Today, the Obama campaign launched a new effort to rally lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters for the President’s reelection. The “LGBT Americans for Obama” website features blog posts, pride merchandise, and upcoming LGBT-related campaign events. On a conference call this morning, outgoing HRC president Joe Solmonese highlighted Obama’s accomplishments and his hopes for the future:

SOLMONESE: I think that collective understanding of where we’re going is how we’re really going to shape the agenda for the next administration. Obviously, we have landmark issues that we need to continue to address, continue to move on, like the repeal of DOMA, like the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA.

So, that’s the kind of ongoing conversation that we’ll have. I think one of the things that we all recognize, and I think the president recognizes this, and we saw this during the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ is that the makeup of Congress is going to have a lot to do with that. And that is why those fights and the fight that we do everything we can to take back an LGBT-friendly House of Representatives are going to have a lot to do with how that agenda gets shaped. And hold what we have in the Senate, and hopefully add to those numbers.

Despite that brief mention of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the call avoided discussing the President’s refusal to sign an executive order that would protect LGBT employees of federal contractors from discrimination. Still, in the wake of Obama’s recent endorsement of marriage equality, the campaign has incredible momentum to energize LGBT voters. Accompanying the launch is a video touting Obama’s support on LGBT issues, narrated by Glee‘s Jane Lynch:

Last week, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress that he opposes LGBT nondiscrimination protections, like those that would be afforded by the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because he believes it should be legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. He explained that he believes being gay is a choice that is simply “behavior-related and preference-related.” Since then, Lankford has embarked on a press tour attacking ThinkProgress for misrepresenting him, choosing to ignore video that confirms his position was quoted and described accurately.

He continued that effort today in two radio interviews with anti-gay hate group leaders, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon. Perkins described provisions like ENDA as “special protections” and Lankford maintained that employers should have the legal right to fire someone for their “sexual behavior”:

PERKINS: The idea there is they’re looking for special protections; your point is that everybody should be treated equally. No one should be fired or denied employment based upon their sexual orientation — in the ideal world we won’t even know about it, why would we even ask that question?

LANKFORD: Right. But neither should you have a situation where no one can fire you because of your behavior outside of the workplace. We also should not be in a situation where there are special protections extended to say ‘if I have a certain sexual behavior then you can no longer fire me, I’m a protected class and I can do whatever I want in the workplace.’ That’s not true either. So we are trying to be able to keep that balance. When you say you create special rights you also create special privileges and protections to say that they are untouchable in the workplace and they can have any kind of work conduct they choose to on that, that’s not correct.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Lankford seems to believe that policies like ENDA would create an invulnerability, preventing people who are gay or trans from ever being fired for any reason, as opposed to merely protecting them from anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination in the same way race, sex, and other dimensions of identity are already protected. But it’s also clear that despite Perkins’ claim that “everybody should be treated equally,” both he and Lankford are building a misleading pro-gay narrative around their distorted understanding of sexual orientation.

Lankford and Perkins both believe that sexual orientation is a choice, but more precisely, that it’s defined only by behavioral choices. Neither comprehends (or acknowledges) that sexual orientation is an innate identity that individuals experience regardless of how or if they act upon it. From this discussion, they make clear that they don’t have any problem with somebody saying they’re gay, but if they “act” on their identity — whether it’s starting a family with a same-sex partner, campaigning for marriage equality, or even attending a drag show at a gay club — then they’re in violation of moral principles and shouldn’t be protected. What they are essentially promoting is a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mentality for the workplace, which they believe would be the same as being “treated equally,” not unlike what Rep. Steve King (R-IA) recently proposed.

Groups like FRC and AFA defend ex-gay therapy for a reason: it’s part of the foundation for all their anti-gay positions. Only if sexual orientation is voluntary can they justify the discrimination they promote, and they ignore over 35 years of science to believe just that.

In an appearance on Meet The Press Sunday morning, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus attempted to clarify his party’s positions on same-sex marriage and also addressed the question of employment discrimination. Host David Gregory pressured Priebus about comments he made last week that states should make their own decisions about banning same-sex marriage, saying “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate,” — remarks noticeably out of step with Mitt Romney’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Priebus completely flipped on these “inartful” comments, aligning the party’s views with the candidate’s:

PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, I agree with the Governor.

GREGORY: Did you misspeak?

PRIEBUS: Perhaps it was inartful. [...]

GREGORY: The issue is: you said, “Don’t federalize it.” The nominee of the party says, “Federalize it,” a constitutional ban. Is that what the party believes?

PRIEBUS: Of course.

GREGORY: And it should be part of the platform?

PRIEBUS: It is part of the platform. And for the record, we do agree with the marriage amendment, and we do agree with DOMA, but as we sit today, we don’t have a federal mandate — excuse me, a federal — excuse me, a constitutional amendment.

Watch it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Despite this flip against equality, Priebus did claim that gays and lesbians deserve “equal rights, in regards to say, discrimination in the workplace,” which raises new questions about where the Republican party stands on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) recently said he “hasn’t thought much” about ENDA, but Republicans like Reps. Allen West (FL), James Lankford (OK), Kenny Marchant (TX), and Sen. Mike Lee (UT) have all opposed the long-proposed bill, arguing the protections are unnecessary.

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress last week that he believes someone should be able to be fired for his or her sexual orientation.

