Earlier this week, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber revealed a brochure that was distributed at the Department of Justice called, ““LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” Developed by the DOJ Pride, the department’s LGBT and allies employee group, it outlines several simple suggestions for making sure the workplace is a safe and inclusive space. Barber claimed it was an “attack on freedom… riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.”

Tony Perkins echoed this ominous sentiment in the Family Research Council’s Washington Update Wednesday:

When the Justice Department is done violating journalists’ First Amendment rights, it looks like they’ll move on to employees’. In a chilling memo to DOJ staff, the Obama administration is warning managers that they’d better start embracing homosexuality–or else. The email, which a Justice employee leaked to Liberty Counsel, is a scary reminder of how far this administration will go to crush free speech and expression in America.

The full brochure can be read online. Here are some of the tips — suggestions, not rules — that Barber and Perkins object to and the context they leave out to make them sound more chilling:

• DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval. What neither Barber or Perkins mention is that this is advice given under the heading, “Know how to respond if an employee comes out to you.” The converse suggestion is, “DO respond with interest and curiosity. Asking respectful questions will set a positive, supportive tone.”
• DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender. Barber admits he believes this basic respect for a person’s identity constitutes lying. Objecting to this suggestion is blatant transphobia, more of which is apparent throughout the rest of his post.
• DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful. This has nothing to do with spying. It’s simply encouraging individuals to avoid making a joke or snide comment about LGBT people and assuming it’ll never get back to them.
• DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Apparently encouraging people not to be rude and offensive constitutes chilling their free speech.

Though it is a bottom-up document with no enforcement whatsoever, the mere thought of creating an LGBT-inclusive workplace is apparently quiet disconcerting to these conservatives. Perkins even jabs, “Imagine the level of workplace harassment Christians would face if viewpoint coercion were official U.S. policy” — i.e. if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act were passed into law. Of course, if a guide were put out with suggestions for not harassing Christians, that would conceivably be just as chilling to free speech, at least by their standards.

Perkins takes exception that LGBT equality is about “forced acceptance,” but as blogger Alvin McEwen points out, it’s actually about “respect for a fellow human being.” Groups like Liberty Counsel and FRC specifically do not want LGBT employees to enjoy basic respect in the workplace, and that’s one of many reasons they are designated as hate groups.

The point-blank murder of Mark Carson, who was targeted specifically because he was gay, has shaken the LGBT community nationwide, particularly in New York City. After a vigil Saturday night and huge march on Monday, not one conservative group had yet spoken about the incident. This prompted Daily Kos blogger Scott Wooledge to point out a harsh juxtaposition, noting that mere hours after a shooter opened fire at the Family Research Council in August, wounding a security guard, a large coalition of LGBT groups issued a joint statement condemning the violence. Through his infographics studio Memeographs, he produced the image at right criticizing the anti-gay groups.

Only after its viral distribution did conservative groups begin to issue statements. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage was first, though he tried to distance the homophobia that prompted the crime from the homophobia NOM promotes daily. He also suggested that opponents of marriage equality are equally persecuted:

We condemn in the strongest possible way the murder of a gay man in New York by a killer who apparently hurled anti-gay insults at him moments before the killing. This senseless act cannot be condoned in America or anywhere, and we urge that the perpetrator be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our heart goes out to the family of the victim, and we hold them in our prayers. While this killing appears to have no connection to the current debate about redefining marriage, there is no room for violence toward any American — whether they support traditional marriage or not. No person should be subjected to violence because they are gay or lesbian or because they believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There is no place for violence, period.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council followed suit, issuing a statement that was narrowly distributed via email and has since been published:

We denounce any and all acts of unprovoked violence. No American should be the target of violence – period. We hope and trust that justice will be served in that the perpetrator of this senseless act of violence will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Other conservatives were more cruel in their response. Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel chose to chide LGBT activists for politicizing the shooting, tweeting Monday, “That didn’t take long. Let no tragedy go to waste, eh?”He did condemn the murder, describing the murderer not as homophobic, but as psychotic. Of course, he has done plenty to politicize the FRC shooting, using it to target the Southern Poverty Law Center’s labeling of hate groups — a label he once wore as a “badge of honor.”

