Conservative groups that claim to support families are outraged today that Target has begun selling a series of t-shirts supporting National Pride Month, featuring rainbow designs and messages like, “Love is love,” “Pride,” and “Harmony.” Target has pledged that 100 percent of sales (up to $120,000) will go to benefit the Family Equality Council, which advocates for same-sex couples and their families. But Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council conveniently missed the memo about who Target is supporting, despite the fact it’s on the store’s website and in all other news reports about the special offer:

PERKINS: Target’s slogan is “expect more.” And when it comes to their politics, Americans do. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. One of America’s biggest companies isn’t just named Target–it’s becoming one. Starting May 20, the mega-chain’s introducing a new line of same-sex “marriage” merchandise that says, “Love is love.” Target promises to donate 100% of the profits to a national homosexual group–but they don’t specify which one. Retail analyst Britt Beemer says that Target’s strategy isn’t “very smart,” especially in conservative states, where it does the biggest business. “Anytime a retailer gets away from doing what they should be doing by being involved in a social cause, [they] lose.” The company said it wanted to “resonate beyond fashion.” But if they’re looking to resonate with Americans, they ought to try defending marriage. According to voters, the country’s still very opposed to redefining it. Let Target know that its agenda isn’t your style. Log on to target.com, scroll down, and click “Contact Us.”

It seems odd that Perkins is the only person who doesn’t know what organization Target is supporting, but perhaps he simply doesn’t wish to explain why the Family Research Council is at odds with the Family Equality Council. It’s also probably not “very smart” to attack a store for making a business decision in which they are not actually trying to make money. Besides, despite whatever Perkins might spin about state ballot initiatives, polling continues to show that a majority of Americans support marriage equality.

The American Family Association is also angry at Target, but at least Tim Wildmon acknowledged that the store “purposely” chose to “offend” him by “donating cash to support the Family Equality Council’s push for legalizing homosexual marriage.” Given that AFA claims there is a “War on Christmas” because department stores do not feature enough Christmas messaging in December, this new campaign of theirs is arguably a “War on Gays.”

Target faced a large backlash in 2010 when it gave $150,000 to support anti-gay Republican Tom Emmer for governor of Minnesota. Last year, court documents revealed that Target executives have previously expressed concern that they might be perceive as supporting same-sex marriage. The Minnesota-based company has remained neutral on a proposed marriage inequality amendment on the ballot in November.

Illinois Sen. Kyle McCarter (R)

The state of Illinois already enumerates bullying protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but a new bill, HB 5290, would strengthen the laws to require that all schools maintain a bullying prevention policy. Such a policy would publicly define bullying for each district, lay out procedures for reporting and investigating incidents, and implement trainings, services, and interventions to help promote a positive climate. But this week, the Illinois Senate rejected the bill, heeding concerns from a local hate group that the bill was too pro-gay.

Sen. Kyle McCarter (R) appears to be the leading opponent of the bill, but his talking points parrot the Illinois Family Institute, a fringe spin-off of the American Family Association that has been declared an anti-gay hate group in its own right. McCarter and the IFI insist that the bill should include an “opt-out” provision for any students who don’t want their anti-gay religious beliefs challenged with basic knowledge about the nature of sexual orientation:

MCCARTER: There are anti-bullying programs that have an agenda, to only protect one class of individuals. Some of these programs are very good. They indeed encourage kids not to bully. But there are programs throughout the United States, used in some high schools and universities, that really have just a pro-homosexual agenda, and nothing but that.

McCarter seems to believe that this policy would be a step toward mandating programs about homosexuality, though nothing in its text lends itself to this claim. Reports even suggest that the only reason the bill has been opposed is because its chief House sponsor, Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D), is openly gay and because LGBT groups like Equality Illinois have endorsed it. HB 5290 is a simple opportunity to make sure schools actually implement anti-bullying efforts, but conservatives like McCarter seem overly concerned that young people might actually learn that gay kids deserve to be treated with respect.

Though the measure failed by one vote on Tuesday, it could still pass if called for another vote in the coming week. Twelve senators voted “present” and some supporters were absent, so the bill is not dead yet.

