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.

There’s a polished new guide to opposing marriage equality released by a coalition of anti-gay organizations, whose partnership alone is notable: the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, and Heritage Foundation. The entire argument put forth by the booklet is that marriage benefits children, citing only the thoroughly debunked Regnerus study to suggest same-sex parents should not be allowed to have children:

All people are capable of loving children, but all the love in the world can’t turn a mother into a father or a father into a mother. A child needs a mom and a dad. Children do better when raised by their married mom and dad, and decades of social science evidence show this. We shouldn’t place the desires of adults over the needs of children.

The latest and most comprehensive research continues to confirm what social science has shown for decades: children do better when raised by a married mother and father. The New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas–Austin and a report based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal Demography supported this idea. Still, the social science on same-sex parenting is a matter of significant ongoing debate, and we shouldn’t let it dictate our choices about marriage.

The Demography report cited here attempted to apply the same faulty methodology from the Regnerus study to research that actually showed that children of same-sex parents perform as well academically as children from other families.

The document is set up in a “Frequently Asked Questions” format, but one question is notably missing: “What about the millions of children already being raised by same-sex couples who would benefit from the legal protections of marriage?” Instead, these groups make their arguments as if these families simply don’t exist — they have to, because they have no answer to the question.

Negative reactions continue to pour in about Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) decision to endorse same-sex marriage, having changed his opinion because his son, Will, is gay. In addition to Bryan Fischer’s claim that being gay is comparable to robbing a bank and CPAC attendees’ claims that the golden rule doesn’t apply to homosexuality, several other groups and individuals have specifically targeted Will in their responses to his father’s new position. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins applauded Portman’s love for his son, but condemned Will’s “choices,” which are “harmful” both to him and to “society as a whole”:

PERKINS: I commend Senator Portman for his unconditional love for his son.  Regardless of a child’s choices, the love of a parent can and should be a guiding beacon in the lives of their sons and daughters.  Unconditional love, however, does not mean unconditional support in choices that are both harmful to them and society as a whole.  This is especially true when we approach public policy.  Our unconditional love for our children should not override the historical and social science evidence which makes abundantly clear what is best for all children and for society – being raised by a married mother and father.

Conservative Baptist minister William Murray went even further in a statement released through his Government Is Not God PAC, calling on Portman to subject Will to ex-gay therapy before he dies from AIDS:

Portman has conveniently ignored the warnings against the sin of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments – and is accepting a behavior that may eventually kill his son from AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, or oral cancer. [...]

What sort of core values motivate a U.S. Senator to change his mind about a sexually destructive behavior simply because his son is involved in it? What will happen to Rob Portman’s belief system when he discovers that his son is infected with HIV or throat cancer?

A person with a same-sex attraction has a treatable condition. No one is “born gay” and there is hope for those who want to overcome these destructive behaviors.

In his original statement, Portman admirably noted that his son’s sexual orientation was not a choice.

Read more

As Chick-fil-A’s corporate foundation came under heavy criticism last year for its long record of anti-LGBT behavior, the company attempted to distance itself from its political record, claiming it intedend “to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

But despite suggestions by some that the company’s WinShape Foundation had already scaled back its anti-LGBT giving before that point, its newly released annual IRS filings for 2011 indicate nothing of the sort.

Most of the WinShape’s anti-LGBT giving in previous years went to groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation ($1,188,380 in 2010), the Fellowship Of Christian Athletes ($480,000 in 2010), and the National Christian Foundation ($247,500). Additionally, the group made small donations to the “ex-gay” group Exodus International ($1,000) and the hate group Family Research Council ($1,000).

In 2011, the group actually gave even more to anti-LGBT causes. Its contribution to the Marriage & Family Foundation jumped to $2,896,438 and it gave the same amount to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and National Christian Foundation as it had in 2010. In total, the anti-LGBT spending exceeded $3.6 million — almost double the $1.9 million from the year before.

While the group gave nothing directly to Exodus International or FRC, a large amount of Chick-fil-A/WinShape money still made its way to those groups. The National Christian Foundation (aka the National Christian Charitable Foundation) gave $4,100 to Exodus International and a stunning $1,260,040 to FRC. This was possible, in part, because of the $247,500 it received directly from WinShape and because the WinShape-backed Marriage & Family Foundation also transferred $870,834 to the group — the self-described “largest Christian grant-making foundation in the world.”

In essence, Chick-fil-A’s “charitable” contributions in 2011 were no less hateful than in 2010 — just less transparent.

