As Minnesota legislators prepare to consider marriage equality legislation, the bill’s opponents have begun sending out mailers targeting undecided lawmakers. Heather Carlson, reporter for the Rochester Post-Bulletin, tweeted a Minnesota for Marriage mailer targeting state. Sen. Matt Schmit (DFL), suggesting that marriage equality would “erase moms and dads”:

Gay “marriage” in Minnesota … it could happen any day now…

Don’t let the metro area force gay “marriage” on the rest of the state.

Together we can stop this from happening, but we need you to act NOW.

Don’t erase moms and dads.

Call Senator Matt Schmit and tell him to vote NO on the gay “marriage” bill.

Schmit has not publicly taken a position on marriage for same-sex couples, but he was elected in November by a district in which a majority of voters supported the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which failed. During his campaign, he did speak out against that amendment, but avoided taking a clear position on marriage equality itself.

The “erase moms and dads” motif echoes testimony provided by 11-year-old Grace Evans to the Minnesota legislature earlier this year. The National Organization for Marriage featured video of her remarks at its March for Marriage, in which she asks, “Which parent do I not need, my mom or my dad?” Though the committee holding that hearing did not respond to most people that day, NOM likes to claim no one [was] able to answer that basic question.” But in truth, Grace’s question is an irrelevant strawman built on the assumption that parenting is determined by gender norms. The child of a same-sex couple could just as righteously claim, “Which of my moms do I not need?”

The insinuation of this mailer from Minnesota for Marriage — of which NOM is a coalition member — is that the relationships of same-sex couples are inferior in both the context of “marriage,” as demonstrated by scare quotes around the word, and in terms of raising children. Marriage equality doesn’t erase moms and dads, it recognizes more of them by ensuring same-sex families have the same protections as other families.

Watch NOM’s propaganda video featuring Grace’s testimony, which does actually erase Minnesota’s hundreds of same-sex families:

A new Roanoke College poll shows growing support for marriage equality in Virginia, though still only a close 45 percent plurality supports it over 41 percent who oppose it. Other questions, however, reveal that when separated from the question of “marriage,” Virginians are much more eager to support same-sex couples. A solid 60 percent agree that same-sex couples “can be as good parents as heterosexual couples,” while only 27 percent disagree. Further, 62 percent believe same-sex couples “should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples,” while just 28 percent disagree.

The French Senate has approved another essential component of the marriage equality legislation, an article approving adoption rights for same-sex couples. With both that article and the basic marriage equality article passed, it’s likely the Senate will have no trouble passing the full bill in its entirety, but that might still take several weeks. It will also have to return to the National Assembly for final approval, which will likely happen in late May.

In France, the issues of same-sex marriage and adoption are considered separately, with adoption being a much more contentious matter. The same poll that found 63 percent of French voters support marriage equality found that only 49 percent support adoption rights. The boisterous rallies opposed to the legislation have championed the idea that children deserve a mother and a father, a talking point seemingly exported by American anti-gay groups. Opponents say they will organize another mass protest in Paris on May 26 if the legislation is approved, arguing it should be withdrawn and calling for a national referendum instead.

Mark Regnerus’s “New Family Structures Study” has been widely cited by conservatives as evidence that children do worse with same-sex parents, but it has been even more widely debunked as junk science by professional medical organizations. Evidence has been mounting that the study was concocted by the anti-gay Witherspoon Institute for political purposes, and the latest evidence shows that Regnerus was actually coached on how to talk to the media about the study.

The American Independent found a media guide that somebody provided Regnerus about how to talk about the study, including how to handle accusations that it’s biased because Witherspoon’s funding. Here are few of the talking points he was fed (and clearly used in media interviews after the study’s publication):

• “The study reveals many serious and concerning differences between young adults who have been raised in same-sex households and those raised in intact, traditional families. The data shows that in no measurement are those raised in a same-sex household better off than those raised in an intact family, and are clearly worse off in many key measurement.” [sic]
• “For many years, gay advocates have claimed that there are no meaningful differences between children of same-sex couples and other children. This study shows this not to be true.”
• “This study is not about same-sex marriage. It does not attempt to assess the differences between those gay couples who have married and those who have not. It is focused on the difference between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in an intact families. [sic] The study finds several significant differences.”
• “Every academic study is paid for by someone. Witherspoon approached us with a desire to independently examine the differences between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in traditional, intact families. They had no input into the design of the study, nor input into the researchers who actually conducted the study, nor the ability to influence the presentation of the results of the study. Indeed, the study was conducted by researchers on both sides of the gay marriage debate, and the study itself has been made available to outsiders to review and critique. Witherspoon has played no role in the outcome of this study.”