The Christian Broadcasting Network covered the bill, featuring a comment from the IFI’s Laurie Higgins calling the proposed interventions “indoctrination sessions on homosexuality”:

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.

RightWingWatch has uncovered a clip of Mitt Romney speaking at an event known as “Liberty Sunday” in 2006 alongside anti-gay hate group leaders like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and James Dobson, formerly of Focus on the Family. In his speech, Romney attacked the Massachusetts Supreme Court for its marriage equality decision, warning that there would be severe consequences for children:

ROMNEY: Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization: the family. They ruled that our Constitution requires people of the same gender to marry. I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. They said that if heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual couples have to also be able to marry to have equal rights. But what they ignored is that marriage is not primarily about adults; marriage is about the nurturing and development of children.

A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Of course, the principle burden of this court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults; it falls on children. We’re asked to change the state birth certificate to prevent heterocentricity — “mother” and “father” will become “Parent A” and “Parent B.” An elementary school teacher reads to her second-graders from a book titled “The King and the King” [sic] about a prince who marries a prince. And a second-grader’s father is denied the right to have his daughter taken out of that classroom while the book is being read.[...]

The price of same-sex marriage is paid by the children. Our fight for marriage then should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults.

Romney then endorsed a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Watch it:

The clip is telling for how blithely Romney condemned same-sex couples and propagated conservatives’ fear-mongering talking points about children before embarking on the presidential campaign trail. Of course, he’s wrong that children are somehow better off with “a mother and a father”— studies have consistently shown that the kids of same-sex couples are just as well-adjusted. Ironically, all of the points Romney made refer to adult privileges, not child protections: the expectations that archaic gender roles be celebrated, that the Catholic Church has free reign to discriminate, and that parents have the right to deprive their children of inclusive educations.

The “nurturing and development of children” is exactly why marriage equality is important to same-sex couples. Their families deserve the same protections and security as all other families. They are a part of schools and communities across this nation and cannot be erased or hidden from view simply because Romney doesn’t want kids to know they exist.

Few elected Republicans have been willing to go on the record this week about President Obama’s support for marriage equality, which has created an opening for religious conservatives to speak out to media news outlets. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, has made numerous appearances, including at least three on CNN over the past few days. GLAAD’s Herndon Graddick took CNN to task for ignoring the vitriol Perkins stands for as the leader of an anti-gay hate group:

But when Perkins gets interviewed, a responsible journalist needs to tell the audience exactly who Perkins is speaking for. Based on his own statements — Tony Perkins represents people who believe supporting LGBT equality is akin to being a terrorist. Who believe marriage equality is the same as bestiality. Who say that gay people are “vile,” “hateful,” “spiteful” “pawns of the enemy.” Tony Perkins does not represent people who oppose marriage equality. Tony Perkins represents those who oppose LGBT people — period.

If CNN wants that side represented in this discussion, then Perkins is absolutely the right man for the job. But they need to make it clear to the audience that that’s what he’s there for. And by not doing so, they have not told the whole story.

GLAAD created the Commentator Accountability Project for exactly this reason, to make sure that anti-gay voices are properly identified and contextualized when they’re amplified by the media. After several appearances in which Perkins’ views went unchallenged, he finally faced his comeuppance in an appearance on MSNBC’s Harball yesterday evening. Both Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and host Christ Matthews took Perkins to task for teaching his children that being gay is wrong and for preventing children in need from being adopted by same-sex couples. Watch it:

An anonymous group in Grand Rapids, Michigan is distributing flyers depicting President Obama as a white man with a black mask and a Nazi swastika. “The Holocaust is coming,” the flyers read, “Hitler’s Nazi Germany has been revived in the U.S. and the target is Americans.” Voters are referred “referred to a website to sign a petition that espouses tea party ideas and urges people to support Ron Paul”:

The flyer spouts the idea that there are military checkpoints throughout the country and that it “is legal to assassinate Americans.”

“Obama’s health care bill is not a health care bill, instead it’s a total government takeover of every area of life (read the fine print) like gun confiscation, euthanasia and so on (euthanizing the poor, the elderly, the ill, those who’ve maxed out their health insurance and so on) there are no jobs and everyone will eventually be poor,” the card states. [...]

