This week, the Boy Scouts of America National Council will finally vote on whether to amend its policy to allow gay Scouts, though it would still prohibit gay Scout leaders. Conservatives continue to eagerly argue that maintaining the complete ban on homosexuality is important for “protecting” Scouts as well as the religious faith of the many churches that sponsor troops, though many people of faith support equality in Scouting too. But last week, the Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse presented this interesting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” interpretation of the ban:

Finally, an important distinction has been lost in the current debate. The Boy Scouts’ long-standing policy does not, by its terms or in practice, exclude people who experience same-sex attraction. Rather, the prohibition is on “open and avowed” homosexuality, and it is that prohibition which will be lifted if the resolution passes.

In other words, it’s apparently okay to be a gay Scout — it’s just not okay to acknowledge it. The problem isn’t whether there’s someone gay in a troop, but whether people in the troop actually learn anything about the existence of gay people. In contrast, multiple studies have shown that coming out is actually good for individuals’ health. Honesty to one’s self, friends, family, and community also embodies the Scout virtue of being trustworthy.

This argument actually compromises conservatives’ many claims about gay men being sex-obsessed pedophiles. Instead, it reflects an assumption that sexual identity should be denied or repressed, framed by Ruse’s plea to Catholic church sponsors to oppose the change. It’s basically an admission that opposition to lifting the ban has little to do with “protecting” anybody and more to do with maintaining religion-fueled animus against people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Indeed, this approach jibes with how the Catholic Church tries to simply deny the existence of gay people.

By trying to posit both arguments simultaneously, the Family Research Council and other conservative groups demonstrate that they have no legitimate reasons for discriminating against gay Scouts. They support discrimination simply because they support anti-gay stigma.

In many of the states that have waged marriage equality fights recently, opponents have often coalesced around a coalition consisting of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the state’s Catholic conference, and the state’s “family policy council” affiliate of the Family Research Council. In Illinois, however, these typical players have not united in the same way, seemingly in part because the state social conservative group is the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a hate group in its own right associated with the American Family Association.

IFI’s rhetoric is quite a bit more brazen than what anti-gay groups have used in other states, which may have scared away its would-be allies. As a telling example, NOM posted pictures from an IFI rally last week, but didn’t mention the organization by name nor link to its own post about the rally. Otherwise, NOM’s rhetoric has mostly been limited to threats of retribution against Republicans who might support marriage equality. The Illinois Catholic Conference has issued its own materials opposing marriage equality, and Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has made his share of negative comments, but there seems to be no coordination with IFI.

Today marks three months since the Illinois Senate passed the marriage equality bill, and with only three weeks left for the House to pass it, here’s a look at some of IFI’s rhetoric that is dominating the opposition:

• Today, IFI posted numerous photos from its rally this weekend, including a sign that reads, “The crime against nature will never be equal.”
• Speakers at the rally included ex-gay advocate Linda Jernigan and another hate group leader, Peter LaBarbera, who told the crowd that homosexuality is “unnatural and wrong,” citing HIV rates among men who have sex with men as evidence of “the dangers of homosexuality.”
• In February, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote that gay people shouldn’t even be allowed to teach because they’ll put pictures of their partners on their desk that students will see.
• In fact, IFI believes that parents should pull their children from any classroom that attempts to create a safe environment for LGBT students.
• IFI has claimed gays and lesbians already have equality because they can marry the opposite sex like everyone else; same-sex marriage is thus a demand “to be treated specially.”
• IFI recommends language that demonizes the gay community, encouraging opponents of equality to frame their resistance as compassion.

This extreme rhetoric extends beyond the talking points conservatives have traditionally used in these fights, which tend to focus on supposed protections for children, gender norms, and the institution of marriage. By openly condemning homosexuality as unnatural and curable through therapy — as well as enabling the bullying of LGBT youth — IFI sets itself apart. It remains unclear how many votes short the Illinois House is from passage or what is motivating those opponents, but with IFI’s strong presence in the fight, opponents’ will struggle to deliver a cohesive or approachable argument as the vote approaches.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a new insert for distribution in church bulletin’s about “Marriage and the Supreme Court,” urging Catholics to pray, fast, and sacrifice to advocate against marriage equality. The insert dwells on the idea that marriage equality erases gender, challenging the beliefs that “men and women matters” and that mothers and fathers “aren’t interchangeable” when it comes to the best interests of children. In addition, it suggests the two Supreme Court cases will be the “Roe v. Wade of marriage”:

The Court is expected to rule on both cases by the end of June. A broad negative ruling could redefine marriage in the law throughout the entire country, becoming the “Roe v. Wade” of marriage. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has joined with many other organizations in urging the Supreme Court to uphold both DOMA and Proposition 8 and thereby to recognize the essential, irreplaceable contribution that husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, make to society, and especially to children.