It’s unclear who provided Regnerus with this media training guide, but the document reveals a clear intention to distort the data. The largest flaw is that it compared broken homes in which a parent had a same-sex relationship with intact opposite-sex homes. Only two of the individuals in the study were actually raised from birth by committed same-sex parents, hardly enough to draw any conclusions about the outcomes of same-sex parenting. In these talking points, “same-sex household” and “intact families” are presented as mutually exclusive, ignoring the many intact same-sex families and broken opposite-sex households.

Regnerus was also coached to not take any political positions so as to preserve the impression that the study was not biased. More recently, it’s become evident that this was also a ruse and that Regnerus clearly opposes same-sex marriage in just the same way as the anti-gay organizations who cite his study at every turn. He signed a Supreme Court amicus brief opposing same-sex marriage, he’s speaking at an upcoming National Organization for Marriage conference, and he’s even openly defended his study’s claims about same-sex parenting’s inferiority.

Looking back, it’s easy to see Regnerus struggling to stick to the talking points, especially when he admitted in October that he couldn’t draw conclusions about the parenting of gays and lesbians because he didn’t even ask for the sexual orientation of the parents in the study. Now that the study has been thoroughly debunked and Regnerus has stopped pretending to be neutral, they no longer seem to apply at all.

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.

During oral arguments on same-sex marriage last week Justice Scalia argued against recognizing marriage equality by pointing to what he perceives as the potential harm that could befall children if same-sex couples could eventually adopt:

SCALIA: If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must  permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

Scalia’s bigoted words contain a host of flawed assumptions. For starters, his comments are part of a discriminatory narrative that same-sex parents are inferior at best, or abusive at worst. But, as Ezra Klein pointed out, “there’s no evidence that gay parents aren’t great parents.” According to the American Sociological Association, “whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex-parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.” A host of other reputable groups — including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Child Welfare League of America — agree with that conclusion.

Not only is Scalia’s comment about the scientific literature on LGBT parents outright wrong, his words also presume that there are no LGBT children in foster care and in need of adoption. But, in fact, the best evidence we have shows that LGBT foster youth are overrepresented in foster care, in part because of the discrimination they experience in their schools and families of origin. And there are documented instances of foster parents refusing to accept LGBT youth into their homes, kicking them out of their homes, or otherwise isolating them once they are placed in their home. Does Justice Scalia think, without a shred of evidence, that placing these children in homes with LGBT parents would somehow harm them more than the outright bigotry they already experience?

LGBT youth in the foster care system are treated differently from other groups, such as racial, ethnic, and religious groups, who enjoy greater constitutional protections with regard to the provision of culturally competent placements. For example, case workers attempt to place African American youth with African American parents and Spanish-speaking children in Spanish-speaking homes, or to place these children only in homes that have undergone cultural sensitivity training that explicitly addresses their unique needs. Allowing LGBT adults to adopt is one of the more obvious steps the system could take to increase the number of suitable placements available to LGBT foster youth. But anti-gay groups have opposed efforts to even provide sensitivity training to those responsible for LGBT foster youth because they refuse to acknowledge the children’s identity in the first place.

Of course, denying LGBT families the right to foster and adopt doesn’t just harm LGBT foster youth, it harms all foster youth by preventing loving adoptive parents from being able to care for them. Despite the recommendations of many child advocates, only a few states currently allow LGBT Americans to adopt or foster children. Throughout most of the country, LGBT couples face significant barriers to either fostering or adopting and in some states are explicitly prohibited from doing so.

