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.

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.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has so far not been classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, because for the most part, the organization’s spokespeople focus their rhetoric on “traditional marriage” instead of demonizing homosexuality. (This has become less so, particularly given Jennifer Roback Morse’s repeated endorsements of ex-gay therapy.)

In a recent Tea Party Unity conference call, Brian Camenker of the anti-gay hate group MassResistance challenged NOM President Brian Brown about this selective language use, asking why NOM doesn’t just admit that homosexuality is a “perversion.” Brown admitted that he didn’t think harsher language could sway Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, but he encouraged group’s like Camenker to keep doing their own thing:

CAMENKER: It’s concerning to a lot of people that the arguments being used in the various court cases concede that homosexual relationships are legitimate and not a perversion or what have you, we just don’t like them, and we wonder if there was more of a hard stance that they are not legitimate, that it is perverse, unnatural and what have you, that we might have some better success in some of the cases. [...]

BROWN: Whenever I’m asked about what I think about homosexuality, I’m very clear, I believe and as a Catholic I believe in the traditional teaching of our church. I think that sex is reserved for marriage, period. As far as the legal arguments go we may differ. I think a lot of the legal arguments have been made in the Prop 8 case especially have been made to speak to [Justice] Kennedy and Kennedy has already found in the Lawrence case, for example, that states can’t ban sodomy. So it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.

I know some people think we need to focus more on homosexuality. All I’ll say is that when asked I state what I believe and many of the religious supporters that we’ll have at the march clearly will stand up and proclaim biblical truth on marriage, but I’m not sure whether legally that is the best strategy. Also, different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing. So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Brown’s subtle confession here is incredibly telling. NOM know there are a lot of negative things it’s not saying about gay people and homosexuality, even though its members seemingly believe all of the same things. Certainly it has no problem taking umbrage on behalf of these hate groups or featuring their rhetoric at their rallies.

If NOM is encouraging other groups to be harsher opponents of homosexuality just so it can save face, it’s no less responsible for it in the end. Indeed, by strategizing in this way, Brown has proven that even the most polished rhetoric “defending traditional marriage” is just as anti-gay, and they understand it has the very same consequences. If NOM’s motives and beliefs are part of the public rhetoric, then attempting to hide under polite talking points simply adds dishonesty to their already offensive intentions.

Many paid anti-gay activists work for an organization connected back to Robert George.

This week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage equality have understandably attracted media attention, but unfortunately the coverage has been peppered with blatant puff pieces that offer a free pedestal for paid operatives working against same-sex marriage. These articles claim to profile individuals who make their living off the anti-equality movement offer little context, instead invite them to share all their talking points without any rebuttal.

For example, last Friday USA Today ran a piece profiling some of the top lobbyists against marriage equality, while the New York Times profiled young conservatives working with many of the same organizations. NPR offered two puff pieces, one similarly profiling various conservatives and another just to highlight Maggie Gallagher’s views on the topic. Almost every individual in each of these stories advocates against equality as a profession. Here’s a list of who they are and how they used their free media pedestal:

• Brian Brown is executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  He told USA Today that “The people are definitely on our side,” even though polling continuesto show the exact opposite.
• Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), told USA Today that “there will be collateral damage to other freedoms” because of marriage equality, but offered examples of people who seek to violate nondiscrimination protections.
• Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), told USA Today that marriage equality will “lure” people into homosexuality, just like legalizing marijuana, gambling, prostitution, abortion, “or any vice that is legalized.” The article neglected to mention that CWA is recognized as a hate group along with FRC.
• Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chair of the Catholic Bishops’ committee for the “Defense of Marriage,” told USA Today that same-sex couples are inherently inferior, and that the LGBT movement should have a “live and let live” philosophy instead of calling equality opponents bigots.
• Rev. William Owens, head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, which is funded by groups like NOM and FRC, claimed to USA Today that marriage equality is “another nail in the coffin for black families,” confirming his role in NOM’s race-wedging tactics.

Read more

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

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer is not thrilled by Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) announcement that he now supports marriage equality because of what he has learned from his son being gay. Fischer explained that just because a child is something doesn’t mean a parent should support it. His comparison? Robbing a bank:

While a story like this naturally stirs our emotions with sympathy for the family, and even fear for the future of his son, we still must ask the question as to whether such a revelation should be a basis to change our collective mind about the cornerstone institution of Western Civilization. The answer to this question must surely be “No.”

Public policy should be based on reason, not emotion. If it turned out my son was a bank robber, I would not love my son any less. I might even have great sympathy for the circumstances that drove him to steal. I would come alongside him and help him in any way that was in my power. But I would not change my mind about the morality of bank robbing.

Fischer noticeably avoids addressing Portman’s son directly. Indeed, conservatives regularly ignore the reality of the lives LGBT people are already living in favor of ideals and and principles that they apply without regard for consequence. Bank robbers go to prison, and apparently that’s exactly where Fischer believes Portman’s son belongs.

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.