The American Family Association has yet to say anything about Carson’s murder or the rash of anti-gay hate crimes in New York. Instead, its OneNewsNow service ran a story Tuesday about Christians being persecuted in China. OneNewsNow regularly includes content fed from the Associated Press and outside sources, so it’s likely an editorial decision was made to feature one and not the other.  Violent persecution anywhere is wrong, but it seems AFA, which also attacked the SPLC over the FRC shooting, prioritizes some stories over others.

Homophobia and transphobia stem from notions that LGBT people are weak, less than, deviant, harmful to society, and deserve to be ostracized because of their identities. These are the very messages promoted by these conservative groups, which is why many of them have been labeled as hate groups. That they had to be prodded over several days to condemn a murderous hate crime — and many still haven’t — could indicate a lack of concern about anti-LGBT violence, but it could also suggest a subtle acknowledgment that the rhetoric they promote bears some responsibility in the first place.

Shortly before the US Supreme Court heard arguments to strike down restrictions on same-sex marriage, the Republican National Committee outraged hardline conservatives with a report calling for greater flexibility on gay rights and immigration reform in order to lure young people into the Republican Party. GOP strategist Karl Rove piled on the insult by speculating the Republican Party’s next presidential candidate could support marriage equality (though later walked it back). Evangelical leaders erupted in protest, threatening to abandon the GOP if the party were to change its increasingly unpopular stance.

The tide is changing rapidly against this so-called evangelical base of the GOP. Last week, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) became the first sitting Republican senator to declare his support for marriage equality. While a majority of all Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage, a new poll found that 49 percent of Republicans under 50 years old actually support extending the right to marry to same-sex couples.

Below are a few of the social conservatives the GOP would have to do without if they abandoned their opposition to same-sex marriage:

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)

“They might [decide to support same-sex marriage], and if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk. And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of, but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard. If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture.” [3/20/2013]

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council

“The vast majority of the GOP base believes that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform. Anything less, writes Byron York, ‘could come back to haunt the RNC in the not-too-distant future.’ [...] If the RNC abandons marriage, evangelicals will either sit the elections out completely – or move to create a third party. Either option puts Republicans on the path to a permanent minority. [3/19/2013]

Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate

“Shame on the politicians and the judges that are trying to undermine the institution of marriage. I’m a Republican…let me say to my party: if you bail out on this issue, I will leave the party and I will take as many people as I possibly can.” [3/26/2013]

Watch it:

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chairman

“If worst case scenario the last week of June we come down with a bad decision, the church and people of faith and values need to rise up. We just simply cannot allow this to become the law of the land, it will fundamentally change who we are, it will fundamentally weaken the family and religious freedom will be in the crosshairs. [3/26/2013]

Rush Limbaugh, talk radio host

“If the party makes that [gay marriage] something official that they support, they’re not going to pull the homosexual activist voters away from the Democrat Party, but they are going to cause their base to stay home and throw their hands up in utter frustration…Whether they like it or not, the Republican Party’s base is sufficiently large that they cannot do without them and their problem is they don’t like them. It really isn’t any more complicated than that.” [3/18/2013]

The growing right-wing schism was on full display at CPAC earlier this month, when organizers disinvited the gay conservative group GOProud to appease anti-gay board members. The decision to exclude GOProud sparked protests among prominent conservative commentators worried about the GOP’s flailing outreach efforts to more socially liberal minorities like women and young people.

Still, evangelicals and social conservatives have little cause to worry. Though public opinion on gay rights is evolving rapidly, the Republican Party does not plan to change their stance on marriage equality anytime soon. The RNC’s report, while encouraging outreach to Latinos, blacks, women, and young people, notably excluded the gay community from the list. Rather than disavow exclusionary and discriminatory policies enshrined in their platform, the current GOP strategy is to sugarcoat their anti-gay rhetoric in hopes that young voters will overlook their true intentions.

Matt Barber

The Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber has penned a letter to gay teens — which he condescendingly qualifies as “gay” teens — that confirms the clear animus he and his fellow conservatives have for LGBT people. His outright condemnation that homosexuals are sinner going directly to Hell is offensive enough, but worse yet, he suggests that gay teens are not depressed because of the homophobia they experience, but merely because they’re sinners:

God’s word also says that when we sin sexually, it’s particularly egregious because our bodies are the temple of Christ. This separation from God – a natural result of sexual sin – can lead to depression and even despair.