Today, the Family Research Council sent out a fundraising email blast full of scary rhetoric about the supposed consequences of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Though the only purpose of ENDA is to protect LGBT people from being fired solely for their identities, Tony Perkins described the bill as “dangerous” and “totalitarian” because it limits anti-gay Christians’ ability to discriminate:

ENDA–the Employment Non-Discrimination Act–is dangerous. It feeds on freedom, primarily the freedom of religion and speech: not in theory, but on a practical, everyday level. It leaves few freedoms behind.

Yes, the bill has a fair-sounding name, but in fact, ENDA would give special rights to men and women who engage in homosexual behavior. It will force Christian schools and colleges, Christian-owned businesses, day care centers, and other organizations to employ people who make their sexual behavior an issue as they parade their proclivities into the workplace. [...]

Certainly to you and me, the very idea of ENDA–giving special rights and protections to people based solely on their sexual behavior–is outrageous. But to this pro-homosexual President and the totalitarian homosexual lobby, it’s a reasonable way to advance their cause–and crush the biblical view that stands in their way of fundamentally transforming America. ENDA is massive leap forward in redefining America.

Apparently, in Perkins’s America, simply having a job is a “special right,” and not one that LGBT people deserve. People can be legally fired for their sexual orientation in 29 states and their gender identity in 34, and Perkins wants to keep it that way. Such cruelty and willful discrimination continues to add to the already extensive trove of evidence substantiating FRC’s designation as a hate group.

As always, the tactic of conservatives is to attempt to erase the complete identity of LGBT people, reducing them to people who engage in sinful behavior. Regardless of how FRC distorts reality, LGBT people are raising families and participating in their communities all across this country, and they deserve the most basic protections to their well-being.

Today the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has been hearing testimony regarding Senate Bill 449, the Fairness for All Marylanders Act, which would finally add gender identity to the state’s nondiscrimination protections. Unfortunately, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg was on hand to testify his belief that transgender people have a “disconnect with reality” and need counseling, not protection under the law:

SPRIGG: A person who believes they are, or wishes to be, the opposite sex from that which is written in the chromosomes of every cell of his or her body, is suffering from a disconnection with an immutable biological reality. The solution to this problem is not actions – up to and including self-mutilating surgery amputating healthy body parts – which will reinforce this disconnect with reality. The solution is compassionate counseling aimed at helping the individual to uncover the psychological roots of their gender identity problems, and to become comfortable with one’s actual biological sex.

I understand the motivation behind this bill – the sponsors are concerned about the pain in the lives of these individuals, and hope that this intervention will ease that pain.

While I share that motivation, I must oppose this bill because it will not work. This bill would force the state and private actors – employers, landlords, and others who provide public services – to officially and legally affirm the very delusion that puts these suffering individuals at odds with reality. Not only will it not make their lives better, but it will prevent them from getting the very help they do need to make their lives better.

Sprigg is making two very offensive points here; not only is he claiming that trans people are “suffering” from a mental illness, but he’s also saying that they deserve to be discriminated against as a result. Leave aside the fact that the psychology professionals recommend affirming trans people in their gender identity, FRC wants it to be legal to fire, deny housing, and deny basic services to transgender people, who are already quite vulnerable to such discrimination. Sprigg has previously called for criminal sanctions against homosexuality and the exportation of gays and lesbians. It’s such campaigns against basic humanity that warrant FRC’s designation as a “hate group.” (HT: Joe.My.God.)

Earlier today, Floyd Lee Corkins pleaded guilty to several counts relating to when he opened fire at the Family Research Council, injuring a guard before he was subdued. FRC’s Tony Perkins used that news to reiterate his belief that by labeling groups like his as “hate groups,” the Southern Poverty Law Center gave Corkins a “license” for violence:

PERKINS: The day after Floyd Corkins came into the FRC headquarters and opened fire wounding one of our team members, I stated that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has systematically and recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree as a “hate group.”

Today both assertions were validated in court as Corkins plead guilty to multiple criminal charges, including terrorism. The Southern Poverty Law Center can no longer say that it is not a source for those bent on committing acts of violence.  Only by ending its hate-labeling practices will the SPLC send a message that it no longer wishes to be a source for those who would commit acts of violence that are only designed to intimidate and silence Christians and others who support natural marriage and traditional morality.

Once again, I call on the SPLC to put an immediate stop to its practice of labeling organizations that oppose their promotion of homosexuality. Whether the SPLC continues to demonize those who hold to biblical morality or not, the Family Research Council will remain unequivocally committed to our mission of advancing faith, family and freedom.

