FRC envisions a military with soldiers who cry because of marriage equality.

Anti-gay conservatives continue to be outraged that two same-sex weddings took place at West Point this weekend, including one in the academy’s Cadet Chapel. Many though, are now making a false claim that the marriages somehow are a violation of federal law. Along with an image of a crying soldier, Tony Perkins argued in the Family Research Council’s Washington Update Monday that the weddings were inconsistent with the Defense of Marriage Act:

In September of last year, the Pentagon did issue a memo giving military bases the power to decide whether or not to host same-sex “weddings.” Of course, that guidance came from Jeh Johnson, general counsel for the Department of Defense–not Congress. According to Johnson, decisions about military facilities should be made on a “sexual-orientation neutral basis.” And while the “wedding” may have been consistent with Johnson’s memo, the DOD’s general counsel is no substitute for the 427 elected members of Congress who voted to define marriage as the union of a man and woman for the government’s purposes. That means it affects federal employees (which Fulton is) and federal property (where West Point resides). The President may vehemently disagree with the law–but until the Supreme Court overturns it or Congress rejects it, DOMA is still the law of the land.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, whose life seems to be dedicated to opposing open service in the military, similarly argued that the marriages violated DOMA:

DONNELLY: Even though Congress made it very clear and it’s in the legislation that they intended the Defense of Marriage Act to be respected and honored on military bases, several times now the administration has allowed various branches of the service to disregard that. This is the most blatant example.

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer was more direct with this tweet:

Military breaks the law, allows homosexual “wedding” at West Point. So much for honoring their oath.

All of these interpretations distort was DOMA actually says. The law has two components. The first (Section 2) says that no state shall have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere. The second (Section 3) simply states that for any federal regulation or Act of Congress, “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” It is an incredible stretch to interpret this language such that a same-sex wedding is somehow illegal merely because the resulting union is not recognized by the federal government. Plenty of activities are legal that are not accounted for in written law, many of which can also take place on government property. There’s no question that DOMA applies to these couples’ marriages, but it’s a very different question to try to apply it to their weddings.

What Perkins, Donnelly, Fischer, Robertson, and others really want is for the military academies to blatantly discriminate against gays and lesbians. If any graduate of the Academy is welcome to hold a wedding in the Cadet Chapel, then Brenda Sue Fulton should not be have been exempted merely because of who she was marrying.

The Family Research Council is engaging in some very interesting damage control spin this week over its present and past support of Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill, which may pass before the end of the year. Earlier this week, Tony Perkins applauded statements by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, but now he is trying to claim that FRC has never supported Uganda’s heightened criminal sanctions for homosexuality:

For years, the African nation has been condemned for its severe laws criminalizing homosexuality. Despite allegations to the contrary, FRC has never supported that policy–or any policy that imposes the death penalty on homosexuals. What we do oppose is the suggestion that gay and lesbian acts are universal human rights. So when Congress introduced a resolution in 2010 denouncing Uganda’s punishment for homosexuality, FRC fought–at the request of some Members–to strike the pro-homosexual “human rights” language from the final measure.

First, it’s egregious enough that Perkins boasts his group’s opposition to the human rights of gays and lesbians, which would include freedom from violence and harassment, freedom to love, and freedom to raise a family. But what’s galling is that his denial of supporting Uganda’s bill is an outright lie. Though it has been scrubbed from FRC’s website, a distinct audio and visual record still exists documenting FRC’s blatant support of the “Kill The Gays” bill, death penalty and all. Jeremy Hooper provides them both; listen to it:

To be clear, in 2010, the Family Research Council described — in Tony Perkins’ own words — Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill as an effort “to uphold moral conduct.” And now, Perkins has the gall to accuse groups like the Human Rights Council and Southern Poverty Law Center of “fostering a culture of hatred and violence,” as if they somehow recruited and encouraged the rogue shooter who opened fire on FRC’s offices earlier this year. Perkins’ interpretation of who is tolerant and who is violent does not reflect reality.

The Family Research Council’s desperate reaction to this week’s marriage equality victories continued yesterday with more violent rhetoric. Tony Perkins took to the airways and explained that if the Supreme Court rules that all states must recognize same-sex marriage, it could “break this nation apart“:

PERKINS: I think if the Court steps in at this moment and says, [fist-smack] “We’re redefining marriage, same-sex marriage will be the law in every land,” I’m telling you what, I think you will create a firestorm of opposition. I think that could be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

When you look at a nation that is so divided along these moral and cultural issues, that you could have — you know I hate to use the word — but I mean a revolt, a revolution. I mean, I think you could see Americans saying, “You know what, enough of this.” And I think it could explode and just break this nation apart.