If you feel such despair, know this: it is not “homophobia” causing it, as adult enablers might tell you, but, rather, it is the sin itself that causes it (or struggling alone, absent Christ, with the temptation to sin). [...]

If you continue down this wide, empty path, make no mistake: it will not “get better.”

It gets much, much worse. [...]

Kids, take your sexual confusion – your struggle with sin – to Christ.

No one else can give you rest.

Of course, by telling young people to reject the very core of their identities and deny themselves the opportunity to experience love in their lives, he is reinforcing the very despair many LGBT youth struggle with. (HT: Jeremy Hooper.)

Ex-gay therapist Joseph Nicolosi, a plaintiff in this case, encourages parents to reject their children.

The Liberty Counsel has filed its final brief in its challenge of California’s ban on ex-gay therapy (SB 1172) on behalf of NARTH. In it, the group reiterates its claims that encouraging young people to change their sexual orientation is simply a “viewpoint,” and thus protected by the First Amendment. Despite the dearth of evidence supporting its effectiveness and the research that shows not only that it’s ineffective but that it can also be harmful, the conservatives stand by their claim that same-sex attractions (SSA) can be changed:

The APA Report admits SSA is “fluid,” which, no matter the debate over “enduring” change, it is clear that SSA can change. Studies reveal that sexual orientation is “not static.” “Contrary to the theoretical notion that one becomes fixated in childhood, the sexual orientation of the individuals in this study often changed remarkably.”

SB 1172 prohibits any counsel under any circumstance to change SSA. If SSA is fluid, then it is changeable. Given that SSA is capable of change, then why does the law prohibit change therapy? If an unhappy homosexual client engages the counselor because he wants to be bisexual, does the counselor violate SB 1172 by providing counsel that helps the client develop sexual attraction for both sexes? Or does the counselor violate the law only when the counsel offered seeks to change the client to be exclusively heterosexual?

SB 1172 prohibits any counsel to change SSA.  What are Appellant-Counselors to do when clients return  after hearing their opinion that SSA can change and asks the counselor to help them meet their self-determined objective to change their SSA? If the clients seek change, and if the Report admits SSA is fluid, and thus changeable, then why are counselors and clients prohibited from pursuing change? Where is the line drawn? What is permitted and what is not? The licenses of the Appellant-Counselors are on the line. They and thousands of other counselors and clients have no idea how to avoid these landmines.

NARTH and Liberty Counsel are twisting words beyond reproach in an attempt to make their case. There is a difference between the fact that sexual orientation naturally changes over time and the claim that it can be manipulated by therapy. Further, just because an individual has a “self-determined objective” to accomplish any bizarre outcome in therapy doesn’t mean it’s healthy or valid to work toward that objective. Indeed, the reason that professional psychological groups have established that affirming an individual’s sexual orientation is a best practice is because that is what has been determined to help patients regardless of what they’ve been taught to believe about homosexuality.

It’s important to keep in mind the mind-game at work. In the original complaint, these ex-gay therapists argued that the treatment was important for bringing families together. In other words, parents with a bias against homosexuality claim they can only love their child if he rejects his same-sex orientation, but the therapists then blame this situation on the patient — as they are wont to do. The young person is convinced to participate in the treatment to appease his family, implying an ultimatum that he can be gay or he can be loved, but he can’t be both. Thus, the “benefits” of ex-gay therapy are often a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in which young people claim to be happier because they’ve managed to placate their family’s homophobia. This artificial construct is self-serving, caters to parents’ demands instead of children’s well-being, and speaks nothing to the actual validity of ex-gay therapy.

Convincing young people to reject their identities is harmful on its face, and the animus behind defending the practice is not particularly well hidden in these arguments. These counselors can claim that they have an opinion about homosexuality, but they can’t claim to have any truth.

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.

Gov. Jerry Brown

In December, the Ninth Circuit granted conservative groups an injunction against a new California law banning harmful ex-gay therapy from being offered to minors, preventing it from taking effect January 1. The temporary delay allows the Court time to hear the case and address the conflicting rulings offered by lower courts in two different suits challenging the law. In the meantime, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has appealed the injunction, calling on the Court to focus on the decision upholding the ban issued by U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller.

