The Republican National Committee is set to consider a new resolution condemning same-sex marriage at its spring strategy session. What is most compelling about the resolution is not the text itself — which reiterates arguments about how opposite-sex parents are best for children — but the citations the resolution uses to defend those points. Each of the documents either relies on Mark Regnerus’s politically-motivated junk-science study that attempts to draw conclusions about the inferiority of same-sex parenting or the National Organization for Marriage’s talking points about the supposed definition of marriage.

Here’s a look at the six points the resolution attempts to make and how the citations simply do not support them.

Defining Marriage For Straight Couples Only

The resolution claims that marriage is based on the “conjugal relationship that only a man and woman can form.” To defend this, the claim cites the Supreme Court amicus brief field by NOM founder Robert George and his co-authors of What Is Marriage? George argues that marriage is about “joining spouses in body as well as in mind,” which apparently only counts when they can procreate — except for infertile opposite-sex couples, who get a pass because their union would still be “apt for procreation.” There’s no logic to the rationale, just a bold claim that same-sex couples’ relationships are inherently inferior.

Same-Sex Marriage Has Been Banned And Condemned A Lot

This argument from popularity reminds that lots of states and lawmakers have jumped off the cliff of discrimination, so it’s okay for the RNC to do it again now too. The resolution cites an op-ed by the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, who is also George’s protege and co-author. The op-ed contains the same generalizations about the definition of marriage, again simply suggesting that relationships between men and women are unique and thus should be uniquely recognized — without any compelling evidence that same-sex couples should be deprived of the same recognition.

Government Can’t Change The Definition Of Marriage

The RNC suggests that the government can’t change that “marriage is a natural and most desirable union.” Though of course the caveat of “especially when procreation is a goal,” was included, it’s unclear how wanting to partner with someone to start a family should exclude same-sex couples. The answer can be found in an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence’s John Eastman, who just happens to also be NOM’s chairman. Eastman argues that since Proposition 8 was voted on by the people of California and reaffirmed a status quo about the definition of marriage, the Court cannot undo it. Of course, this simply isn’t true.

‘It Has Been Proven’ That Parents Do Best With ‘Both Mother And Father’

This claim relies on two dubious sources. The first is another op-ed, this one by Doug Mainwaring, a supposedly gay man and Tea Party activist who opposes marriage equality and is frequently cited by NOM. The particular citation links to the version of his op-ed published by the Witherspoon Institute, which incidentally provided the bulk of the funding for Mark Regnerus’s fraudulent study. Mainwaring claims that children are “being reduced to chattel” by selfish gay couples and that same-sex marriage will “undefine children.” As in the other citations, there’s no evidence of this; it’s just a derogatory smear of gay people.

The other citation is unsurprisingly Mark Regnerus, but not his study. Instead, the resolution cites the Supreme Court amicus brief he actually signed onto opposing the freedom to marry. The brief, of course, cites his study, as well as other studies that similarly didn’t actually measure same-sex parenting — as their researchers have pointed out in objections to such citations. It also tries to criticize studies that actually did measure same-sex parenting, the very studies that the American Sociological Association and a coalition of other major medical associations cited in their amicus briefs supporting marriage equality. Given that same-sex parenting is a new phenomenon, it’s not particularly convincing to claim that the research about it is biased because the studies focused on actual same-sex parents instead of a “random sample.”

Marriage Helps Protect Children From Poverty

This is actually a compelling argument in support of the many same-sex couples raising children. Though the citation is once again the anti-gay Heritage Foundation, it doesn’t even say anything about same-sex marriage or parenting.

The RNC resolution is built on a very weak foundation of junk science and assumptions of heterosexual superiority. If passed at this spring retreat, it would undermine the Republican Party’s new plan to oppose LGBT equality more quietly by sugarcoating their arguments by simply relying on the same anti-gay talking points as before.