This comparison to Roe v. Wade has been made several times in regards to these cases, but it remains unclear what exactly the intention beyond that comparison really is. Though the two have often been juxtaposed in the past as key social issues, they don’t actually compare substantively. Public opinion on marriage has consistently trended toward equality, while public opinion on abortion has remained split. Marriage is something that all people already have access to, but it only serves people who are heterosexual — a very different circumstance from the general question of whether a woman has a right to an abortion at all.

What this comparison does forebode is future attempts to curb back the rights of same-sex couples after marriage equality is achieved. Just as conservatives have resisted Roe by curbing women’s access to abortion as much as possible — like in North Dakota, Kansas,  and Arkansas — they may try to limit same-sex couples’ access to marriage. Certainly, objections about violations of “religious liberty” already speak to this, suggesting future attempts to legalize discrimination against the LGBT community. These efforts seem less likely to succeed, though; so far, California’s Proposition 8 is the only example of a setback for marriage equality after it’s already been in place, and that becomes a moot point should the Court knock it down.

People may disagree — and even change their mind — about questions regarding when life begins and how they associate that belief with a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. On marriage, there remains little mystery about the nature of sexual orientation, and attempts to exclude people from full participation in society because of their sexual orientation will only ever been seen as discrimination.

Last month, Cardinal Timothy Dolan compared gay Catholics to people with “dirty hands,” suggesting that anybody who engages in same-sex sexual acts is unwelcome at Church. This prompted a protest yesterday featuring gay Catholics and their allies arriving at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City with literally dirty hands seeking entry to Mass. Protest organizer Joseph Amodeo wrote about the “cold” welcome they faced when they attempted to enter:

It is what transpired in the moments after soiling our hands that I have trouble understanding and placing in the context of the Christian experience. At around 9:30am, the ten of us gathered were greeted by four police cars, eight uniformed officers, a police captain, and a detective from the Police Commissioner’s LGBT liaison unit. The detective informed us that the Cathedral would prohibit us to enter because of our dirty hands. It was at that moment that I realized the power of fear. The Archdiocese of New York was responding out of fear to a peaceful and silent presence at Mass. Even in light of this, we decided that we would walk solemnly from our gathering spot to the Cathedral with hopes that we might be welcomed.

As we reached St. Patrick’s Cathedral, we were approached by Kevin Donohue, who identified himself as being in charge of operations for the cathedral. Sadly, Mr. Donohue’s tone was both cold and scolding. What astounded me most was when he said that we could enter the cathedral so long as we washed our hands first. Even now, writing those words I find myself struggling to understand their meaning, while coming to terms with their exclusionary nature.

It was at this moment that Mr. Donohue advised us that if we entered St. Patrick’s Cathedral with dirty hands, we would be arrested and charged with criminal trespassing. Upon hearing those words, I remember standing there thinking, “How can I be charged with criminal trespassing in my own home?” It was then that I realized what it meant to be spiritually homeless.

The Church’s response to these peaceful protesters directly compromises Dolan’s message that supposedly, “all are welcome.” Tellingly, his post included the tenet, “Hate the sin; love the sinner,” a welcoming-sounding creed that actually only demonizes gay people by distorting the innate nature of their identities. No matter how many times religious leaders repeat this catchphrase, love will never be congruent with condemning a person to a life without love.

In an appearance on Meet The Press this weekend, Newt Gingrich reiterated a claim he’s made many times before that Massachusetts’s legalization of marriage equality discriminated against the Catholic Church’s ability to provide adoption services. In this particular appearance, he offered his most exaggerated description of what happened when Catholic Charities in Boston closed its adoption services, claiming that the state “outlawed” Catholic doctrine. MSNBC Joy-Ann Reid offered counterpoint:

GINGRICH: What I’m struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights. There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts. They’re outlawed. There are no rights in DC for Catholics to have adoption service. They’re outlawed. This passing reference to religion, we sort of respect religion, sure — as long as you don’t practice it. I mean I think it would be good to have a debate over, you know — beyond this question of, “Are you able to be gay in America?”What does it mean?

Does it mean that you have to actually affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept that, and therefore, you’re now going to have a secular state say to a wide range of religious groups — Catholics, Protestants, orthodox Jews, Mormons, frankly, Muslims — “You cannot practice your religion the way you believe it, and we will outlaw your institutions.” … Let’s just start with adoption services. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to have an adoption service in Massachusetts that follows Catholic doctrine.

