FRC's graphic cheering the defeat of marriage equality in Illinois, featuring an outline of Indiana.

Unlike the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council has had no reservations about partnering with the Illinois Family Institute to fight marriage equality in Illinois. In FRC’s Washington Update Monday, Tony Perkins boasted that the marriage bill did not come up for a vote, cheering the tearful announcement by Rep. Greg Harris (D) as an accomplishment:

The LGBT lobby, who assumed their bullying would have the same effect on these legislators as it’s had in other states, were completely blindsided by the churches’ powerful resistance. On Friday, while the Left was preparing for a victory lap, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), tearfully announced on the last day of the session that he didn’t have the votes to bring the bill to the floor.

For our side, which has had its share of setbacks, it was a reminder of what can be accomplished when we stand together. Illinois voters refused to buy the line that same-sex “marriage” is inevitable — and because of their courage, it wasn’t! Join us in congratulating the Illinois Family Institute and the hundreds of pastors who stood their ground on marriage! It was a victory well-deserved, and more than that, a success story every state can learn from.

Harris has defended his decision not to hold a vote amid criticism from advocates for not forcing lawmakers to voice their position on the record.

But FRC doesn’t seem concerned with why Harris, who is openly gay, might have been upset by his bill’s setback. Indeed, by claiming that the LGBT lobby was engaging in “bullying,” the group is trying to paint opponents of equality as victims of some kind, even though allowing same-sex couples to marry would have no impact on their lives. Promoting and cheering the continued second-class status of the gay community is one of the many reasons both FRC and IFI are classified as hate groups.

The Family Research Council published a full-page ad today in the Dallas Morning News today opposing the inclusion of gay Scouts in the Boy Scouts of America. The arguments are familiar, but one manages to imply much more than what is on the page:

ROBS PARENTS of their authority to address issues of sexuality:

Parents properly have the exclusive right to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their children when they think it best for their child and family, and to not have it brought up by older openly gay boys around a campfire.

This argument essentially uses the closet as a weapon against gay youth. The intention is to prevent young people from learning that gay people exist, using “parents’ rights” as a straw man to justify. The argument also relies on other anti-gay stereotypes often included in arguments against gay Scouts, such as the idea that a same-sex orientation is only defined by sexual behavior.

Children of any age can learn about sexual diversity without learning about sex. Many will grow up with parents of the same sex, or with classmates who have same-sex parents. FRC is reinforcing that it is not “best” for children to learn that gay people exist — essentially forcing a closet of invisibility upon the entire gay community.

Polls have consistently shown that knowing gay people helps individuals become more comfortable with LGBT issues and thus more favorable. FRC has to oppose that visibility at every turn, because their scare tactics depend on the fear they can perpetuate when people know less about homosexuality.

Earlier this week, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber revealed a brochure that was distributed at the Department of Justice called, ““LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” Developed by the DOJ Pride, the department’s LGBT and allies employee group, it outlines several simple suggestions for making sure the workplace is a safe and inclusive space. Barber claimed it was an “attack on freedom… riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.”

Tony Perkins echoed this ominous sentiment in the Family Research Council’s Washington Update Wednesday:

When the Justice Department is done violating journalists’ First Amendment rights, it looks like they’ll move on to employees’. In a chilling memo to DOJ staff, the Obama administration is warning managers that they’d better start embracing homosexuality–or else. The email, which a Justice employee leaked to Liberty Counsel, is a scary reminder of how far this administration will go to crush free speech and expression in America.

The full brochure can be read online. Here are some of the tips — suggestions, not rules — that Barber and Perkins object to and the context they leave out to make them sound more chilling:

• DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval. What neither Barber or Perkins mention is that this is advice given under the heading, “Know how to respond if an employee comes out to you.” The converse suggestion is, “DO respond with interest and curiosity. Asking respectful questions will set a positive, supportive tone.”
• DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender. Barber admits he believes this basic respect for a person’s identity constitutes lying. Objecting to this suggestion is blatant transphobia, more of which is apparent throughout the rest of his post.
• DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful. This has nothing to do with spying. It’s simply encouraging individuals to avoid making a joke or snide comment about LGBT people and assuming it’ll never get back to them.
• DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Apparently encouraging people not to be rude and offensive constitutes chilling their free speech.

