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.

Tony Perkins speaking at a Republican Leadership Conference (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.)

The Family Research Council (FRC) is not waiting to see if the Republican National Committee approves a resolution condemning same-sex marriage today. Echoing its threat with other anti-gay groups to leave the GOP, FRC told its supporters on Thursday to stop giving money to any Republican national organization:

Until the RNC and the other national Republican organizations grow a backbone and start defending core principles, don’t give them a dime of your hard-earned money. If you want to invest in the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who reflect your values and organizations you trust–like FRC Action. At least then you can relax, knowing that your money will be spent advancing faith, family, and freedom!

Contrary to what almost every national poll has shown for the past three years, FRC’s head Tony Perkins believes there’s an “entire group” of young people prepared to oppose marriage equality. He cited the token young people who spoke at the National Organization for Marriage march last month, many of whom were profiled in various puff pieces the week before. All those who spoke or were profiled are individuals who profit from their anti-gay advocacy and are hardly representative of young people, who overwhelmingly support marriage equality.

As RightWingWatch points out, this is not the first (or second) time FRC has urged supporters not to support the GOP. Perhaps this, more than anything, is an indication of how little the GOP has to gain by catering to out-of-touch social conservatives.

Barronelle Stutzman

The state of Washington has recently filed suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, for refusing to sell flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding last month. Even though they had been regular customers, she explained that she could not because of her “relationships with Jesus Christ.” That couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, are now threatening their own suit with support form the ACLU, but they have offered Stutzman a compromise to avoid the suit. Here are the conditions the couple’s lawyers provided to the discriminating florist:

• You agree not to refuse to provide flowers and other goods and services to any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.
• You agree to write a letter of apology to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll to be published in the Tri-City Herald.
• You agree to donate $5,000 to the Vista Youth Center, in lieu of payment of attorneys’ fees.

The Vista Youth Center provides social services to LGBT youth in the area with a goal of reducing bullying and harassment while promoting leadership development.

The lawyers’ letter also details the harm the couple has experienced as well as the history of attempting to justify discrimination with religious beliefs:

Your refusal to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding has hurt them very deeply. It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years. Your rejection is especially painful to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll because they felt they had a meaningful relationship with you and Arlene’s Flowers. More to the point of this letter, your conduct was a violation of Washington law. [...]

You told Mr. Ingersoll that you would not sell flowers for his and Mr. Freed’s wedding because of your religious beliefs. We respect your beliefs and your right to religious freedom. However, we live in a diverse country, and religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, may not be used to justify discrimination in the public spheres of commerce and governance. Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. Religious beliefs have been invoked to justify denying women the right to vote; to prohibit men and women of different races from getting married; and to support segregation in schools, businesses, and other public places. Just as courts have held that those forms of discrimination are not permitted, even on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs, so is discrimination based on sexual orientation unlawful.

Stutzman could face a $2,000 fine from the attorney general’s suit in addition to the couple’s complaint. According to her lawyers’ response to the state’s suit, she intends to fight and her legal team has already reached out to “a number of national non-profit organizations that are ready for the fight.” Indeed, the Family Research Council expressed its support for Stutzman, claiming that “religious hostility is in full bloom.” Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, FRC’s state affiliate, opined that “liberty is at stake for all of us,” encouraging supporters, “Don’t ignore the bully just because he hasn’t punched you in the mouth yet.” Neither group expressed concern for Ingersoll and Freed’s liberty.

Dave Agema and his wife, Barb

Michigan-based Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema is offering no apologies for his Facebook posts claiming that homosexuality is rife with health consequences and “usually leads to early death.” Instead, he doubled down on them in a conversation with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins during his radio show Wednesday. In addition to reiterating that homosexuality is a chosen “lifestyle” comparable to alcoholism, Agema went on to claim that schools are actually going to turn kids gay:

AGEMA: First of all, what will happen to your school kids when they are in school. It’s already being taught in a lot of places that it is an accepted lifestyle. Then the next thing that will occur is your kids will come home and say, “I think this is a good thing and I think I want to be one,” and if you as a parent stand up and say, “You know what, this is against my moral beliefs and my biblical beliefs,” then the next thing you’re going to get into is hate crimes because you’re speaking against something that’s been sanctioned by the state. If you look at Denmark and others then the state also tells the churches you have to marry homosexuals and if you don’t what may happen in the United States is you might lose your tax exempt status.