Watch it:

Ironically, it was just three months ago that the Family Research Council was distancing itself from violent rhetoric as much as possible. In the wake of the shooting at the group’s headquarters, FRC lashed out at the LGBT movement, blaming the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” label and even President Obama for somehow inciting anti-Christian violence. This week, the group has already called for “civil disobedience,” a new “Gideon’s army,” and now a “firestorm of opposition,” a “revolt,” and a “revolution” that could “explode,” all because same-sex couples in three more states can marry. If FRC truly believes violent rhetoric does not belong in the so-called “culture war,” it needs to start holding itself accountable.

FRC's Tom McClusky calling for 'civil disobedience.'

The Family Research Council hosted a post-election special Wednesday where various religious leaders contemplated how they will approach their anti-equality positions moving forward after their losses on Tuesday. The common theme, as captured in this RightWingWatch highlight reel, seemed to be a shift toward more demonstrative action, with what even seemed to be suggestions of violence.

FRC’s Tom McClusky told Tony Perkins that “civil disobedience” will now be necessary for people who refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. Jim Garlow suggested that silent Christians will realize they’re being persecuted and “our ranks are going to increase dramatically.” Rep-elect Mark Meadows (R-NC) even suggested that Gideon’s army must serve as a model to oppose enemies because “our God will not be mocked.” Watch the clip:

This sentiment mirrors the Manhattan Declaration drafted in 2009, speciously invoking Martin Luther King, Jr. to urge conservative Christians to defy the law if faced with a situation in which they must recognize a same-sex marriage. Ultimately, this serves as a more extreme attempt to paint opponents of equality as victims, a battle they are already losing. The campaigns against marriage equality in this election relied heavily on claims that people who want to discriminate are the true victims, a strategy that failed as the LGBT community did more to highlight same-sex couples’ families and commitment to communities.

Yesterday, the New York Times editorial board called conservatives to task:

It is a moment for the opponents of civil rights for all Americans — including Congressional Republicans, who are still defending the marriage act in court — to decide whether they want to continue to stand against justice to court a dwindling share of voters.

If the Family Research Council and National Organization for Marriage are any indication, these groups will go down fighting, but go down they will.

“It Gets Better” founder Dan Savage recently lashed out at the Family Research Council again, saying that “every dead gay kid is a victory for the Family Research Council” and that “Tony Perkins sits on a pile of dead gay kids every day when he goes to work.” Savage’s concerns arise because of how FRC encourages parents to reject their children for being LGBT, contributing to a higher risk of homelessness, drug use, sexually transmitted infection, and suicide. Perkins responded in a conversation with Mike Huckabee yesterday, saying that Savage “has some issues” and that FRC is “pursuing everything possible to deal with him because he is out of control.” Now, Savage is calling Perkins’ legal bluff:

Sue me, Tony. I’d love to see you talk about my “issues” on a witness stand.

I realize that this isn’t how you think the world is supposed to work, Tony. You believe — and you’re old enough to remember a time when — people like you were free to say vile and disgusting things about people like me without anyone objecting. Certainly people like me weren’t allowed to call people like you out. You still believe you should be free to lie about me and other LGBT people with absolutely impunity — we’re all pedophiles and terrorists and Satanists — and that we should have to shut up and take it because… well, I’m not sure why you think we’re not allowed to respond when you lie about us.

Maybe that’s something we could get to the bottom of during the depositions.

Savage’s original comments obviously occupy a rhetorical extreme that few tread upon, but they still bear truth. It’s notable, as Savage himself points out, that Perkins did nothing to rebut the remarks or clarify any particular concern for children’s well-being. He couldn’t genuinely do so anyway; by proliferating the junk-science idea that gays can and should change, FRC is causing exactly the kind of harm to which Savage refers.

The raw nature of Savage’s rhetoric illuminates how little accountability hate groups like FRC take for their anti-gay advocacy. Perkins’ new campaign against the Southern Poverty Law Center for the “hate group” designation — a flip for many of the conservatives rallying behind the effort — is the same kind of umbrage that obfuscates the harmful miseducation such groups churn out on a daily basis. Similarly, one of the National Organization for Marriage’s chief argument against equality is that conservatives will be labeled as “bigots,” but it then has no problem painting LGBT activists as violent or endorsing the harmful quackery that is ex-gay therapy.

Savage’s approach might not always be the most elegant, but it certainly does cut through the rhetorical muck and focus attention on the harm caused by anti-gay groups like FRC.

Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council are still not convinced that repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” won’t have longstanding consequences for the military, regardless of what studies have shown. In yesterday’s Washington Update from FRC, Perkins claims that fallout is coming, it just might take a couple decades:

In the last few days, I’ve fielded plenty of calls from reporters asking, “Where’s all the fallout that FRC predicted?” And I’ll tell you what I told them. It’s impossible to gauge the full effect of sexualizing the military in one year. But make no mistake–the repercussions have begun. We’ve witnessed it in the decline of religious freedom, the censoring of chaplains, the embrace of same-sex “marriage,” and the special treatment for homosexual soldiers. [...]