Rep. Ed Sullivan, Jr. (R)

Today, a second Republican in the Illinois House, Rep. Ed Sullivan Jr., said that he would vote in favor of same-sex marriage:

SULLIVAN: This issue for me … goes to the core of fairness — marriage equality for all people. I think it is in line with … what I believe, and I personally believe it is in line with what our party believes, and that’s trying to treat people with fairness.

I try to err on the side of being a public servant and serving my district as opposed to potentially being a politician and just serving that subset (opposed based on religion) and those within my party who don’t necessarily want this to pass. I look at this as a freedom, as a conservative view of treating people equally.

Sullivan also indicated he believes there are more Republicans who are willing to vote for it. Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady also supports marriage equality and an attempt by the state committee to remove him because of that position failed. U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R) also endorsed same-sex marriage last week.

But the National Organization for Marriage countered Sullivan’s endorsement by doubling down on their threat to bully any Republican who supports marriage equality by campaigning against their re-election. NOM’s president Brian Brown boasted its “successful” retaliation campaign in New York:

BROWN: Any Republican in Illinois who betrays the cause of marriage will be casting a career-ending vote and will be held accountable to their constituents. We will spend whatever it takes — hundreds of thousands of dollars if necessary — to remove them from office, just as we did three of the four turncoat Republican state Senators in New York who were responsible for gay “marriage” passing there. We will not hesitate to support pro-family Democrats to replace them, as our record in New York proves.

But Brown’s depiction of what NOM accomplished in New York is not accurate. NOM challenged four New York Republican senators who supported marriage equality, but after the election, three of those seats were still occupied by supporters of same-sex marriage. What NOM accomplished was helping turn two of those seats over to Democrats. If Republicans in Illinois are concerned about the impact of same-sex marriage on their re-election, they should be less worried about their votes and more worried about NOM’s vindictive retaliation.

Over the weekend, the National Organization for Marriage posted a chart on its Facebook page highlighting the downward trend in marriage rates over the past 50 years. The caption provided with the chart concluded that the trend supported arguments that there are consequences to same-sex marriage:

Marriage rates down, out-of-wedlock birth rates up. Conservatives may have correctly predicted the consequences of same-sex marriage.

But Laurel Ramseyer at Pam’s House Blend noticed that the graph actually disproves that very claim. She added a helpful red arrow to the chart to indicate which data points were actually impacted by the legalization of same-sex marriage — just the one:

Of course, common sense also counteracts NOM’s claims. Same-sex couples actually want to get married, so allowing them to would — if anything — increase the marriage rate, because more adults would be eligible to marry and thus more would do so. Moreover, as NOM constantly reminds, same-sex couples cannot naturally have their own children, so it’s unclear how they could have any impact on out-of-wedlock births. Given the lengthy and expensive proactive effort required for same-sex couples to adopt or pursue surrogacy options, they are actually more likely to be raising children in committed homes. If NOM wants more of those children to have married parents, opposing marriage rights for their parents is an odd way of showing it.

The National Organization for Marriage has once again been caught lying about public support they do not have. NOM’s Ruth Institute is publicizing its “It Takes A Family” (ITAF) conference, which reaches out to college students to encourage them to oppose same-sex marriage, with blatant condemnations of homosexuality and promotion of ex-gay therapy. This year’s conference features, for example, fraudulent anti-gay researcher Mark Regnerus and ex-gay advocate Robert Gagnon. NOM promoted the conference this week by bragging that the Chicago Bears had donated two autographed pieces of memorabilia, with a special thank-you to the team for “supporting our message“:

For now, you should know that we have two fabulous raffle items from the Chicago Bears Organization (and a huge THANK YOU to the Bears for supporting our message).

Unfortunately, both the support of the Chicago Bears Organization and the Bears’ supposed endorsement of NOM’s message were outright lies. In a statement provided to ThinkProgress and numerous other outlets, the Bears made clear the team had no connection to NOM or the conference:

The two items featured in The Ruth Institute gala invitation were personal donations to Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.  Neither was a club donation, nor do they represent the team’s view on any social issues.  Any remarks stating otherwise are false.