Though it is a bottom-up document with no enforcement whatsoever, the mere thought of creating an LGBT-inclusive workplace is apparently quiet disconcerting to these conservatives. Perkins even jabs, “Imagine the level of workplace harassment Christians would face if viewpoint coercion were official U.S. policy” — i.e. if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act were passed into law. Of course, if a guide were put out with suggestions for not harassing Christians, that would conceivably be just as chilling to free speech, at least by their standards.

Perkins takes exception that LGBT equality is about “forced acceptance,” but as blogger Alvin McEwen points out, it’s actually about “respect for a fellow human being.” Groups like Liberty Counsel and FRC specifically do not want LGBT employees to enjoy basic respect in the workplace, and that’s one of many reasons they are designated as hate groups.

The point-blank murder of Mark Carson, who was targeted specifically because he was gay, has shaken the LGBT community nationwide, particularly in New York City. After a vigil Saturday night and huge march on Monday, not one conservative group had yet spoken about the incident. This prompted Daily Kos blogger Scott Wooledge to point out a harsh juxtaposition, noting that mere hours after a shooter opened fire at the Family Research Council in August, wounding a security guard, a large coalition of LGBT groups issued a joint statement condemning the violence. Through his infographics studio Memeographs, he produced the image at right criticizing the anti-gay groups.

Only after its viral distribution did conservative groups begin to issue statements. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage was first, though he tried to distance the homophobia that prompted the crime from the homophobia NOM promotes daily. He also suggested that opponents of marriage equality are equally persecuted:

We condemn in the strongest possible way the murder of a gay man in New York by a killer who apparently hurled anti-gay insults at him moments before the killing. This senseless act cannot be condoned in America or anywhere, and we urge that the perpetrator be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our heart goes out to the family of the victim, and we hold them in our prayers. While this killing appears to have no connection to the current debate about redefining marriage, there is no room for violence toward any American — whether they support traditional marriage or not. No person should be subjected to violence because they are gay or lesbian or because they believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is no place for violence, period.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council followed suit, issuing a statement that was narrowly distributed via email and has since been published:

We denounce any and all acts of unprovoked violence. No American should be the target of violence – period. We hope and trust that justice will be served in that the perpetrator of this senseless act of violence will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Other conservatives were more cruel in their response. Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel chose to chide LGBT activists for politicizing the shooting, tweeting Monday, “That didn’t take long. Let no tragedy go to waste, eh?”He did condemn the murder, describing the murderer not as homophobic, but as psychotic. Of course, he has done plenty to politicize the FRC shooting, using it to target the Southern Poverty Law Center’s labeling of hate groups — a label he once wore as a “badge of honor.”

The American Family Association has yet to say anything about Carson’s murder or the rash of anti-gay hate crimes in New York. Instead, its OneNewsNow service ran a story Tuesday about Christians being persecuted in China. OneNewsNow regularly includes content fed from the Associated Press and outside sources, so it’s likely an editorial decision was made to feature one and not the other.  Violent persecution anywhere is wrong, but it seems AFA, which also attacked the SPLC over the FRC shooting, prioritizes some stories over others.

Homophobia and transphobia stem from notions that LGBT people are weak, less than, deviant, harmful to society, and deserve to be ostracized because of their identities. These are the very messages promoted by these conservative groups, which is why many of them have been labeled as hate groups. That they had to be prodded over several days to condemn a murderous hate crime — and many still haven’t — could indicate a lack of concern about anti-LGBT violence, but it could also suggest a subtle acknowledgment that the rhetoric they promote bears some responsibility in the first place.

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.

Recently, opponents of marriage equality have focused more on their objection that laws will no longer recognize the uniqueness of husbands and wives or mothers and fathers. Just this weekend the coalition opposed to Minnesota marriage equality used Mother’s Day to mourn that “Mother” will be removed from marriage laws, having previously warned not to “erase moms and dads.” Family Research Council senior fellow Cathy Ruse has attempted to make a similar argument, complaining about the Department of Education’s decision to recognize same-sex families when assessing need for financial aid:

I carried my children for 9 months in my womb, I endured the pain (and joy) of birth, I nursed them for many months after they were born, and every morning they jump into my bed screaming, “Mommy!”

But the federal government says I’m Mommy no more.

I am Parent 1.

Or maybe Parent 2.