REID: But didn’t the Catholic Church, particularly Catholic Charities in Boston — they affirmatively decided to withdraw adoption services. No one said they are not allowed to provide adoption services.

GINGRICH: No, they withdrew them because they were told, “You could not follow Catholic doctrine,” which is for marriage between a man and a woman.

Watch it:

Gingrich always leaves out two details when he weaves this tale. First of all, Massachusetts has had a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1989, well before the 2004 decision by the state Supreme Court allowing recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages. As reported by the Boston Globe, over the course of about two decades until 2005, Catholic Charities facilitated 720 adoptions, 13 of which were actually to same-sex couples — without complaint.

Secondly, Catholic Charities accepted state funding to provide its adoption services, requiring it to continue complying with that nondiscrimination law. It was only in 2006 that four bishops decided of their own accord that Catholic Charities should be exempt from that requirement, a proposal for which they received minimal support from state lawmakers. Even though the agency’s 42-member board unanimously agreed to continue facilitating adoptions by same-sex couples, the bishops arbitrarily shut the entire operation down in protest of the law. It had nothing to do with the legality of same-sex marriage, especially because that was decided by the state Supreme Court and thus reflected no change in the laws regulating adoption services. Arguably, it was only the increase in visibility of same-sex families that may have prompted the bishops to respond.

This has been the case in other places where Catholic Charities has claimed to face conflict with marriage equality, including the District of Columbia and Illinois; the organizations only shut down for political purposes, not because any laws required them to do so. Most notably, when Colorado was considering civil unions in 2012, the bill had a specific protection to allow Catholic Charities to continue discriminating against same-sex couples, but the agency still threatened to shut down in protest of the law. The bill that ultimately passed this year did not include those protections, but that didn’t stop the organization from attempting to derail it.

Gingrich’s claim that marriage equality somehow impedes the religious freedom of Catholics is completely unfounded. In all of these states, Catholic Charities could continue to operate, but if it wants to continue receiving state funding, it has to comply with state laws. No chapter has yet attempted to continue functioning without state subsidies.

This afternoon, the Rhode Island House is completing the final pro forma vote on marriage equality, with Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) planning to sign the bill at 5:45 PM. With this conclusion inevitable, Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin has offered guidance to Rhode Island Catholics about what the advent of marriage equality portends. In his pastoral letter, Tobin suggests that attending a same-sex wedding will compromise their faith and “cause significant scandal”:

At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful. And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

Tobin’s “disappointment” that he didn’t successfully defeat marriage equality seems to have manifested itself in spite. By advising Catholics not to even attend the same-sex ceremonies, he is openly endorsing not just a religious view on marriage, but open stigma against the gay community and their families. Per this guidance, Catholics should openly shun and condemn their friends, family, and loved ones for choosing to make a life commitment — what Tobin calls a “serious regression in the public morality of our state.” Such family rejection cannot be justified as “respect, love, and pastoral care” — it is, by definition, the very opposite.

Carla Hale was fired from Bishop Watterson High School in Columbus, Ohio because an anonymous parent complained when she named her same-sex partner in her mother’s obituary. She’s now fighting the Catholic school to get her job of 19 years back, and students are rallying around her — as is Anonymous. The school did not previously comment on the firing, but now Bishop Frederick Campbell is defending the firing because Hale’s “quasi-spousal relationship” — not her sexual orientation — violates the Church’s moral teaching:

In an exclusive interview with The Dispatch, the bishop said diocesan officials “don’t necessarily go looking for things like that,” but Hale’s decision to name her partner in her mother’s obituary made the relationship public and initiated the termination process.

As bishop, he said, he has a “fundamental responsibility” to maintain the Catholic identity of the institutions under his purview.

“We do this in an atmosphere of care, of calm consideration, but yet out of the realization that at particular times we have to make particular decisions,” he said. “And they are difficult sometimes, but they do flow from what we believe, who we are and how we are to live.” [...]

“I have to make certain that what I say is accurate and measured because I don’t want to add to the heat of this,” he said yesterday. “People want bold statements right away, and I have to make sure I understand what the question is, how it can be answered and how to do it in a measured way.”

No “measured” approach or “calm consideration” changes the fact that Hale was fired for being gay. Campbell’s claim that she was fired for her relationship is a distinction without a difference. It may take several months for Community Relations Commission to address her complaint, but Columbus’s nondiscrimination protections do not exempt religious organizations. Campbell has admitted that the school fired Hale for living with a woman, and that is a clear violation of the law.