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.

AARP strives to serve the interests of all people over the age of 50, and that includes members of the LGBT community. The organization has a webpage dedicated to AARP Pride, with resources related to issues like marriage equality’s legal benefits, nondiscrimination protections in nursing homes, and unique health concerns like HIV. Because of AARP’s inclusiveness, the American Family Association is specifically targeting the retirement group for contributing money to the “homosexual agenda.” AFA Executive Vice President Buddy Smith offered this warning:

SMITH: When you reach the age of a person like myself and you begin to get information from the AARP saying that they will represent you and your values and standards, you’d better be careful. This group is a very, very powerful Washington lobby, and you just may be very surprised and disappointed to see those things that they are promoting and those things they are opposing.

Be very careful that you know what your fees are going for because the AARP is not on your side. If you are a Christian and believe in Biblical values, you can pretty much count on the fact that everything that you are in favor of, the AARP is opposing.

LGBT older adults face many unique challenges, especially in regards to their very economic well-being. Because of discrimination and alienation throughout their lifetime, as well as their inability to claim partner benefits like Social Security, LGBT older adults are much more likely to be living in isolation and poverty. It makes perfect sense that AARP would recognize that a segment of its constituency experiences particularly troubling circumstances and could use additional support. Conservatives, like AFA’s own Bryan Fischer, have long claimed that gay men die early because of HIV and other supposed consequences of “homosexual behavior,” so perhaps Smith thinks AARP should be a straights-only organization because he believes it already is.

If AARP is supporting the “homosexual agenda,” then that agenda is merely survival.

In many of the states that have waged marriage equality fights recently, opponents have often coalesced around a coalition consisting of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the state’s Catholic conference, and the state’s “family policy council” affiliate of the Family Research Council. In Illinois, however, these typical players have not united in the same way, seemingly in part because the state social conservative group is the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a hate group in its own right associated with the American Family Association.

IFI’s rhetoric is quite a bit more brazen than what anti-gay groups have used in other states, which may have scared away its would-be allies. As a telling example, NOM posted pictures from an IFI rally last week, but didn’t mention the organization by name nor link to its own post about the rally. Otherwise, NOM’s rhetoric has mostly been limited to threats of retribution against Republicans who might support marriage equality. The Illinois Catholic Conference has issued its own materials opposing marriage equality, and Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has made his share of negative comments, but there seems to be no coordination with IFI.

Today marks three months since the Illinois Senate passed the marriage equality bill, and with only three weeks left for the House to pass it, here’s a look at some of IFI’s rhetoric that is dominating the opposition:

• Today, IFI posted numerous photos from its rally this weekend, including a sign that reads, “The crime against nature will never be equal.”
• Speakers at the rally included ex-gay advocate Linda Jernigan and another hate group leader, Peter LaBarbera, who told the crowd that homosexuality is “unnatural and wrong,” citing HIV rates among men who have sex with men as evidence of “the dangers of homosexuality.”
• In February, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote that gay people shouldn’t even be allowed to teach because they’ll put pictures of their partners on their desk that students will see.
• In fact, IFI believes that parents should pull their children from any classroom that attempts to create a safe environment for LGBT students.
• IFI has claimed gays and lesbians already have equality because they can marry the opposite sex like everyone else; same-sex marriage is thus a demand “to be treated specially.”
• IFI recommends language that demonizes the gay community, encouraging opponents of equality to frame their resistance as compassion.

This extreme rhetoric extends beyond the talking points conservatives have traditionally used in these fights, which tend to focus on supposed protections for children, gender norms, and the institution of marriage. By openly condemning homosexuality as unnatural and curable through therapy — as well as enabling the bullying of LGBT youth — IFI sets itself apart. It remains unclear how many votes short the Illinois House is from passage or what is motivating those opponents, but with IFI’s strong presence in the fight, opponents’ will struggle to deliver a cohesive or approachable argument as the vote approaches.

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.

At a retreat in Hollywood, California on Thursday, the Republican National Committee caved to pressure from social conservatives and unanimously approved a number of resolutions without any debate, including one opposing same-sex marriage.

As ThinkProgress reported Wednesday, this resolution is based entirely on debunked junk science and assumptions that heterosexual relationships are objectively superior to same-sex couples. Here is some of the text:

WHEREAS, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; it is based in the conjugal relationship that only a man and a woman can form; [...]

WHEREAS, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; [...] therefore be it

RESOLVED, the Republican national Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America.

A second resolution reaffirming the party’s 2012 platform included a similar provision opposing same-sex marriage:

WHEREAS, the 2012 Republican Platform states, “We believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.”

Last month, as part of its autopsy of the 2012 election, Republicans announced their intention to tone down — though not alter — their opposition to LGBT equality by sugarcoating how they discuss those positions. Adoption of these resolutions followed threats this week from social conservative groups that they would no longer support the GOP if the party didn’t stand strong, and even take guidance, from them on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. In particular, the Family Research Council urged supporters not to give money to the GOP if it didn’t “grow a backbone.”

Stuck between this rock (trying to recruit young people) and hard place (depending on social conservatives), the Republicans seem to have reverted to their same old positions. This is in spite of the fact there are now two Republican Senators and two Republican House members who support marriage equality, with others evolving. Some have also acknowledged that it’s “inevitable” that a Republican presidential candidate will someday support same-sex marriage.

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”:

Tony Perkins and James Dobson

The Republican Party’s commitment to tone down its rhetoric on LGBT issues has social conservatives concerned. Last month, prominent leaders like Mike Huckabee, Gary Bauer, and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins were already suggesting the possibility of leaving the party if its positions soften. Now, a coalition of anti-gay and anti-choice groups have written a letter warning the GOP leadership that “an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support.”

Though the letter addresses several social conservative issues such as abortion and school vouchers, it focuses particularly on LGBT issues. It encourages the Republican leaders to approve a resolution affirming the 2012 Republican Platform, likely referring to a proposed resolution against same-sex marriage that relies on junk science and claims of heterosexual supremacy. The conservative groups take particular umbrage to the insinuation that their anti-gay positions are “unkind”:

Many homosexuals are active in the GOP because they agree with Republicans on economic issues. The fact that the Party is strongly committed to traditional marriage has not prevented their involvement through GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans. We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally. [...]

Republicans would do well to persuade young voters why marriage between a man and a woman is so important rather than abandon thousands of years of wisdom to please them. [...]

Real and respectful communication is needed with our organizations. Alleged gaffes by candidates in 2012 on social issues could have been avoided if Party leadership had consulted us, the experts on how to articulate those positions.

Read the full letter here.

Not only do these groups believe the GOP should not soften its anti-LGBT positions, they believe the party should embrace their hardline positions even more than before.

Among the letter’s signatories are Gary Bauer, James Dobson, and Phyllis Schlafly, as well as the Traditional Values Coalition, Focus on the Family (CitizenLink), the Family Research Council, and American Family Association, all of which have been designated as anti-gay hate groups.