One of the two items was an official jersey autographed by former linebacker Brian Urlacher, but Urlacher clarified he had nothing to do with its inclusion in the conference raffle, explaining that he signs “a lot of stuff for charity,” but “if I would have known it was for this cause, I wouldn’t have done it.”

The Chicago Tribune reached Ruth Institute head Jennifer Roback Morse for comment, and she eventually conceded that the site had lied. She refused, however, to explain why she claimed to have the support of the Bears, stating simply that NOM regrets “any confusion”:

The Ruth Institute is not working with the Chicago Bears organization or any of its players past or present to promote our upcoming auction. The memorabilia we are auctioning off was acquired by me personally, not through the team or players. We understand that the Chicago Bears organization takes no position on social issues, and we regret any confusion we may have caused on this point.

The ITAF conference page now clarifies that the two items were “donated by individuals, not the team or the players.”

It’s unclear which is more pathetic, that NOM had to lie about having the support of an NFL team, or that NOM has to use NFL memorabilia to attract students to its anti-gay conference in the first place.

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.

Conservatives have long claimed that they’re somehow the victim of persecution when they’re called bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, like when Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said at CPAC, “Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.” But conservatives are adding a novel layer to this trite argument, claiming they actually very much support gay people.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who recently said that gay couples can never achieve the same intimacy as straight couples, opened Tuesday’s anti-gay Marriage March rally on the National Mall with the following plea:

CORDILEONE:  I want to begin with a word to those who disagree with us on this issue and may be watching us right now: we love you, we are your neighbors, and we want to be your friends, and we want you to be happy.

Please understand that we don’t hate you, and that we are not motivated by animus or bigotry; it is not our intention to offend anyone, and if we have, I apologize; please try to listen to us fairly, and calmly, and try to understand us and our position, as we will try to do the same for you.

The conservative Media Research Center tried to make the same case with this video from the National Organization for Marriage’s rally, full of anti-equality conservatives proclaiming their love for gay people:

Similarly, inside the Supreme Court, those defending Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) tried to downplay the notion that either measure targeted gays and lesbians. These post-hoc arguments didn’t seem to persuade Justice Elena Kagan, who highlighted a 1996 House report showing Congress passed DOMA to express “moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

Indeed, as the expression goes, “you can’t polish a turd,” and despite the Republican Party’s best intentions to downplay or sugarcoat how offensive its positions against LGBT equality are, that doesn’t actually change that they’re still offensive. Unpacking conservatives’ latest talking points quickly reveals the judgment — and thus prejudice — underlying their claims.

Read more

Among the speakers at Tuesday’s anti-gay Marriage March was National Organization for Marriage spokesperson Jennifer Roback Morse, who heads up NOM’s Ruth Institute. Morse has a reputation of saying horrid things about gay people and young people’s perceptions of LGBT issues, and she did not disappoint at the rally. Stoking fears that same-sex marriage has some kind of unforeseen experiences, she attempted to speak on behalf of the children of same-sex couples, claiming they would resent their parents for depriving them of a parent of the opposite gender:

MORSE: Eventually, young people are going to see that redefining marriage sets aside the interests of children for the convenience of adults. Now in the unhappy event that the Court should redefine marriage, which we pray that they will not — we pray that they will allow us to continue this nationwide conversation and discussion that we desperately need to have. But if they do redefine marriage, 40 years from the young people of that generation will have one simply question for our generation, “What were you thinking?”

They’re going to say, “Dad, you and your partner are lovely guys, I love you Dad, but did you really think I would never need a mom? What were you thinking?” “Mom, I know you love me, you and your partner are nice ladies, but the biological connection that was so important to you — did you think it would never be important to me? What were you thinking? What were you thinking?” That’s what they’re going to ask us.

Watch it (via RightWingWatch):

Actually, same-sex marriage is in the best interest of the many children already being raised by same-sex couples. And usually, they call both dads “Dad” or both moms “Mom,” and they wouldn’t have to say “partner” to describe a husband and a wife. Morse clearly demonstrates that she has little understanding or empathy for same-sex families. Oddly, NOM does not actively campaign against same-sex adoption even though the well-being of children is supposedly at the core of the arguments against marriage equality.