Perkins’ accusation is just as “outrageous” now as it was back in August. The SPLC is simply identifying “hate” as “hate.” Contrary to Perkins’ implication, hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased in 2011 despite the fact that the overall number of hate crimes declined. Of course, he never takes responsibility for the rhetoric FRC puts forth everyday, such as this morning when he reminded the world that he believes gay men are pedophiles, despite claiming to say the opposite. In September, just moments after once again painting FRC as a victim to the SPLC, Perkins then compared homosexuality to drug abuse. It’s not hard to draw a connection between that kind of hateful rhetoric and the ongoing harassment of the LGBT community, but FRC’s “mission of advancing faith, family, and freedom” is not particularly concerned with reality.

The Family Research Council, an anti-gay hate group, has filed amicus briefs in both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases before the Supreme Court. In these briefs, FRC claims that gays and lesbians do not deserve nondiscrimination protections because of their sexual orientation, but adds that even if they did, the Court could still rule against them in these cases. The group explains this by pointing out that gay people can enter opposite-sex couples, and thus laws like DOMA and Prop 8 do not discriminate specifically against gay people, just same-sex couples:

In his concurring opinion in Andersen v. King County, Justice J. M. Johnson noted that the state DOMA “does not distinguish between persons of heterosexual orientation and homosexual orientation,” and identified a recent case in which a man and a woman, both identified as “gay,” entered into a valid opposite-sex marriage. It is apparent, therefore, that the right to enter into a marriage that would be recognized under § 3 of DOMA “is not restricted to (self-identified) heterosexual couples,” but extends to all adults without regard to “their sexual orientation.”  Contrary to the understanding of the California Supreme Court,  a law that restricts marriage (or the benefits thereof) to opposite-sex couples does not, on its face, discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.  The classification in the statute is not between men and women, or between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but between opposite-sex (married) couples and same-sex (married) couples.

FRC could have used the same argument in 1967 to defend bans on interracial marriage, something like, The classification in the statute is not between white people and colored people, but between same-race couples and mixed-race couples, differentiated for the purposes of racial integrity. Just as it’s clear such an argument would still be discrimination based on race, so too are DOMA and Prop 8 discrimination based on sexual orientation.

FRC relies on its own myths to support its other myths. The brief argues essentially that gay people don’t exist — that their identities are not immutable and can only be defined by behavior. Only with this narrow conception of the lives of gay people would any of these arguments hold up, and fortunately reality modern-day reality does not allow for such naivete.

It’s worth noting that RightWingWatch also noticed a stunning contradiction in FRC’s briefs. In an attempt to dissuade the Court from recognizing sexual orientation as a suspect class (like race and gender), FRC argues in the DOMA brief that gays are a powerful group, particularly given the victories for marriage equality in the November 2012 elections. However, in the Prop 8 brief, FRC argues the opposite: since 30 states have banned same-sex marriage, there is no “emerging awareness” that the right to marry extends to same-sex couples. In other words, FRC’s version of “truth” is whichever spin supports its argument against equality.

Bryan Fischer, voice of the AFA.

Conservatives did not take kindly to Monday’s news that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) will consider lifting its national ban on gay scouts and scout leaders next week. Unsurprisingly, they immediately began drawing correlations between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins called the potential move “devastating” and suggested it would undercut the “well-being of the Scouts.” The Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber ranted on Twitter that “No caring father will leave his son in the Boy Scouts if they cave on perversion.” And outdoing his peers at the other anti-gay hate groups, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer penned a lengthy screed claiming that Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State University football coach convicted of child molestation, is “the new poster boy for Scouting“:

If the Scouts do not reverse themselves, we will soon be reading the kind of horror stories about Scouting that we have read about in the Catholic Church. Homosexual pedophiles already seek to infiltrate scouting because it provides a target rich environment for their twisted desires. Abolishing the sexual orientation standard will turn every Boy Scout in America into vulnerable prey for the sexually deviant.

And while the Church had resources that enabled it to weather the storm, the Scouts do not. The Scouts as an organization will wither and die, winding up as a dessicated shell of its former self if it exists at all.

There are three serious flaws with this argument. First, and most importantly, there is absolutely nothing that links a same-sex orientation to the disorder of pedophilia. And because sexual orientation is such an unreliable predictor for pedophilia, the BSA has significantly struggled to protect scouts from sexual abuse even with a ban on openly gay scout leaders, so if that’s its purpose, it’s not working anyway. Lastly, this argument only addresses the policy’s impact on gay male scout leaders; lesbian women like Jen Tyrrell who support the organization and the many scouts who may be coming out don’t factor in at all.

News stories like this reveal the raw candor of what those who oppose LGBT equality actually believe. Perkins, Barber, Fischer, and others are all servants to decades-old defamatory myths that bear no reflection on reality.