So this all blew up and so I made a web page here listing several other studies that show the harmful effects of the homosexual lifestyle. Just imagine this, if our kids are in school instead of being told that this is an acceptable and OK lifestyle we are actually briefed and taught the ramifications of this lifestyle, that you’re going to live twenty years less than the average person, you are going to die younger and here’s all the diseases you’re going to contract, there’d be a totally different philosophy here instead of basically telling the kids that this is good. So I think we got to go into this with our eyes wide open and what the 2 or 3 percent of homosexuals what they are doing in the United States today is trying to get the courts to do what they can’t get the individual states to do, and that’s dictate that all states will accept homosexual marriage.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Perkins agreed with all of Agema’s points — notably because the Family Research Council promotes the same ideas — calling them “documented facts” that a person should be able to share without being “a bigot or a hater.”

As Harvey Milk joked when he was fighting the Briggs Initiative in 1978, “If teachers are going to affect you as role models, there’d be a lot of nuns running around the streets today”:

Jeremy Hooper noticed that the Family Research Council has revamped its webpage. Among the new resources is a succinct description of the hate group’s beliefs about homosexuality:

Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.

While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools.

Attempts to join two men or two women in “marriage” constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures.

Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.

FRC believes homosexuality is harmful, a choice, a second-class status, should be discriminated against, and should be shamed through ex-gay therapy.

In contrast, science has determined that homosexuality is not inherently unhealthy nor is it a choice; stigma has physical health and mental health consequences for gays and lesbians that equality counteracts; children and families benefit from same-sex marriage; and ex-gay therapy is ineffective and harmful. Despite Tony Perkins’ claims that FRC’s mission is simply “advancing faith, family and freedom,” it’s hard to interpret its position on homosexuality as anything but a campaign of anti-gay animus.

Marriage is somehow keeping this man committed to his fun-loving wife so he doesn't get some young girl pregnant.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments about Proposition 8, Justice Elena Kagan challenged attorney Charles Cooper about his claims that procreation is the purpose of marriage. She inquired whether a couple over the age of 55 should be allowed to marry since they could no longer produce a child. Cooper attempted to counter with the absurd argument from his reply brief that men are still fertile and that prevents them from cheating with younger women. Since he didn’t get to fully articulate his point, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg is happy to help him out:

Perhaps Cooper was wary of appearing sexist to Justice Kagan if he stated the truth more bluntly—55-year-old women are virtually always infertile, but 55-year-old men are not. As frustrating as it may be to some feminists, there are some sex differences which cannot be overcome. (Justice Antonin Scalia tried to save Cooper with a joke about Strom Thurmond, the late U.S. Senator who continued to father children well into his 70’s, but it seemed to go over the audience’s heads.)

Society’s interest in promoting “responsible procreation”—the term most commonly used in defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman—involves not just promoting procreation itself, and promoting it in a responsible context (i.e., where the mother and father who make a child are both committed to the child and to each other through marriage). “Responsible procreation” also implies an effort to discourage irresponsible procreation—a quite plausible example of which might be a 55-year-old man going around impregnating fertile women (presumably younger than himself) who are not his wife.

Sprigg does not share Cooper’s concern about appearing sexist. Apparently, the fertility of the marriage is only defined by whether the man can still produce sperm. It also doesn’t seem to matter if women cheat or if men cheat with older women, because cheating only seems to be a problem if it results in “irresponsible procreation.” It’s unclear what the stakes are if the man is sterile, and presumably a vasectomy would immediately nullify a marriage license.

Obviously this is all nonsense, but this is the corner conservatives have painted themselves into in an attempt to avoid sounding like they’re anti-gay. By turning against heterosexuals instead, they prove that these arguments have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Whether marriage is about children, monogamy, or simply reinforcing sexist gender norms, none of these points explains why same-sex couples shouldn’t have equal access to it.