freedom of religion in America is rapidly being subordinated to other values where people in America are being told no you can’t say this, no you can’t believe this, no you can’t practice this, and no your institution can’t exist. And I just think if you’re going to talk about tolerance, then there ought to be a heck of a lot of toleration based on genuine religious liberty based on thousands of years of tradition and deeply held beliefs that are equally as valid as those of some other people.

Watch it:

In 1989, Massachusetts enacted a comprehensive anti-discrimination law which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation “in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and services.” And while some Catholic adoption services have pulled out of the state, a basic Google search of “Catholic adoptions Massachusetts” reveals at least three operational agencies that are presumably in compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions.

But what’s telling in Gingrich’s response, beyond its inaccuracy, is that despite the recent gay suicides across the nation and Dean’s rather eloquent argument that people who fight for America should benefit from the equal protections of her laws, Gingrich is arguing that the real victims of inequality are Christians who have to recognize the rights and humanity of other minority groups.

This afternoon, in a vote of 62 to 37, the Iowa House passed House Joint Resolution 6, effectively overturning the state’s 2009 unanimous Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriages. The bill also eliminates civil unions or any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples in the state. It now heads to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) has vowed to “fight attempts to pass the amendment.”

Throughout today’s emotionally-charged debate, the bill’s Republican supporters attempted to portray the resolution — which would strip civil rights from gay and lesbian people — as a Democratic initiative that would give a voice to the people of Iowa. But when opponents prodded Republicans to explain if denying gay people the right to marry undermined the Iowa Constitution, they demurred. In one exchange, Rep. Nate Willems (D) pressed Rep. Erik Helland (R) on the specifics of the court’s decision. Helland was unable to explain if the resolution complimented the equal protection clause and admitted that he has not read the Court’s decision:

WILLEMS: Have you read the Varnum decision?

HELLAND: You know, I have not read it word for word, I’m familiar with the gist of it [...]

WILLEMS: Does it sound familiar that the Iowa Supreme Court found that the current law violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution?

HELLAND: Again Rep. Willems, you have the opinion in front of you, I do not…

WILLEMS: Well, Rep. Helland, let me read for you word for word Article 1 Section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which is Iowa’s equal protection clause. It says, “all laws of a general nature should have a uniform operation. The General Assembly should not grant any citizen or a class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms should not equally belong to all citizens.” So, representatives do you agree with that piece of the Constitution? [...]

HELLAND: Do I agree with that section of the Constitution? [...] Yes I do. [...] I agree with that theme, theory, idea, constitution, that basic premise of democracy.

WILLEMS: Rep. Helland, I guess my question is how do we reconcile the equal protection clause with House Resolution 6?

HELLAND: I think that rises to a question that is frankly difficult for this question to address because the question then becomes, what is a protected class, how do we define that protected class…[...]

WILLEMS: Is it fair to say that House Resolution 6 carves out an exception to the equal protection clause?

HELLAND: The bottom line is, I don’t agree with you. I don’t think this is an exception we are carving out…

Listen:

During another portion of the debate, Rep. Mary Mascher (D) had Reps. Kraig Paulsen (R) and Dwayne Alons (R) agree that the Constitution protected minority rights, and then pressed them to explain why they only approved of some rights, like freedom of religion, but denied others. “I asked you, which provisions in our Iowa Constitution, do you protect for the minority in our state? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion? Are you picking and choosing? I want to know!,” she insisted, before saying, “You’re picking and choosing certain rights for minorities”:

MARSCHER: It’s interesting that we are picking winners and losers here. So you have the right if you’re a minority to practice your religion…but you don’t if you wan to get married. [...] So there is a precedent in terms of protecting the rights of the minority. Because Rep. Alons, I would be the first to defend your right to practice your decision. If somebody came at you and said, ‘I think we should put Rep. Alons’ religion on the ballot. Let’s put a constitutional amendment to deny him his right to practice that religion.’ I would be the first to vote against that. Because that’s not right….we believe in equal protection, even if I don’t agree with your religion, I will defend your right to practice it.

Listen to the full exchange HERE.

ThinkProgress interns Paul Breer and Kevin Donohoe contributed research to this post.

The only thing more surprising than Judge Roger Vinson’s decision to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act on the basis of a single provision that does not got into effect until 2014 is his reliance on the Family Research Council’s brief to do so. The FRC has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and if Vinson is using their rational in this case, he should at least be aware of group’s history of questionable legal conclusions and anti-gay bigotry. Below is only a partial sampling:

- CRIMINALIZING HOMOSEXUALITY: “I think the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place in this country for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.” [Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg]

- GAYS MOLEST CHILDREN: “Tony Perkins, President of the FRC, claimed that ‘the research I overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children.’ Perkins cited the American College of Pediatricians in doing so. But the American College of Pediatricians is actually as breakaway faction of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the official 60,000 organization representing pediatricians. The American College of Pediatricians requires that members “hold true to the group’s core beliefs…[including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” [Southern Poverty Law Center]

- GAY PEOPLE SHOULD MARRY STRAIGHT PEOPLE: “[T]here is no evidence that Proposition 8 was “motivated by sexism in general or a desire to disadvantage men or women in particular”….”Proposition 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Homosexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex, and heterosexuals may not marry someone of the same sex.” [Prop 8 Brief]

- GOD SHOULD INTERVENE AGAINST GAYS: “Scripture warns that the shedding of innocent blood (e.g., abortion) and perverted sexual practices are abominations that call for Biblical judgment…..May God’s people have faith to believe that laws giving those who practice homosexuality special rights, protections and privileges can be reversed! May the Lord supernaturally intervene to do so.” [Prayer Update]

- PERSECUTING GAY PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ACTS: “The critical difference upon which the legal distinction rests is not the raw physical behavior but the relationships: same-sex deviate acts can never occur within marriage, during an engagement to marry, during a courtship prior to engagement, or within any relationship that could ever lead to marriage.” [Lawrence v. Texas Brief]

The brief’s author, Ken Klukowski, has his own questionable history. He is the coauthor of The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, has called on the Justice Department to probe ‘child porn’ allegations on the MTV show Skins, accused the Federal Reserve of waging a war against Christmas and attacked Obama for trying to “control” children’s minds.

Meanwhile, FRC President Tony Perkins is taking credit for his organization’s influence on Vinson. In a statement released yesterday, Perkins pointed out that “Judge Vinson quoted Klukowski (pg. 32 and footnote 27 on pg. 64) in his opinion. Judge Vinson wrote that he borrowed ‘heavily’ from FRC’s amicus brief and said the brief ‘quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability.’”