As the Supreme Court weighed the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) held a three-hour long rally justifying their opposition. One speaker, Bishop Harry Jackson Jr, argued that same-sex marriage was actually an attack on low-income urban communities. Jackson claimed that “urban America” could be “healed” by promoting heterosexual marriages because, he alleges, heterosexual marriages have less poverty, less domestic violence, and “sexual abuse does not happen.”

God has given us a blueprint for how to have success in the earthly realm. He’s given us an architectural plan of how to heal the barren places in urban America. He says that marriage between a man and a woman will heal the desert places in urban America. Ghettos will be revitalized if one man, one woman families are the order of the day. When a man and a woman are in the house, poverty is lessened. When a man and a woman are in the house, kids don’t go to prison. When a man and a woman are in the house, there’s less domestic violence. When a man and a woman are in the house, sexual abuse does not happen.

Watch it:

In a highlight reel of their rally, NOM selectively edited Bishop Jackson’s remarks to cut him off a half-second before his assertion that sexual abuse “does not happen” in straight marriages.

For decades, NOM and other anti-marriage equality advocates have routinely promoted bogus claims that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia and sexual abuse. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that gay individuals commit more sexual assaults than straight people. Same-sex relationships face roughly the same domestic violence rate as straight couples. Jackson’s assertion that “sexual abuse does not happen” in heterosexual homes is also blatantly false; more than 50 percent of all sexual assault incidents take place in or within a mile of the home.

The claim that heterosexual marriage lessens poverty and crime compared to same-sex marriage is also false. Two-parent households fare slightly better in these areas than single-parent homes. There is no evidence that the sexual orientation of the parents has any impact, nor that single parenthood is the cause and not a by-product for these trends.

Jackson has been paid handsomely to push these myths as part of NOM’s race-wedging strategy. The organization has openly admitted to their intent to co-opt religious African Americans, specifically Church of God in Christ bishops like Jackson, by making the case that marriage equality is somehow harmful to minority communities.

(Photo Credit: Center for American Progress Action Fund intern Andrew Rutkowski.)

Yesterday, the National Organization for Marriage held its long-heralded Marriage March and rally to oppose same-sex marriage on the National Mall. A litany of speakers reiterated claims about children’s need for one mother and one father, but the event largely failed to amass a wide coalition.

NOM’s Thomas Peters claimed there were 15,000 attendees, while Brian Brown suggested a crowd of “more than 10,000,” but these seem to be gross overestimates. RightWingWatch’s Peter Montgomery suggested it was no more than “several thousand,” while the Washington Blade only estimated 2,000. What groups there were seemed to come in clumps from very specific origins, such as the 32 buses of conservative Hispanics that New York state Sen. Rubén Díaz (D) brought from the Bronx, French activists inexplicably flying a French flag at the rally, and a group of Chinese Christians from Chicago. Ironically, the rally was held one year to the day since NOM’s memo leaked revealing its intention to “drive a wedge” between the gay community and people of color, particularly by featuring people of color at their rallies and highlighting — i.e. overemphasizing — their visibility. The Marriage March exemplified that these efforts have not subsided in the least.

Perhaps one of the most visible groups at the rally was co-sponsor Tradition, Family & Property (TFP), a conservative Catholic organization identifiable by their red sashes, tall banners, and bagpipe players. As always, TFP was handing out its materials claiming homosexuality is a “changeable behavior” that “offends God” and must be opposed. Blogger Jeremy Hooper confronted some members of TFP at the rally and they confirmed to him that they co-sponsored the event specifically to proliferate such ideas.

Below is a video NOM posted with some highlights from the many speakers, but some of the most interesting quotes are cut. Stay tuned to ThinkProgress throughout the day for more reports of what was actually said there.

Also, here is a graphic from @TalkEquality challenging NOM’s claims about the rally’s attendance:

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