The Liberty Counsel, which is leading one of the lawsuits along with the ex-gay organization NARTH, boasted the injunction when it was granted last month, doubling down on some of the most absurd and offensive claims used to justify ex-gay therapy. In particular, Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver reiterated claims that sexual abuse is somehow responsible for young people’s same-sex orientations:

STAVER: The minors we represent have not and do not want to act on same-sex attractions, nor do they want to engage in such behavior. They are greatly benefiting from counseling. These minors have struggled with same-sex attraction and have been able to reduce or eliminate the stress and conflict in their lives by receiving counseling that best aligns with their religious and moral values.

Without this emergency injunction, the State of California would essentially barge into the private therapy rooms of victimized young people and tell them that their confusion caused by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky abuser is normal and they should pursue their unwanted same-sex sexual attractions and behavior.

Staver neglects to explain that the “stress and conflict” these young people experience is only the result of the family rejection that the Liberty Counsel and ex-gay advocates foment. Studies that have attempted to show correlations between sexual abuse and homosexuality have been largely inconclusive, and certainly plenty of gay people have never experienced abuse. Such claims only seek to stigmatize by implying that people with same-sex orientations are disordered and may themselves have a propensity for abuse themselves, which is completely unfounded.

In the state’s appeal of the injunction, California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) cited mainstream medical opinion, condemning ex-gay therapy as “unsound and harmful.”

RightWingWatch noticed this new meme image from the Liberty Counsel condemning homosexuality in quite astonishing terms. Here is the text printed on it:

We believe that those involved in homosexuality are created in the image of God and, because of that, deserve respect. However, their actions are damaging both to themselves and to society as a whole. Just like smoking or drug addiction, this behavior should not be encouraged or promoted by our government.

We believe that those involved in homosexuality are complete personalities who should not be confined to a label because of a sexual act. To do so is as superficial as labeling an adulteress wife or husband because of a sexual act. These actions are seeking the same love, validation, and acceptance that all of us seek, yet an answer will not be found in repeated unhealthy interactions or societal and governmental improvement of these actions. We believe this deep hunger can and will only be satisfied in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Just last night, the Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver was on CNN defending ex-gay therapy with polished talking points, claiming that neither LC nor the ex-gay profiteers they represent stigmatize people who are gay. This image demonstrates just how untrue that is and how much more candid anti-gay groups when not speaking to a mainstream audience.

This statement is stigmatizing in every possible way. It casts moral judgment by comparing loving committed same-sex couples to adulterers. It implies that all gay sex is uniquely “unhealthy,” when in fact the definition of safe sex is consistent across all sexual orientations. And it quite blatantly stigmatizes gays and lesbians by describing them as “damaging… to society as a whole.” The Liberty Counsel may claim that “those involved in homosexuality… deserve respect,” but they are wholly committed to casting the LGBT community as threatening pariahs.

Judge Kimberly Mueller

Monday, a judge ruled that the ex-gay therapists aligned with the Pacific Justice Institute challenging California’s new law (SB 1172) banning the treatment for minors could continue their practice while their lawsuit proceeded. Today, in contrast, a different federal judge, Obama appointee Kimberly J. Mueller, rejected the Liberty Counsel and NARTH’s similar request for an injunction. In her decision, Mueller argued that the ex-gay therapists were not likely to demonstrate that the law infringes on their Constitutional rights to discuss sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE):

Here, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that SB 1172 will subject mental health professionals to discipline if they merely recommend SOCE to minor patients, or discuss it with them, or even present them with literature about SOCE… [I]n contrast, the state’s insistence that the statute bars treatment only, and not the mention of SOCE or a referral to a religious counselor or out-of-state practitioner, is consistent with a fair reading of the statute itself. [...]

Courts reaching the question have found that the provision of healthcare and other forms of treatment is not expressive conduct. Given the weight of the authority on the question and the nature of the record before the court, plaintiff therapists have not shown they are likely to succeed in bearing their burden of showing that the First Amendment applies to SOCE treatment; they have not shown that the treatment, the end product of which is a change of behavior, is expressive conduct entitled to First Amendment protection.

As SOCE therapy is subject to the state’s legitimate control over the professions, SB 1172′s restrictions on therapy do not implicate fundamental rights and are not properly evaluated under strict scrutiny review, but rather under the rational basis test. SB 1172 passes the rational basis test.

