Today, the Obama campaign launched a new effort to rally lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters for the President’s reelection. The “LGBT Americans for Obama” website features blog posts, pride merchandise, and upcoming LGBT-related campaign events. On a conference call this morning, outgoing HRC president Joe Solmonese highlighted Obama’s accomplishments and his hopes for the future:

SOLMONESE: I think that collective understanding of where we’re going is how we’re really going to shape the agenda for the next administration. Obviously, we have landmark issues that we need to continue to address, continue to move on, like the repeal of DOMA, like the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA.

So, that’s the kind of ongoing conversation that we’ll have. I think one of the things that we all recognize, and I think the president recognizes this, and we saw this during the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ is that the makeup of Congress is going to have a lot to do with that. And that is why those fights and the fight that we do everything we can to take back an LGBT-friendly House of Representatives are going to have a lot to do with how that agenda gets shaped. And hold what we have in the Senate, and hopefully add to those numbers.

Despite that brief mention of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the call avoided discussing the President’s refusal to sign an executive order that would protect LGBT employees of federal contractors from discrimination. Still, in the wake of Obama’s recent endorsement of marriage equality, the campaign has incredible momentum to energize LGBT voters. Accompanying the launch is a video touting Obama’s support on LGBT issues, narrated by Glee‘s Jane Lynch:

Last week, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress that he opposes LGBT nondiscrimination protections, like those that would be afforded by the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because he believes it should be legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. He explained that he believes being gay is a choice that is simply “behavior-related and preference-related.” Since then, Lankford has embarked on a press tour attacking ThinkProgress for misrepresenting him, choosing to ignore video that confirms his position was quoted and described accurately.

He continued that effort today in two radio interviews with anti-gay hate group leaders, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon. Perkins described provisions like ENDA as “special protections” and Lankford maintained that employers should have the legal right to fire someone for their “sexual behavior”:

PERKINS: The idea there is they’re looking for special protections; your point is that everybody should be treated equally. No one should be fired or denied employment based upon their sexual orientation — in the ideal world we won’t even know about it, why would we even ask that question?

LANKFORD: Right. But neither should you have a situation where no one can fire you because of your behavior outside of the workplace. We also should not be in a situation where there are special protections extended to say ‘if I have a certain sexual behavior then you can no longer fire me, I’m a protected class and I can do whatever I want in the workplace.’ That’s not true either. So we are trying to be able to keep that balance. When you say you create special rights you also create special privileges and protections to say that they are untouchable in the workplace and they can have any kind of work conduct they choose to on that, that’s not correct.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Lankford seems to believe that policies like ENDA would create an invulnerability, preventing people who are gay or trans from ever being fired for any reason, as opposed to merely protecting them from anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination in the same way race, sex, and other dimensions of identity are already protected. But it’s also clear that despite Perkins’ claim that “everybody should be treated equally,” both he and Lankford are building a misleading pro-gay narrative around their distorted understanding of sexual orientation.

Lankford and Perkins both believe that sexual orientation is a choice, but more precisely, that it’s defined only by behavioral choices. Neither comprehends (or acknowledges) that sexual orientation is an innate identity that individuals experience regardless of how or if they act upon it. From this discussion, they make clear that they don’t have any problem with somebody saying they’re gay, but if they “act” on their identity — whether it’s starting a family with a same-sex partner, campaigning for marriage equality, or even attending a drag show at a gay club — then they’re in violation of moral principles and shouldn’t be protected. What they are essentially promoting is a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mentality for the workplace, which they believe would be the same as being “treated equally,” not unlike what Rep. Steve King (R-IA) recently proposed.

Groups like FRC and AFA defend ex-gay therapy for a reason: it’s part of the foundation for all their anti-gay positions. Only if sexual orientation is voluntary can they justify the discrimination they promote, and they ignore over 35 years of science to believe just that.

Our guest blogger is Ben Harris, intern for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed legislation that extends health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.  Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the bill, called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which if passed into law would extend health insurance and a number of other workplace benefits to federal employees and their same-sex partners.

Because of discriminatory laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gay federal employees do not have full access to benefits currently afforded to straight federal employees and their spouses. Without access to health insurance through their partners, many gay individuals must either purchase costly insurance plans in the private market or forgo health insurance, a considerable financial risk should be they become seriously ill. Yesterday, the Senate committee advanced a bill that would significantly alleviate that risk and bolster economic security for gay couples in the federal workforce.

Passing this bill out of committee is long overdue. Not only does this mean equal treatment for gay employees in the federal workforce, it also ensures that we attract the best and brightest workers into public service. When it was introduced back in November, Senator Collins remarked :

COLLINS: This change is both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare.

She’s right. Eighty-six percent of Fortune 100 companies offer equal health care benefits to employees with same-sex partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign. And research shows that when you treat gay workers equally on the job, what results is a happier, healthier, and more productive workforce.

Some, like Governor Rick Snyder (R) of Michigan, who recently vetoed a bill to extend domestic partner benefits to state employees, oppose equality in the workplace because they say it costs too much. They’re wrong . The take-up rate for domestic partner benefits is extremely low and it is likely that the boon from attracting a more talented and productive workforce outweighs any costs of providing equal benefits to gay couples.

What’s more, passing laws that extend workplace benefits to gay employees is politically popular. A whopping 8 in 10 Americans believe gay employees should be given equal benefits on the job. Even Mitt Romney agrees. Just last week, after restating his opposition to marriage equality, he voiced his support : “My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate.”

Conservatives and corporations should take a cue from the American people: workplace equality is critical to fostering a more efficient and effective government.

In an appearance on Meet The Press Sunday morning, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus attempted to clarify his party’s positions on same-sex marriage and also addressed the question of employment discrimination. Host David Gregory pressured Priebus about comments he made last week that states should make their own decisions about banning same-sex marriage, saying “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate,” — remarks noticeably out of step with Mitt Romney’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Priebus completely flipped on these “inartful” comments, aligning the party’s views with the candidate’s:

PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, I agree with the Governor.

GREGORY: Did you misspeak?

PRIEBUS: Perhaps it was inartful. [...]

GREGORY: The issue is: you said, “Don’t federalize it.” The nominee of the party says, “Federalize it,” a constitutional ban. Is that what the party believes?

PRIEBUS: Of course.

GREGORY: And it should be part of the platform?

PRIEBUS: It is part of the platform. And for the record, we do agree with the marriage amendment, and we do agree with DOMA, but as we sit today, we don’t have a federal mandate — excuse me, a federal — excuse me, a constitutional amendment.

Watch it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Despite this flip against equality, Priebus did claim that gays and lesbians deserve “equal rights, in regards to say, discrimination in the workplace,” which raises new questions about where the Republican party stands on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) recently said he “hasn’t thought much” about ENDA, but Republicans like Reps. Allen West (FL), James Lankford (OK), Kenny Marchant (TX), and Sen. Mike Lee (UT) have all opposed the long-proposed bill, arguing the protections are unnecessary.