The literature offers no clue on who authored and distributed it. The image of Obama on the front comes from the two-hour political documentary “The Obama Deception.” The film from Alex Jones claims Obama has been installed by powerful families to act against the interests of the people.

Tea Party activists have long depicted Obama as a Nazi, and a Catholic Bishop recently claimed that Obama is following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler. The view is even echoed by mainstream Republicans like Newt Gingrich. In his 2010 book To Save America, Gingrich argued repeatedly that the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress are a “secular-socialist machine” that “represent as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.”

Bryan Fischer, voice of the AFA

The American Family Association’s chief spokesperson, Bryan Fischer, is outraged that Mitt Romney hired Richard Grenell as his campaign’s national security spokesman. It’s not because of Grenell’s various offensive tweets, but simply because he is gay. Describing Romney’s choice as a “poke in the eye to the pro-family community,” Fischer chides the presumptive candidate for suggesting that homosexual behavior is healthy, not harmful as the AFA regularly claims. To compensate for this misstep, Fischer offers six anti-LGBT steps to help Romney “start pandering in a big, fat hurry”:

1. Publicly support the North Carolina marriage amendment.
2. Commit to a vigorous defense and implementation of DOMA.
3. Revoke federal spousal benefits for domestic partners of homosexuals.
4. Support reinstatement of the ban on homosexual conduct in the military.
5. Support right of chaplains to teach biblical view of homosexuality.
6. Publicly pledge to veto ENDA.

This encapsulated anti-gay, anti-trans agenda is particularly revealing. Fischer wants the odds to be stacked as much as possible against LGBT people in terms of their relationships, their right to serve their country, and their rights to employment. It’s a naked admission that social conservatives intend to discriminate. It seems doubtful Romney will walk back his support of maintaining the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or draw focus to any other social issues as he seeks to pick up moderates in his general election campaign. Nevertheless, Fischer has drawn a line in the sand for social conservatives’ expectations, which could create a challenging balancing act for Romney.

It’s unclear whether Mike and Ike are a married gay couple or merely business partners, but for now, they have split up, opting to pursue competing interests. The candy bearing their names has launched an ad campaign about the fictional invisible characters’ breakup, with Mike pursuing a career in music and Ike pursuing one in art. The Huffington Post chimed in that the two are heading for a “gay divorce” (language so far not found anywhere in the ad campaign), and now the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is very concerned about the “fruity pair” and their “sexualizing candy”:

PERKINS: These days, you can’t get a sugar high without experiencing a cultural low. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. There’s trouble in candy land. After more than 70 years together, Mike & Ike are calling it quits. The duo is staging a gay divorce as part of a new ad campaign to draw in younger customers. In this society, even candy has an agenda! From Facebook to Tumblr, the fruity pair says, “The rumors are true. We just couldn’t agree on stuff anymore.” Starting this summer, the company will spend $15 million on billboards and TV commercials that poke fun at the breakup. It’s just another subtle example of society chipping away at the value of marriage. And I don’t know what’s more disturbing–that advertisers think divorce appeals to kids or that sexualizing candy will make people buy more. After a year-long build-up, the company will reveal if the couple reconciles. Until then, look for Mike & Ike to have a distinctly liberal flavor.

Listen to it (via Right Wing Watch):

Perkins’ overreaction is humorous, but also telling. This silly anecdote speaks to two important tactics that conservatives employ. First, they promote the idea that any portrayal of characters that are gay is negative and “sexual.” Plenty of fictional opposite-sex couples have clearly been in romantic relationships for decades (Mickey and Minnie, Kermit and Miss Piggy, etc.), but no one is concerned that they are somehow “sexualizing” children. Secondly, Perkins insinuates that anything gay is “liberal,” which is far from the truth. Sexual diversity cuts across all races, religions, and political ideologies, regardless of how hate group leaders like Perkins try to relegate the LGBT community into some uniform “cultural low” category.