Has America’s military completely collapsed in the first year after repeal? Of course not–our service members are too professional to let that to happen. But these challenges are only a non-story because the media won’t tell the story. We need only look at no-fault divorce in the 1970s to recognize that radical shifts in public policy take decades to fully manifest. No one can honestly deny the impact that no-fault divorce has had on children and the institution of the family. Within 20 years of the introduction of no-fault divorce, we saw the acceleration of cohabitation, single-parent homes, and unintended pregnancies. By the time Americans recognized their mistake, it was too late. Let’s hope the same isn’t true for our brave men and women in uniform.

The “repercussions” Perkins references include a limit on the size of tattoos servicemembers can have, efforts to minimize the imposition of Christian ministry and evangelism by officers, allowing soldiers to wear their uniforms in Pride parades just like they do in other parades, and soldiers marrying their partners. None of these is really a bad thing, let alone a consequence of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Perkins was wrong before repeal, he’s wrong now, and he’ll still be wrong decades from now.

Though Mitt Romney did not join his running mate Paul Ryan and other Congressional Republicans at this weekend’s Values Voters Summit, he did address the conference through a prerecorded video. In it, he personally thanked Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council for their “leadership” and for bringing people together to discuss “vital issues.” He went on to reiterate his anti-choice and anti-gay positions, borrowing a Rick Santorum talking point suggesting that liberal social policies contribute to poverty:

ROMNEY: We will uphold the sanctity of life, not abandon or ignore it. And we will defend marriage, not try to redefine it. We need a President who understands that we will not have a strong economy unless we have strong communities and strong families. This isn’t conjecture or some quaint belief, it’s evidenced by a Brookings Institution study that Rick Santorum brought to my attention some time ago. For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until they’re 21 until they marry and then have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2 percent, but if those things are absent, the probability of becoming poor is 76 percent. In short, culture matters, and as President, I’ll protect our culture and preserve the values of hard work, personal responsibility, family, and faith.

Watch his full address:

Unlike the America Romney imagines, same-sex families are a part of communities all across this country, and they would benefit from marriage just like other families.

During his presidential campaign during the Republican primaries, Santorum regularly made claims about poverty to defend his socially conservative positions. In January, he claimed that President Obama was de-emphasizing abstinence-only sex education because he “wants people to be in poverty,” despite the fact that such programs are ineffective at preventing teen pregnancy. Santorum also told audiences that kids are better off with a parent in jail than with same-sex parents, conflating the experience of abandoned mothers to the “fatherless” families of lesbian couples.

If Romney wants to cite data when he speaks on social issues — particularly as his campaign prepares to emphasize them more — he should probably consider using information that actually informs his positions, rather than relying on the conjecture of his party’s extremists like Santorum.

This weekend is the Family Research Council’s Values Voters Summit, and Tony Perkins kicked the event off yesterday with a luncheon at the National Press Club. After reiterating his rebuke of the Southern Poverty Law Center for its “bitter characterization” of FRC as a “hate group,” Perkins openly took questions from the audience. At one point, Perkins was asked if he would disown one of children if he or she came out as gay. He responded that he wouldn’t disown, but just like a “lifestyle” of drugs, he wouldn’t condone the “destructive” behavior either:

PERKINS: I would not disown my children for anything, but let me say this… I believe that as a parent that I have a responsibility for the environment in which I raise my children. And I believe as a parent, we have the ability to protect them from a lot of unfortunate experiences that have shaping influences upon their lives…

We can do our very best job as a parent and still something may happen, whether they end up in drugs or whether they end up in some other lifestyle that they end up in… They’re our children. We’ll always love them, but we don’t necessarily condone what they do. And if we really love them, we’ll be wiling to tell them the truth that the choices that they have made to continue in what they are doing are both destructive to them personally and to society as a whole.

Listen to it:

Perkins also let slip this ironic line: “It’s time to dial down your demonization of those who differ with you.” This seems reminiscent of Brian Brown’s admission during his debate with Dan Savage that “just because you believe something is wrong, it doesn’t mean that you make it illegal.” If only these anti-gay activists practiced what they preached.

Watch FRC’s full event at The Press Club:

(Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.)

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins has had a prominent role in shaping the Republican Party’s platform, including support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The Bridge Project noticed an interview Perkins did with CNSNews.com today in which he claimed that only a “very small minority” of Americans support marriage equality:

PERKINS: I think this is the year of contrast.  This is the year of contrast when you look at the party platforms. The Republican Party has very strong language as it pertains to natural, traditional marriage.The Democratic Party going the way of a very small minority in this country and embracing same-sex marriage, which undermines the 32 states that have voted on this, the 30 states that have constitutional amendments. I think that’s in your face to those states that have constitutional amendments.

Watch it:

Apparently Perkins believes a “very small minority” means the same thing as a “consistent majority” and “the Democratic Party.” Over the past two years, polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. Of course, the Democratic Party has also endorsed this position, in stark contrast to the platform Perkins helped draft. Like all other issues related to LGBT people, Perkins has convinced himself of something that contradicts with the reality of the world around him.