Mueller pointed out that a First Amendment claim is no more applicable for minors than it is for practitioners, as they are not impeded from receiving information about SOCE, only the therapy itself. She also found that parents do not have a fundamental or privacy right to choose mental health treatments deemed harmful to minors, noting that SB 1172 does not impose criminal penalties on parents nor prevent them from accessing ex-gay therapy from unlicensed providers. Unlike Judge Shubb, Mueller was more convinced by mainstream medical professionals than the fringe ex-gay therapists:

The findings, recommended practices, and opinions of ten professional associations of mental health experts is no small quantum of information.  Even if all of the studies and reports upon which the California Legislature relied were inconclusive or flawed, SB 1172 still would be a valid legislative enactment… The court need not engage in an exercise of legislative mind reading to find the California Legislature and the state’s Governor could have had a legitimate reason for enacting SB 1172.

The two cases have already diverged and could well be steering toward different conclusions. At the foundation of both is the understanding that shame-based ex-gay therapies and family rejection harms young people. At least one of the judges hearing these cases seems to acknowledge that reality.

Joseph Nicolosi Defending Ex-Gay Therapy

Yesterday, ThinkProgress analyzed the many outlandish claims made by the Pacific Justice Institute’s lawsuit challenging California’s new ban on ex-gay therapy for minors. The Liberty Counsel also promised a lawsuit and filed their complaint this week on behalf of NARTH and the infamous reparative therapist Joseph Nicolosi, who uses pornography in his therapy to treat what he considers to be the sinful condition of homosexuality. In fact, almost every plaintiff in this suit is either one of Nicolosi’s current clients or a therapist who learned ex-gay therapy from him, including David Pickup, who claimed on CNN this week that homosexuality is “caused” by sexual trauma (which he reiterates in the suit).

While the Liberty Counsel suit makes many of the same empty claims about patients’ right to “choose” therapies that don’t work and therapists’ rights to freedom of speech and religion, it also paints a more vivid picture of why the law is necessary to protect children. Among the plaintiffs are two families getting ex-gay treatment for their sons, and the lawsuit claims that continuing this therapy is important, because only by denying their homosexuality can these boys repair their relationships with their parents:

SB 1172 directly interferes with John Doe 1’s and John DOE 2’s rights to self-determination, and the right of their parents to determine the upbringing and education of their minor children, including the well-being of their spiritual needs. [...]

Because of Dr. Nicolosi’s SOCE counseling, the DOE 2 family has become closer and exhibited a greater degree of family unity. [...] Dr. Nicolosi’s SOCE counseling with Doe 2 has had an important impact on John Doe 2 and his parents and has substantially helped their relationship. [...] Dr. Nicolosi believes that if he is prohibited from continuing his SOCE counseling with Doe 2, then Doe 2 will suffer an immediate regression in his understanding of his same-sex attractions and will suffer difficulty in continuing the development and healing of Doe 2’s relationship with his parents.

In other words, if this kid doesn’t keep participating in this quackery to repress his orientation, his parents will go back to rejecting him. That’s exactly what happened to Ryan Kendall, a former patient of Nicolosi’s who testified against Proposition 8 and in favor of this new law:

KENDALL: As a young teen, the anti-gay practice of so-called conversion therapy destroyed my life and tore apart my family. In order to stop the therapy that misled my parents into believing that I could somehow be made straight, I was forced to run away from home, surrender myself to the local department of human services, and legally separate myself from my family. At the age of 16, I had lost everything. My family and my faith had rejected me, and the damaging messages of conversion therapy, coupled with this rejection, drove me to the brink of suicide.

Despite Kendall’s experiences and those of countless other survivors of ex-gay therapy, the lawsuit claims that “many of Dr. Nicolosi’s clients that decide to remain in the homosexual lifestyle have reported that they experienced no harm as a result of SOCE counseling” — a blatant lie.

These lawsuits, along with the support from the most influential anti-gay groups, demonstrate the harmful propaganda still widely promoted against the lives of people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Indeed, Truth Wins Out is “elated” that these lawsuits are helping raise awareness about the myths of homosexuality that have been debunked by science for nearly half a century. The complaints demonstrate that these groups and therapists are so opposed to homosexuality that they would cruelly pit kids’ identities against the love of their own parents and call it “help.”