The National Review’s Ed Whelan seems to think the Department of Justice is prejudiced against religion because it has gay lawyers working for it. He argued as much in a blog post last week, suggesting that Aaron Schuham and Sharon McGowan — who he has confirmed have same-sex partners — are contributing to anti-religious “hostility” by writing briefs in the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC:

Thus, insofar as personnel is policy, it may well be that the Obama DOJ’s hostility to the ministerial exemption in the Hosanna-Tabor case is part and parcel of a broader ideological agenda that would have gay causes trump religious liberty.

First of all, the case has nothing to do with LGBT issues whatsoever. A teacher working for a religious-run school was fired because she has narcolepsy, and the case is about whether or not the “ministerial exception” applies to her employer — in other words, does the organization’s religious affiliation exempt it from complying with the non-discrimination protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act?

As Truth Wins Out’s Evan Hurst and Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer point out, Whelan seems to not want gay people anywhere near the law, “lest it get all gayified.” He really doesn’t have a compelling argument to add to the Hosanna-Tabor case — he just wanted another excuse to vilify gay people and President Obama’s DOJ. This should not surprise, as his anti-gay and anti-Obama credentials are well documented in congressional record. In 2011 alone, he has testified twice before Congress defending the Defense of Marriage Act and criticizing the president for not defending it, once in April and once in July. He also has expressed previous concern about gays prejudicing the law, suggesting Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against Proposition 8 should be vacated merely because Walker is gay. It’s interesting that opponents of equality like Whelan want gays and lesbians to exist outside of the law except when the law limits their rights.

One last point worth mentioning is that Whelan’s assumption that people who are gay are prejudiced against religion is extremely short-sighted. He essentially leaves no room for gay people to be religious, even though many are. This is not surprising coming from Whelan, as it further stigmatizes gays as supposedly existing outside of society’s moral structures while reinforcing the notion that anti-gay religious believers are the real “victims” in the gay rights struggle. If Congress continues to invite Whelan to be an “expert” on laws that affect gays and lesbians, they should clarify that he’s really only an expert when it comes to demonizing gays and lesbians.

This Wednesday, the Senate will hold a hearing on the repeal of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. The Republicans have invited three anti-gay voices to defend the law, all of whom have prominent reputations for demonizing the LGBT community. Notably absent, though, is any representative from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a group that has led the charge against equality in the national debate but which lost recent fights against same-sex marriage in New York and civil unions in Rhode Island.

Here is a quick look at the anti-gay reputations that precede these witnesses:

- AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS (ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND): ADF is one of the chief legal cogs in the conservative Christian propaganda machine. The group regularly opposes LGBT equality through the spreading of falsehoods and has previously partnered with Exodus International, which administers harmful ex-gay ministries. (Exodus calls ADF a “friend.”) The organization is vigilant about putting same-sex “marriage” in condescending mocking quotes (even using SS”M” for short-hand in tweets) to imply that the unions of same-sex couples will always be inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. Simultaneous with these bullying tactics, ADF promotes the idea that anti-gay Christians are the victims of “bigotry” and “intolerance” against “religious freedom.”

- TOM MINNERY (FOCUS ON THE FAMILY): FOTF maintains ties to many state-level anti-equality groups and is helping them raise over $6 million to fight marriage equality over the next year through the covert “Ignite An Enduring Cultural Tradition” campaign. The group also inherited the “Day of Dialogue” (formerly “Day of Truth”) from ADF, which encourages Christian youth to be vocal about their anti-gay beliefs to show “love”  to their LGBT peers who are “hurting” and “vulnerable.” Last April, Minnery clarified that FOTF would oppose an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court because homosexuality is sinful.

- ED WHELAN (ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER): This will not be Whelan’s first trip to the Hill to challenge marriage equality. He testified in favor of DOMA in April, wherein he attacked the Obama administration for “doing whatever it can to promote same-sex marriage.” Equality Matters points out that Whelan has been on a “never-ending crusade” against LGBT equality, focusing in particular on the trial to overturn Proposition 8. He recently argued that Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against the law should be vacated because as a gay man, Walker’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

The Democrats’ speaker list includes Joe Solmonese (Human Rights Campaign President) and Evan Wolfson (Freedom to Marry President), as well as three individuals who were in or are in same-sex marriages: Susan Murray, Andrew Sorbo, and Ron Wallen.

Last Friday, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) assembled a “distinguished panel” for a House Judiciary Committee hearing on “defending marriage,” including vocal opponents of marriage equality, Maggie Gallagher (National Organization for Marriage) and Ed Whelan (Ethics and Public Policy Center). During the hearing, Whelan claimed that President Obama attempted to “sabotage” the Defense of Marriage Act and now this “distinguished” witness is going a step further, calling for Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against California’s Proposition 8 to be vacated because Walker is gay. Right Wing Watch‘s Brian has this catch:

Because Walker was deciding how the law in the very jurisdiction in which he lived would directly govern his own individual rights on a matter that a reasonable person would think was very important to Walker personally, it is clear that Walker’s impartiality in [Perry v. Schwarzenegger] “might reasonably be questioned.”

Whelan is referring to Section 455(a) of Title 28 the United States Code, which requires a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” He argues that because Walker has a same-sex partner with whom he could marry if Prop 8 were overturned, he had a bias to overturn it.

The odious implication of such an argument is that only a member of the predominant group can determine the rights of a minority group—members of the minority group would not be “qualified” to rule. But as Equality Matters noted in response to other conservatives who have made the same argument, claims of Judge Walker’s “bias” also assume that a heterosexual judge would not have a “personal interest” in the outcome of the trial. This is anathema to the primary argument made by defendants of Prop 8: that same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriages.

Watch the highlights from Franks’ “defending marriage” hearing:

This morning’s “defending marriage” hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution invited anti-LGBT witnesses Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and Edward Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center to reinforce stigma against gays and lesbians. Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks (R-AZ) also used the hearing to attack the White House.

Gallagher repeatedly stated that children do better with a mother and a father, despite ample evidence that children of same-sex parents fair just as well, if not better:

GALLAGHER: If, in fact, marriage, as a public and legal institution…is oriented towards protecting children by increasing the likelihood they have a mother and father, then same-sex couples do not fit, and conversely, if same-sex couples fit the definition of marriage, then marriage really is no longer about responsible procreation in the sense.

Meanwhile, Whelan attempted to paint President Obama and the Department of Justice as “pretending” to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) previously and that it’s, in fact, a “scandal” that the DOJ tried to “sabotage” DOMA.

WHELAN: As I document in detail in my testimony, I think one would have to be very naive to think that it’s anything than a stealth strategy of step by step by step, the administration is doing whatever it can to promote same-sex marriage and to induce the courts to adopt that approach.

Watch a compilation:

Professor Carlos Ball of Rutgers School of Law was also on hand to offer testimony in support of same-sex marriage. Representatives Nadler (D-NY), Conyers (D-MI), Scott (D-VA), and Quigley (D-IL) used much of their time challenging Gallagher and Whelan on their claims.

Complete video of the hearing is available on the Judiciary Committee’s website.