Kind of like Thing One and Thing Two. But Dr. Seuss was being ironic.

Mr. President, I dare you to tell my daughters I’m not their mother.

Ruse’s quibble aptly reveals how little substance this argument has. No one is telling her she’s not her children’s mother. Likewise, lesbian moms are mothers too. The reason for the change is to recognize that not all families are alike, and thus should not face discrimination when simply filling out a form because it has gendered language.

The argument mirrors the rhetorical question asked by 11-year-old Grace Evans during a Minnesota House committee hearing: “Which parent do I not need, my mom or my dad?” This ruse ignores that children of same-sex couples could ask the very same question. For example, Eagle Scout and LGBT ally Zach Wahls could easily ask, “Which of my moms do I not need?” and thus highlight that marriage equality has nothing to do with taking a parent away.

Perhaps Ruse is Parent 1 some days and Parent 2 other days. She has the freedom to be whatever kind of parent she wants to be to her children, including a mother that hyper-conforms to gender norms. What guarantees that privilege is the protections she and her family have because she is legally recognized as one of her children’s parents — the same protections that same-sex couples are seeking for their families through marriage equality. If Ruse has been relying on the federal government to inform her of her gender and parenting role, perhaps she should simply take her kids’ word for it when they call her, “Mommy!”

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Bob Morrison published a new blog post today posing the question, “Are Peter, Paul, and Mary Bigots, Too?,” referring to the folk trio. His entire argument is based on the song lyrics to “The Wedding Song,” which Paul Stookey wrote for Peter Yarrow’s wedding, which refer to a “man and wife”:

It’s an amazing song that must have been played at a million weddings since those halcyon days when this folk rock phenomenon hit the pop music scene. It’s wonderful just to consider the lyrics. “What shall be the meaning of becoming man and wife?” [...]

Question for the left: Are Peter, Paul, and Mary bigots, too? Is the mere fact that they knew what marriage was for fifty years enough to brand them as hate-filled?

The simple answer is no, Peter, Paul, and Mary are not bigots. And the best explanation for this is that they have always supported LGBT equality. Though Mary has passed away, Peter and Paul made this very clear to the National Organization for Marriage in 2010 when it used a recording of them singing Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” at an anti-gay rally. Not only did Peter Yarrow describe the use of the song “heartbreaking,” but he and Paul Stookey wrote to NOM explaining that they were full supporters of marriage equality and have been “for decades”:

We would like to respectfully request that you refrain from playing the Peter, Paul, & Mary recorded version of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” at your public rallies. We respect your right to hold and advocate for any position you wish, but the philosophy of the “National Organization for Marriage” is directly contrary to the advocacy position Peter, Paul, & Mary have held for decades, and so we do not want our recording of this song played at your rallies.

We strongly support the rights of all gays and lesbian to enjoy the rights and rituals of marriage that are enjoyed by their straight counterparts, and consider the abridgement of this right contrary to the sense of equal protection and fairness inherent in, and implied by, the law of the Constitution of the United States.

If Morrison’s best argument in the fight over same-sex marriage is to assume musicians’ positions based on their lyrics, perhaps he should read all of the lyrics. “The Wedding Song” is often subtitled “There Is Love,” because that is the lyric that recurs the most throughout. Just because the song was written for a specific marriage that happened to be for a “man and wife” doesn’t mean that’s its most important message. Indeed, when any two “shall travel on to where the two shall be as one,” there is love, and Stookey and Yarrow don’t seem to have any doubts about that.

Listen to the classic tune:

At the end of every week, the National Organization for Marriage’s president, Brian Brown, sends out a weekly newsletter summing up the week’s events. Though many thought last week was a rough week because of the Boston Marathon bombings and West, Texas explosion, it was this week that Brown described as “a tough week” because of the many victories for marriage equality. This week’s letter remarkably crams most of NOM’s talking points all into one post, so here is a reminder of NOM’s various claims about the consequences of same-sex couples marrying:

Marriage Equality Discriminates Against Christians (Because They Want To Discriminate)

NOM is still upset that Rhode Island passed marriage equality this week. Rather than repeat his own claim that same-sex marriage is worse than divorce or death, Brown emphasized that marriage equality “redefines marriage for all people” by imposing upon Christian businesses who don’t wish to serve same-sex couples. Earlier this week, NOM admitted its desire to blatantly “refuse service” to gays and lesbians.