This discriminatory treatment of LGBT Americans in the foster care system is part-and-parcel of laws that define marriage as only between heterosexuals and discriminate against non-heteronormative family structures. At present, courts do not have to apply the same level of scrutiny to the treatment of LGBT Americans, so the foster care system simultaneously discriminates against LGBT adults who want to adopt children and LGBT children who desperately need to be adopted into safe and culturally competent homes.

If Justice Scalia really cares about the best interests of children he would protect the constitutional rights of all children who need to be adopted — gay or straight — and ensure that all adoptive parents are recognized and protected by the law.

Our guest blogger is Lindsay Rosenthal, Research Assistant with the Health Policy Program and the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), who ThinkProgress determined to be the most anti-gay member of the House, wrote an op-ed today in The Washington Times reiterating his opposition to same-sex marriage. In his column, he explains that same-sex marriage will “further the destruction of the family,” because same-sex couples and their children aren’t even families at all:

President Obama and I have very different notions of what a family is. For liberals, the family can apparently be everything from “Heather Has Two Mommies” to “Daddy’s Roommate” to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “It Takes a Village.” In the opinion of electoral majorities in Kansas and 40 other states, however, that does not a family make. [...]

Redefining marriage to remove parents of both sexes from the equation would further the destruction of the family, the most fundamental building block of society. If that definition is changed by the court, the purpose of marriage devolves to mere recognition of an emotional union. In so doing, the children of America will be shortchanged — and the will of the American people would be once again short-circuited by black robes in Washington.

Huelskamp cites “overwhelming social science evidence” that claims opposite-sex parents are better than same-sex parents, even though the actual consensus among social scientists supports same-sex parenting. To his credit, he honestly admits his belief in antiquated gender norms, suggesting “there are differing parenting styles between men and women and that children deserve both.” Of course, in doing so he relies on claims about “fatherlessness,” an argument that relies on research about single mothers to fraudulently draw conclusions about same-sex parents.

With same-sex couples raising children across the country, including 22 percent of couples in his home state of Kansas, it’s unclear what Huelskamp would call these households if not “families,” assuming he even acknowledges their existence.

Anti-gay Rep. Steve King (R-IA) published a new op-ed in the National Review thursday trying to explain that “marriage is illegal without a license” and that restrictions against same-sex couples simply reflect the “government’s interest in marriage.” Here is how King tried to make his case against marriage equality, even though same-sex couples are free to get marriage licenses in his home state of Iowa:

Marriage is the stable platform from which families are launched. Government surely has a compelling interest in ensuring the stability of that platform, and even subsidizing the practice with tax incentives. Moreover, society has an interest in promoting procreation amongst married adults. Same-sex marriage does not present the possibility of natural procreation nor has same-sex parenting endured and thrived for millennia of human experience.

In our legal system, qualifications for licenses have long-standing foundation, and those qualifications are not considered discriminatory. They are considered to be necessary to pursue the interest of the public. In the case of marriage, those interests are all about children.

You do not need a license to begin a new friendship, start shopping at a new grocery store or pharmacy, or even begin a new dating relationship. Likewise, one does not need a court order to terminate any of those relationships. This fact indicates that there is something unique about marriage that necessitates government involvement. Insisting upon heterosexual marriage is therefore not discriminatory, nor does it constitute the government telling anyone whom to love. The argument for upholding the Defense of Marriage Act is rooted in the way marriage is historically treated by state laws. To understand why government is involved in marriage in the first place is to understand why government cannot validate same-sex marriage.

King seems to have little understanding of what it means to be gay or why the LGBT community is fighting for equality under the law. Despite the fact there might not have been same-sex parenting for “millenia of human experience,” there most certainly is same-sex parenting now, including about 19 percent of same-sex couples in Iowa.

If anything, by spelling out the simple factors that explain why the government has an interest in recognizing marriage, King undercuts his own argument. If marriage is about children and same-sex couples are raising children, then it’s blatantly discriminatory to not allow them to receive marriage licenses. Perhaps if King is so interested in “the way marriage is historically treated by state laws,” he should pay attention to how his own state has treated marriage for the past four years.

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.