Last summer, Bradlee Dean of the You Can Run But You Cannot Hide Ministry — which was recently designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center — filed a $50 million lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, claiming she had distorted comments he made suggesting Muslims are more moral than Christians for supporting the execution of homosexuals. (It should be noted that though no suit was filed, Dean recently expressed similar legal concern about ThinkProgress’ reporting on the suit, as described in an update on that post.) Now, Maddow has sought a swift dismissal of the claim under anti-SLAPP protections, which ensure that frivolous suits do not stifle free speech with the threat of mounting legal fees. MSNBC’s court response outlines three reasons Dean’s suit should fail:

1. The broadcasts truthfully reported on Dean’s May 15th statements. Those broadcasts re-played original audio of Dean speaking on the May 15th radio show. Dean does not – and cannot – allege that he did not make those controversial statements. The fact that NBCUniversal broadcast the essence but not the entirety of what Dean said during that radio show, as he now protests, does not change this analysis. Dean bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his words, however much he may try to distance himself from the backlash.

2. The commentary or rebuke Maddow offered about Dean’s statements was classic opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, and thus, cannot be actionable as a matter of law. As Dean is entitled to his opinions, however objectionable, so too is Maddow entitled to hers.

3. The fair comment privilege protects Maddow’s commentary. The broadcasts featured Dean’s actual statements and clearly indicated the source of those statements. Viewers were free to make up their own minds as to whether they agreed with Maddow’s remarks.

The response goes on to explain that the judicial process does not permit Dean to use lawsuits as part of his mission to stop the “radical gay agenda.” Though Dean has backed away from the comments and explained he in no way endorses the execution of homosexuals, he has nevertheless repeatedly called for gay people to be persecuted and incarcerated because he believes they are somehow a threat to children. He may not wish to be known for supporting the execution of gays, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem with supporting their life imprisonment.

PAL recommends various books condemning comprehensive sex education.

The Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota is in the process of overhauling its bullying policies after a Department of Justice investigation found that it had allowed anti-LGBT harassment to persist. Despite the model plan the district has agreed to implement, it still faces the demands made by the newly anointed conservative hate group the Parents Action League (PAL), which has been largely responsible for influencing the school’s history of anti-LGBT policies. School Board Chairman Tom Heidemann responded to PAL this weekend, and though he did reject most of the group’s demands, he did not condemn them for their factual inaccuracy or offensive intent:

• SPECIAL RECOGNITION FOR BULLIES: PAL wanted a special set of resources and outreach created for “students of faith, moral conviction, ex-homosexuals, and ex-transgenders.” Heidemann responded that advocating religious points of view “would be a violation of state and federal laws,” but that the superintendent is “open to any invitations from classes or students groups that want to meet with him.”
• ACCESS FOR ANTI-GAY GROUPS: PAL wanted “pro-family” and ex-gay groups access to train the district’s counselors and other service personnel. While these groups often use religious-based pseudoscience to promote harmful “therapy” that does not effect change, Heidemann simply said the school board accepts “all students as they come to us” and listed the mental health specialists that counselors refer.
• QUESTION GLBT ADVOCACY: The conservatives at PAL want students to learn that being gay could be bad, and Heidemann pointed out that the staff development program included the resource Homosexuality (Opposing Viewpoints), a book that “provides many alternative points of view.”
• TEACH HOMOSEXUALITY AS A ‘DISORDER’: Perhaps Heidemann’s strongest response to PAL: “We accept all students and we do not consider them to have a disorder if they identify as gay or support their gay friends.”
• TEACH AIDS AS “GAY-RELATED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY (GRID)”: This was undoubtedly PAL’s most despicable request, and unfortunately Heidemann does not sufficiently manage the offense. He explained that because the district’s sex education curriculum is abstinence-based, “it does not focus on specific sex acts” in discussions about sexually transmitted diseases, adding that “Anoka-Hennepin health classes address homosexuality.” PAL’s obvious anti-gay animus remains unaddressed.

The Star Tribune has provided a full copy of Heidemann’s response. While it is promising that the school is finally showing its capacity to withstand PAL’s influence, Heidemann’s reluctance to defend gay students and object to PAL’s smears suggests the process of creating an LGBT-welcoming environment in the district will be a slow one.