At a retreat in Hollywood, California on Thursday, the Republican National Committee caved to pressure from social conservatives and unanimously approved a number of resolutions without any debate, including one opposing same-sex marriage.

As ThinkProgress reported Wednesday, this resolution is based entirely on debunked junk science and assumptions that heterosexual relationships are objectively superior to same-sex couples. Here is some of the text:

WHEREAS, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; it is based in the conjugal relationship that only a man and a woman can form; [...]

WHEREAS, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; [...] therefore be it

RESOLVED, the Republican national Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America.

A second resolution reaffirming the party’s 2012 platform included a similar provision opposing same-sex marriage:

WHEREAS, the 2012 Republican Platform states, “We believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.”

Last month, as part of its autopsy of the 2012 election, Republicans announced their intention to tone down — though not alter — their opposition to LGBT equality by sugarcoating how they discuss those positions. Adoption of these resolutions followed threats this week from social conservative groups that they would no longer support the GOP if the party didn’t stand strong, and even take guidance, from them on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. In particular, the Family Research Council urged supporters not to give money to the GOP if it didn’t “grow a backbone.”

Stuck between this rock (trying to recruit young people) and hard place (depending on social conservatives), the Republicans seem to have reverted to their same old positions. This is in spite of the fact there are now two Republican Senators and two Republican House members who support marriage equality, with others evolving. Some have also acknowledged that it’s “inevitable” that a Republican presidential candidate will someday support same-sex marriage.

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.

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.

The Republican National Committee’s investigation into its 2012 electoral defeat, dubbed their “Growth & Opportunity Project,” makes clear that it the party wants to expand its outreach to minority groups including Hispanics, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, African Americans, Women, and Youth. But rather than reaching out to LGBT people, the report suggests, the party need only reach out to the straight young voters who believe in LGBT equality.

In a section called “Demographic Partners,” the report — commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus — notes that the party’s presidential nominee lost among voters under age 30 by 5 million votes in 2012. But, with a “youthful” 41-year old RNC Chairman and likely 2016 hopefuls who are younger than Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it suggests that GOP can change its current image as “old and detached from pop culture.”

Since young voters generally disagree with the GOP platform on gay rights and see this and other social issues as the “civil rights issues of our time,” the report recommends that the GOP be “welcoming and inclusive.” But rather than welcoming LGBT people, it endorses inclusion of young conservative people who disagree with the party’s anti-LGBT beliefs but might have conservative views on other issues:

For the GOP to appeal to younger voters, we do not have to agree on every issue, but we do need to make sure young people do not see the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view. Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be.

If our Party is not welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out. The Party should be proud of its conservative principles, but just because someone disagrees with us on 20 percent of the issues, that does not mean we cannot come together on the rest of the issues where we do agree.

It goes on to say: “On messaging, we must change our tone — especially on certain social issues that are turning off young voters.” In other words, the party will continue to oppose equal rights but will do so with a less strident approach.

Rather than work to appeal to the five percent of American voters who identify as LGBT — and preferred the Democratic nominee by a more than three-to-one margin — the GOP new plan is to stand by its exclusion, but try to sound inclusive when doing so.