Marriage Equality Harms Children

As always, NOM ignores that many same-sex couples are already raising children, so Brown instead claims that “the rights of adults to marry any person they love trump a child’s right to a loving mom and dad.” He once again obsessed over a New York middle school that taught students about the diversity within the LGBT community, as if learning about the world was somehow harmful.

NOM Effectively Targets Republicans Who Support Marriage Equality

Referencing how the Republicans in the Rhode Island Senate unanimously supported marriage equality, Brown committed to challenging their re-election, boasting NOM’s success doing that in New York. The only problem is that NOM was only successful at flipping one of the four seats they challenged in New York; two of them were lost to Democrats because of NOM’s too-conservative primary challengers.

Being Gay Is A “Preference”

With the exception of Jennifer Roback Morse, NOM generally tries to avoid openly endorsing ex-gay therapy, but it finds subtle ways to condone the harmful practice. Brown used the email to champion Rhode Island Sen. Harold Metts (D), who offered a 12-minute religious condemnation of homosexuality during Wednesday’s floor debate. Among his claims, as quoted in NOM’s newsletter: “I can change my sexual preference tonight if I want to, but I can’t change my color.”

Read more

Last summer, the anti-gay Family Research Council was targeted by a shooter, who fortunately only managed to non-critically injure one brave security guard, who apprehended him before he could harm anyone else. Since then, FRC has used the shooting to campaign against the label of “hate group,” specifically blaming the Southern Poverty Law Center for somehow inciting the shooter by applying that label to various anti-gay groups. The SPLC dismissed these accusations as “outrageous.” In February, Tony Perkins specifically claimed that the SPLC provided a “license” for the shooting, calling the civil rights group “a source for those bent on committing acts of violence.” This week, FRC offered what it considers to be proof of these claims.

The shooter, Floyd Corkins II of Virginia, pleaded guilty in February to three charges, including committing an act of terrorism while armed. This week prosecutors recommended a 45-year prison sentence. FRC has now released a short clip of federal investigators questioning Corkins, in which he admits he saw the group listed on the SPLC website:

CORKINS: It was — Southern Poverty Law… lists anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.

Watch it:

The video of Corkins’ interrogation proves only one thing: the Family Research Council is anti-gay. This is a true fact regardless of whether the SPLC posts a list of anti-gay groups or not, and certainly there are plenty of other websites (including this one) that describe FRC as anti-gay.

Violent crime is wrong, and nobody on any side of the LGBT equality debate condones Corkins’ actions. By trying to blame an organization for inciting violence, FRC is simply trying to divert attention from its daily anti-gay rants and hateful reputation.

In an email sent to supporters before Thursday night’s manhunt began in Massachusetts, the Family Research Council attempted to appropriate recent tragedies as arguments that support their social conservative positions. Referring to the Republicans’ Senate filibuster of the gun safety bill, FRC’s Tony Perkins claimed that tragedies like Newtown and Boston — as well as the shooting at its headquarters last summer — are the result of “sexual liberalism” and the lack of Christian influence on society:

In the aftermath of horrible tragedies like Newtown, the government desperately wants to do something–even if that something is the wrong thing. There seems to be this notion, at least among liberals, that more laws will protect us–but as we all witnessed in Boston, that isn’t necessarily the case. The government can’t make us safer until it recognizes that the problem isn’t the instruments of violence–but the environment of it. Stronger background checks wouldn’t have prevented the deaths of three people at the finish line on Monday, any more than it would have stopped Floyd Corkins from walking into our lobby and shooting Leo Johnson.

If Congress wants to stop these tragedies, then it has to address the government’s own hostility to the institution of the family and organizations that can address the real problem: the human heart. As I’ve said before, America doesn’t need gun control, it needs self-control. And a Congress that actively discourages it–through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility–is only compounding the problem.

Of course, some will say–and I agree–that transforming the culture is the church’s job. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place at the table for Christians in the gun debate. Not only did Jesus tolerate weapons, he instructed His disciples to buy them! In Luke 22:36, we read, “He said to them… if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus did rebuke Peter for being too quick on the draw (John 18:11), recognizing that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal-but spiritual.

Perkins’ endorsement of weapons and retaliation seems to be doing much more to contribute to an environment of violence than same-sex couples raising families or women making decisions about their own bodies.