In a conversation on Capitol Hill, Lankford expressed his strong belief that being gay is a choice, and that LGBT workers should not be protected from workplace discrimination because it’s something they can change. “You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, ‘gay or straight?’” Lankford said:

STRASSER: Would you support a law that says you can’t fire someone for their sexual orientation –
KEYES: Similar to protections for people on race or gender?

LANKFORD: Well, you’re now dealing with behavior and I’m trying to figure out exactly what you’re trying to mean by that. Because you’re dealing with — race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently — skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, “Gay or straight?”

KEYES: But you think that even if you can’t see they’re that way, you don’t think someone is born gay necessarily?

LANKFORD: Do I personally? No. I don’t. I think it’s a choice issue. Are tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue.

Watch it:

Being gay is actually not a choice, according to the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and all other accredited medical organizations. A large percentage of LGBT workers have experienced discrimination at work and many have been fired because of their sexual orientation.

Though Lankford will surely vote against it, a bipartisan group of senators released a letter last week calling on Congress to hold hearings about putting a non-discrimination law in place. The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee will take up the issue later this month.

Our guest blogger is Crosby Burns, Research Associate for LGBT Progress.

Today the Center for American Progress, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law released a comprehensive database of research documenting the immediate need for federal policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This database includes nearly 40 documents totaling 680 pages of research from the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Freedom To Work, and the Williams Institute.

The findings of the research contained in this database are consistent and conclusive: LGBT workplace discrimination is a pervasive and persistent problem that requires an immediate solution. Additionally, this research establishes a strong business case for workplace nondiscrimination laws and policies, examines the potential impact of an LGBT nondiscrimination executive order for federal contractors, and highlights strong public and voter support for workplace fairness.

Given these realities, Congress should pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and President Obama should sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies. These actions would bring quick relief to the hundreds of thousands of LGBT workers who face employment discrimination in our country today.

Despite efforts by Mitt Romney and his campaign to put to bed the controversy over their roles in the resignation — which occurred under pressure from right-wing groups — of openly gay foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell, the flap continues.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Michael Guest, an openly gay diplomat who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Romania by Republican President George W. Bush. Guest laments in the piece that the Republican Party’s leadership allows “principles of fairness and equality” to be “hollowed out.” While he dismisses the idea that Romney himself is to blame for the way Grenell was treated, he writes:

Romney’s slowness to comment amid the noise since Grenell’s resignation raises questions about his principles, as well as the quality and depth of his leadership. That’s what should concern us most in this sad affair. We should expect Romney to go further in making clear that issues of sexual orientation will have no bearing on any personnel decisions he makes, whether in his campaign or, should he be elected, in the administration he would lead.

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud — a group more focused on encouraging LGBT voters to back Republicans than on encouraging Republicans to back LGBT equality — echoed these criticisms. In a break from the group’s usual GOP unity message, he told the Post’s Greg Sargent on Thursday:

The Romney campaign should have spoken up publicly in defense of Rick against the attacks over the past two weeks… This was an opportunity to send an important message that Mitt Romney wants everybody to get behind him and to support his campaign. They let that opportunity pass.

Log Cabin Republican Executive Director R. Clarke Duncan and former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon have also called out the Romney campaign for not standing up for Grenell and have encouraged the apparent GOP nominee to take steps to stop employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In 1994, Moderate Mitt Romney promised to co-sponsor a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act — and claimed he’d be a better advocate for gay and lesbian citizens than Sen. Ted Kennedy. But by 2007, Severe Conservative Mitt Romney etch a sketched his position and no longer saw a need for a federal employment non-discrimination law.

Now, Guest, LaSalvia, Duncan, and McKinnon are left lamenting that 2012 General Election Mitt Romney and his campaign’s cowardly handling of the Grenell situation is much more 2007 Mitt than 1994 Mitt.

This morning, Mitt Romney claimed that his campaign selects spokespeople based on their capability, not their “sexual preference.” Nevertheless, the apparent benching and subsequent resignation of his openly gay foreign policy adviser Richard Grenell raises serious questions about whether Romney actually opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In 1994, Romney infamously pandered to the Log Cabin Republicans of Massachusetts in a failed U.S. Senate run, promising to co-sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and broaden it to include protections for housing and credit. He added that preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians should be a “mainstream concern.” In his coordination of the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, he even followed through on this commitment by approving a nondiscrimination policy with sexual orientation protections and working with the local gay community to “enhance diversity in the Olympic workforce.” In 2007, however, Romney told Tim Russert on Meet The Press that he had changed his position on ENDA:

RUSSERT: You said that you would sponsor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.  Do you still support it?

ROMNEY: At the state level.  I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.  And let me describe why.

RUSSERT: So you did–you did change.

ROMNEY: Oh, Tim, if you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy.

So it seems that Romney doesn’t believe people should be fired for being LGBT, he just doesn’t think it’s the job of the federal government to protect them. Perhaps his failure to confront  to social conservatives over Grenell’s appointment demonstrates why he refuses to take a stronger position. In fact, Grenell may not have been the first employee Romney forced out of a job due to pressure about his sexual orientation. In 2004, then-Governor Romney’s administration asked Ardith Wieworka to resign as longtime head of the state’s Office of Child Care Services, and she strongly believed it was because she had married her lesbian partner. At the time, Romney was well into his transition away from supporting LGBT equality, testifying before the Senate in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The Log Cabin Republicans are calling on Romney to take a stronger position against LGBT discrimination, which may not be entirely in vain. However, the evidence suggests that even if Romney talks the talk, he won’t bother to walk the walk if it hinders his political prospects.