President Ronald Reagan’s negligence during the AIDS crisis combined with his empowering of social conservatives in the religious right make him pretty unpopular among the LGBT community, but even he opposed California’s Briggs Initiative, a proposed law to ban gays and lesbians from being teachers. His son Ron Reagan, Jr. has in turn been an outspoken supporter of gay rights, but it seems his son Michael has taken to being even more conservative than his father.

In a op-ed today in Ohio’s Ironton Tribune, Michael Reagan excoriates the “Protestants, Jews, and Catholics” for not expressing enough “moral outrage” about same-sex marriage. Churches, he believes, should start “fighting for America” to protect it from the “serious threat” marriage equality presents:

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage.

There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Perhaps more social conservatives should start claiming that same-sex marriage will lead to legalized murder. With arguments that absurd and offensive, they might lose the fight against equality even more quickly. (HT: Jeremy Hooper.)

During an appearance on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday morning, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) admitted that a Republican presidential candidate who supports marriage equality is “inevitable” and that such a candidate would receive widespread support from across the political spectrum.

While Flake’s statement is reflective of rapidly shifting U.S. attitudes towards support for LGBT Americans — and come at the end of watershed week when the Supreme Court took up cases regarding the constitutionality of anti-gay laws Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act — it appears that cultural tide hasn’t quite swept up Flake with it yet, as the senator stood by his narrow interpretation of “traditional marriage” between one man and one woman:

CHUCK TODD (HOST): Let me ask you on gay marriage. Could you support a Republican presidential candidate some day who supported same-sex marriage?

FLAKE: Oh, I think that’s inevitable. There will be one and he will receive bipartisan support — or she will. So I think that yes, the answer is yes.

TODD: And where are you on this issue, you say it’s inevitable. Are you — Lisa Murkowski, a Republican colleague of yours called it evolving on the issue. Are you evolving to use her words on this issue?

FLAKE: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman I still hold to the traditional definition of marriage.

TODD: Is there something that you — are you thinking about it? Can you imagine changing your position before you left the U.S. Senate?

FLAKE: I can’t. I tell you, in the past I’ve supported repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I’ve supported the [The Employment] Nondiscrimination Act as well, but I hold to the traditional definition of marriage.

Flake and other politicians opposing marriage equality find themselves on the wrong side of history and, increasingly, the opinion of the American public. Support for marriage equality has skyrocketed in recent years, and the latest election cycle saw the election of the first openly-gay U.S. senator, as well as the first openly bisexual U.S. congresswoman.

Still, a Republican nominee who supports marriage equality would face significant hurdles from members of their own party, as social conservatives have threatened to revolt if the GOP abandons its hardline views on LGBT rights and marriage equality. In fact, during a separate appearance on Fox News Sunday, former RNC chair Ed Gillespie hinted that the growing support for marriage equality could force Republicans to drop their call for a federal amendment against marriage equality from their platform.

Marriage is somehow keeping this man committed to his fun-loving wife so he doesn't get some young girl pregnant.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments about Proposition 8, Justice Elena Kagan challenged attorney Charles Cooper about his claims that procreation is the purpose of marriage. She inquired whether a couple over the age of 55 should be allowed to marry since they could no longer produce a child. Cooper attempted to counter with the absurd argument from his reply brief that men are still fertile and that prevents them from cheating with younger women. Since he didn’t get to fully articulate his point, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg is happy to help him out:

Perhaps Cooper was wary of appearing sexist to Justice Kagan if he stated the truth more bluntly—55-year-old women are virtually always infertile, but 55-year-old men are not. As frustrating as it may be to some feminists, there are some sex differences which cannot be overcome. (Justice Antonin Scalia tried to save Cooper with a joke about Strom Thurmond, the late U.S. Senator who continued to father children well into his 70’s, but it seemed to go over the audience’s heads.)

Society’s interest in promoting “responsible procreation”—the term most commonly used in defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman—involves not just promoting procreation itself, and promoting it in a responsible context (i.e., where the mother and father who make a child are both committed to the child and to each other through marriage). “Responsible procreation” also implies an effort to discourage irresponsible procreation—a quite plausible example of which might be a 55-year-old man going around impregnating fertile women (presumably younger than himself) who are not his wife.

Sprigg does not share Cooper’s concern about appearing sexist. Apparently, the fertility of the marriage is only defined by whether the man can still produce sperm. It also doesn’t seem to matter if women cheat or if men cheat with older women, because cheating only seems to be a problem if it results in “irresponsible procreation.” It’s unclear what the stakes are if the man is sterile, and presumably a vasectomy would immediately nullify a marriage license.

Obviously this is all nonsense, but this is the corner conservatives have painted themselves into in an attempt to avoid sounding like they’re anti-gay. By turning against heterosexuals instead, they prove that these arguments have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Whether marriage is about children, monogamy, or simply reinforcing sexist gender norms, none of these points explains why same-sex couples shouldn’t have equal access to it.

While New York State Sen. Rubén Díaz (D) was leading the anti-marriage equality march on the National Mall yesterday, his son, Bronx Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. (D), was probably penning the final words for his statement endorsing marriage equality.

On Wednesday, the junior Díaz released a long and personal statement announcing his support for same-sex marriage, which has been the national focus this week as the Supreme Court debates the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8:

“My decision, which comes after years of thought and reflection on the issue, is informed by the experiences I have had with close friends, family and loved ones.

“For example, my chief-of-staff, Paul Del Duca, has for decades worked to help the people of this City. He has helped people find housing and jobs, he has dedicated his professional life to assisting those in need. Why, then, should he and his partner Damion—whose wedding I stood witness to—be denied the same rights of any other loving and committed couple? Moreover, why should my niece, Erica Diaz, be denied the ability to get married when her time comes?

“When marriage equality was made legal in 2011, many opponents predicted that it would have negative consequences. That has certainly not been the case. It is my contention that our city and our state are better off than they were before marriage equality became the law. Not only has our city seen an incredible financial impact from marriage equality, the quality of life for myself, my family and my friends has not suffered one bit.”

Díaz, Jr.’s statement stands in stark contrast to the comments from his father, who has vowed to lead a “war” on same-sex marriages, and has embraced the support of a woman who declared homosexuality more threatening than terrorism and a minister who said gays are worthy of death.

This won’t be the first Díaz family rift. The senior Díaz has continued to disparage marriage equality, even as he acknowledges that he has a gay brother and nephew, and a lesbian granddaughter who has openly condemned him. Still, the State Sen. insists, “We have a very loving family… I love them. They love me. We help each other.”

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.

From San Francisco's rally last night.

As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments today on California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, a new SurveyUSA poll shows that 67 percent of Californians believe same-sex couples deserve the legal benefits of marriage. Only 30 percent believe those benefits should be limited to “a man and a woman.”

Conservatives have argued that if the Court rules against Prop 8, it will somehow invalidate the will of the voters who supported the ballot initiative. Not only do voters not have the power to undermine the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, but it’s clear that the anti-gay animus that motivated Prop 8′s passage no longer represents the majority of California values.

Further proof of this today comes from 25 California mayors, who have urged the Supreme Court to rule Prop 8 unconstitutional. Thousands also rallied Monday night in San Francisco showing their support for marriage equality. Here’s a video of some scenes from the march and rally: