On Wednesday, Maine’s No Special Rights PAC launched its “Gay Marriage House of Horrors,” a website apparently aimed at scaring voters into opposing the state’s pro-marriage equality referendum in November.

Despite its ominous name, the website isn’t much of a “house.” It’s actually just a single webpage with an anti-gay image, a link to the No Special Rights PAC blog, and a link for making donations:

It goes without saying that the website doesn’t actually comment on the issue of same-sex marriage. Instead, it’s a portrayal of an offensive and almost comically outdated stereotype of gay men as feminine, flamboyant, and weak.

This kind of over-the-top anti-gay rhetoric is pretty typical for NO Special Rights PAC, which last month distributed a “truth pledge” to students asking them to oppose “sodomy based marriage.” The group has promised to “take off the gloves” in the months leading to November, aiming to focus its campaign on warning voters about the immorality of homosexuality.

Mike Heath, the group’s co-founder, has a history of extreme anti-gay rhetoric, including accusing the gay rights movement of being “rooted in sorcery.”

Earlier this month, Heath regretted behaving in a “womanish” way during the 2009 fight to repeal marriage equality in Maine, adding:

"I never should have put on the suit and blow-dried my hair," he writes. "I never should have tried to use my image, and the image of those around me, to win the battle. I always should have trusted God more than I did." [emphasis added]

Considering Heath’s bizarre understanding of what masculinity looks like, it’s not all that surprising that his organization found the infantile “house of horrors” image to be worthy of its own website.

(h/t Jeremy Hooper via Good As You)

Previously:

Third Anti-Gay Group Enters The Fight Against Maine’s Pro-Marriage Equality Referendum

Anti-Gay Groups Infighting Over Messaging In Maine Marriage Campaign

Meet Mike Heath, Co-Founder Of Maine’s Anti-LGBT “NO Special Rights PAC”

Media Research Center (MRC) senior news analyst Scott Whitlock wasn’t thrilled with last night’s episode of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, which included a segment discussing President Obama’s recently announced support for marriage equality. The segment featured the notoriously anti-gay Bishop Harry Jackson, who criticized Obama’s position and compared same-sex marriage to polygamy.

At the end of the interview, Matthews joked with Jackson, saying “Bishop, I hope you evolve. Thank you very much. I’m just teasing.”

Within an hour, Whitlock published a column on MRC’s Newsbusters website attacking Matthews for asking a black leader to “evolve”:

Hardball anchor Chris Matthews, who routinely smears his political opponents as racist, on Monday lectured an African American minister who opposes gay marriage, "I hope you evolve." The host patronizingly added, "I'm just teasing." ... How would he (or MSNBC for that matter) react if a conservative said such a thing to a black leader?

[...]

Fellow black minister, Reverend Delman Coates also appeared on the show. After Coates indicated he supported gay marriage, Jackson retorted, "Why not let the Muslims have polygamy and bigamy?"

This prompted Matthews to insultingly suggest: "I hope you evolve...I'm just teasing."

Considering Matthews routinely plays the race card, will he apologize for telling a black man to "evolve?" [emphasis original]

Whitlock’s criticism has been promoted up by a number of conservative commentators, including Michelle Malkin and Dana Loesch. It’s also been touted by anti-gay extremists like American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg, and Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber.

Whitlock seems to be oblivious to the fact that political commentators have been using ‘evolve’ rhetoric since late 2010 to describe Obama’s position on same-sex marriage. In fact, it was Obama himself who, in October 2010, told gay activist Joe Sudbay that his attitude toward same-sex marriage was ‘evolving.’ He reiterated his position several months later, telling reporters that his feelings about marriage equality were “constantly evolving.”

In the following months, “evolve already” became a mantra among gay activists who were frustrated by Obama’s unwillingness to fully endorse marriage equality. AMERICAblog even started an “evolve already” T-shirt collection.

‘Evolution’ rhetoric hasn’t been limited to the LGBT community, either. Earlier this year, Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stated that she wanted Obama to “evolve” on same-sex marriage. In the wake of Obama’s announcement, mainstream news outlets including The New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press have commented on the president’s ‘evolution.’ Even conservative outlets like Breitbart.com and Townhall.com have adopted similar language.

Considering that Matthews and Jackson were specifically discussing Obama’s recent support for same-sex marriage, it’s not surprising that Matthews would tease his anti-gay guest to “evolve” as well. Whitlock’s criticism isn’t evidence of some kind of subtle racism as much it is evidence of MRC’s ongoing habit of finding any excuse to attack pro-equality figures in the media.

Previously:

MSNBC's O'Donnell: Grills Tony Perkins For Rewriting The History Of Marriage

MSNBC's Matthews: Tony Perkins Is "Pretty Demonstrably Wrong" About Why Kids Are Gay

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Demonstrates How To Handle Tony Perkins On Television

Earlier this month, the Portland Press Herald announced the creation of a third anti-gay group fighting this November’s voter initiative to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine – the Maine Marriage Allies PAC, which will be a project of the ironically named Maine Equal Rights Center (MERC). On its Facebook page, MERC is described as a “grass roots campaign to educate voters on same sex marriage.”

MERC’s website, however, is a deluge of misinformation, confused political analyses, and some truly cringe-worthy writing.

The website is organized into a number of tabs meant to provide visitors with information about the proposed marriage initiative. Each tab varies wildly in content and tone; some inexplicably focus on criticizing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) while another includes an image of President Obama riding a unicorn. 

Most tabs, however, contain the same kind of unsubstantiated talking points one might expect from an anti-gay group. The “Rights” tab leads readers to a laundry list of unsubstantiated, unexplained falsehoods about marriage equality:

Every state that passed gay marriage gave up their first amendment rights so public schools can teach 5 year olds about gay sex.

Every state that passed gay marriage created another loop hole to allow non citizens access to taxpayer dollars for welfare.

Every state that legalized ‘gay’ marriage failed to create equality like they told voters it would and has only led to a dramatic increase in the numbers of law suits that can be filed.

Legalizing gay marriage has not accomplished one single thing they said it will but is doing many things they won’t tell you it will.

[...]

Gay rights are not civil rights and marriage is not a Constitutional right.  Many of the people don’t truly understand what this is about, they just want an excuse to protest.

[...]

Gay marriage is being sold to the American people state by state as a way to bring about ‘human rights’ which it does not do.  All it does do is replace our Bill of Rights and Constitutional rights one amendment at a time as part of a global agenda and that is not progress.

Under the “Education” tab, one can read about the long-debunked horror story that legalizing same-sex marriage will result in “teaching five year olds about gay sex.” The page also includes this nugget of political science wisdom:

There are two kinds of government competing for this control.  A Constitutional, which protects people  from a centralized and absolute form of government and Communist, which is a centralized, absolute power that does not protect people from the government.

Last November, MERC’s founder Erick Bennett unsuccessfully ran as a write-in candidate to become mayor of Portland, Maine. His YouTube account features a number of mystifying amateur campaign ads, as well as an over eight-minute-long video on “same sex equality” in which Bennett criticizes Maine’s non-discrimination statute, among other things.

Bennett’s Facebook page is also littered with anti-LGBT commentary, including a number of posts in which he appears to mock transgender people:

Despite his anti-gay rhetoric, Bennett seems to have distanced himself from Maine’s inflammatory NO Special Rights PAC, another group working to defeat the pro-equality referendum in November. In a May 4 Facebook post, Bennett criticized NO Special Rights PAC’s co-founder Mike Heath for his homophobic “messaging,” instead aligning himself with the more mainstream Protect Marriage Maine coalition:

Previously:

Anti-Gay Groups Infighting Over Messaging In Maine Marriage Campaign

Meet Mike Heath, Co-Founder Of Maine’s Anti-LGBT “NO Special Rights PAC”

Anti-Equality Chairman Admits To Lying To Voters, When Will NOM Do The Same?

As part of a National Review Online symposium on President Obama’s announced support for marriage equality, the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Jennifer Morse wrote a column criticizing the president for allegedly ignoring African-American voters. She speculated:

African-American voters still don’t like the removing of the gender requirement from marriage, or having the government declare that men and women are completely interchangeable as parents. What is Obama thinking about African-American voters? He may be blowing them off completely and taking their votes for granted. Or, he may be planning to use the money from the Gay Lobby to purchase advertising having nothing to do with gay issues, but designed to scare black voters away from voting Republican. Or, some combination of these.

With the Democratic party, it is All Identity Politics All the Time. They have no other issues. Let’s face it, they are dead in the water on economics. Their foreign policy is not credible. Identity politics is all they have left. Expect a very ugly, divisive campaign. [emphasis added]

It’s hard to take Morse seriously when she accuses about Democrats creating a “divisive” campaign by focusing on identity politics. After all, this is the same person who, last November, suggested [[that]] gay couples were adopting African-American children who had been “taken from their parents.” A month earlier, she claimed that the president is “more gay than he is black” and that Obama was choosing to pander to the gay community because he thinks “blacks don’t have that much money.”

Morse also fails to acknowledge her own organization’s extensive history of race-baiting to gin up opposition to LGBT equality. In March, internal memos revealed that NOM explicitly aimed to exploit identity politics to turn African-Americans and Hispanics against the LGBT community. NOM’s 2009 Board Update, for example, discussed plans to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks”:

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay marriage to its advocates and persuading the movement’s allies that advocates are unacceptably overreaching on this issue. [emphasis added]

Another NOM 2009 strategy document described plans to make opposition to marriage equality a “key badge of Latino identity”:

Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We can interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity.

[...]

Our ultimate goal is to make opposition to gay marriage an identity marker, a badge of youth rebellion to conformist assimilation to the bad side of “Anglo” culture. [emphasis added]

Since the release of NOM’s internal memos, the organization has only doubled down on its commitment to promote racial tension in the fight against same-sex marriage, going so far as to blame “rich white guys” for “push[ing] gay marriage on us.”

Morse is correct for condemning those who exploit identity politics to advance “ugly, divisive” political agendas. If only she and her would practice what they preach.

Previously:

NOM’s Morse: Will & Grace ‘Manipulated’ Viewers Into Having A Favorable View Of Homosexuality

NOM's Brown: Obama's Marriage Position Is A "Political Calculation"

NOM's Morse: No Room To Compromise On Recognizing Same-Sex Relationships

In the wake of President Obama's declaration of support for marriage equality and the passage of North Carolina's anti-gay marriage amendment, CNN broadcast a variety of segments focusingon the historic implications of this week's events. Three of CNN's most recognizable faces hosted Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council (FRC), to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage.

Although Piers Morgan, Wolf Blitzer, and Soledad O'Brien failed to identify Perkins as a hate group leader, they did challenge him on several of his anti-gay talking points. O'Brien and Morgan were particularly assertive in challenging his failed logic.

Watch Perkins being interviewed by CNN's Morgan on Tuesday:

Watch Perkins being interviewed by CNN's Blitzer on Wednesday:

Watch Perkins being interviewed by CNN's O'Brien on Thursday:

Hernon Graddick, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), published a column Thursday criticizing CNN's decision to welcome the hate group leader, arguing that the media needs to do a better job of providing context for Perkins' appearances:

On Thursday, MSNBC's Chris Matthews demonstrated a good example of how cable news hosts should handle Perkins when he appears on their shows.

Previously:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Demonstrates How To Handle Tony Perkins On Television

Matthews To Perkins: “Are You Saying That If You Were [Rep. Barney Frank’s] Father, He Wouldn’t Be Gay?”

Perkins: My Children Wouldn't Be Gay Because "We Are Teaching Them The Right Ways That They Are To Interract As Human Beings"

During the May 10 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews invited Tony Perkins – president of the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council (FRC) – and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to discuss the issues of same-sex marriage and adoption.

Perkins’ presence on MSNBC isn’t surprising – the hate group leader has become a regular guest on the network over the past several months, and has typically been treated as a credible, uncontroversial political figure, especially on Hardball.

On Thursday, however, things were different.

For nearly 15 minutes, Matthews, with the help of Frank, grilled Perkins on his views on homosexuality, marriage equality, and same-sex parenting. Matthews challenged Perkins’ anti-gay misinformation, held him accountable for past statements, and demonstrated how out-of-the-mainstream his extreme positions really are:

This is exactly the kind of interview that major news outlets should be conducting when dealing with someone like Perkins.

Instead of sitting idly by while Perkins peddled his anti-gay talking points, Matthews forced him to defend his positions under serious scrutiny. It’s how responsible news anchors should strive to treat guests who have histories of promoting misinformation, and it’s what audiences should expect to see when watching a serious political discussion. 

Previously:

FRC’s Perkins Thanks MSNBC For Hosting His Anti-Gay Hate Group

MSNBC's Matthews Hosts Hate Monger To Discuss How He Wouldn't Host A Hate Monger

Chris Matthews Still Referring To Hate Group Leader As "Pal"

Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes has made a name for himself acting as a mouthpiece for anti-gay hate groups, so it’s no surprise that he’s acting as a reliable source of anti-gay commentary in the wake of President Obama’s decision to declare his support for marriage equality.

During the May 10 edition of FoxNews.com Live, Starnes criticized the “mainstream media” for mentioning the public’s growing support for marriage equality. When asked about the trend of rising support for same-sex marriage, Starnes responded by blaming public schools for acting as “indoctrination centers” for young voters:

Starnes followed up his comments on Twitter, writing:

On Wednesday, Starnes’ Twitter account was littered with other comments mocking the Obama administration’s support for marriage equality:

Last December, Starnes promised to echo the talking points of a number of anti-gay hate groups, telling “culture war” stories that would “resonate with patriotic, God-fearing, God-loving Americans.” The ‘gay indoctrination’ myth is prominent in anti-gay circles, and a number of anti-gay organizations have used it as a pretense for combating measures that create safe environments for LGBT students in school. As People for the American Way noted in a recent report:

The crux of right-wing opposition to comprehensive bullying prevention programs is that by addressing bullying directed towards gay and gay-perceived students, schools may engage in “homosexual indoctrination.”

Calling public schools pro-gay “indoctrination centers” is pretty typical for an anti-gay ideologue. It isn’t for someone who claims to be a serious journalist.

Previously:

Fox’s Starnes Misinforms About Kansas Non-Discrimination Ordinance

Fox News Promotes Another Anti-Gay Attack On NIH Over “Homoerotic” Website

Meet Todd Starnes, Fox’s Mouthpiece For Anti-Gay Hate Groups

This week, Equality Matters looks back at the unsuccessful effort to defeat Amendment One, North Carolina's constitutional amendment banning all domestic legal unions outside of heterosexual marriage:

iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/equality-matters/id429665764

RSS: http://equalitymatters.org/rss/m3.rss

To listen to last week’s podcast, click here.

In the wake of President Obama’s decision to announce his support for marriage equality, anti-gay activists have begun criticizing a surprising target: Fox News.

A number of anti-gay leaders criticized Fox’s Shepard Smith for his statement that Obama was “now in the 21st century” on same-sex marriage.  Peter LaBarbera, head of the anti-gay hate group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, scolded Smith for “dissing Fox’s brand”:

Bryan Fischer, spokesman for the American Family Association, agreed, adding:

Perhaps the most scathing criticism of Fox so far has come from Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). In a May 10 National Review Online column titled “Fox News: Pro-Gay Marriage?" she wrote:

Fox News stopped covering marriage victories years ago. I personally noticed it during the November 2009 elections when CNN and MSNBC gave plenty of airtime to the Maine referendum where voters successfully repealed gay marriage — but on Fox? Nothing. Did not exist.

(No, I don’t know why Fox News is so reluctant to provide fair and balanced coverage of a major development on marriage, unless it’s on the pro–gay-marriage side.)

But yesterday, Fox’s big news host Shepard Smith made it clear he’s pro–gay marriage, actually endorsing President Obama’s gay-marriage flip while reporting on it.

[...]

Roger Ailes famously said that with Fox News he had discovered an underserved market niche — half the American people. Or 61 percent of North Carolinians apparently.

To some extent, Gallagher has a point. Over the past several months, Fox has downplayed or entirely ignored significant advancements for LGBT equality, especially when it comes to marriage equality. As far as Fox’s anti-gay “brand” is concerned, though, these activists probably don’t have a lot to worry about.

Previously:

Fox News Underreports Advancements For LGBT Equality

Fox News Underreports Beginning Of New York Gay Weddings

Anti-LGBT Hate Mongers: Help Us, Fox News!

In response to President Obama’s declaration of support for marriage equality this afternoon, Fox Nation ran the following headline:

Fox Nation’s post linked to a Yahoo News article on Obama’s announcement, which ran the headline “Obama declares support for gay marriage.”

Update: Within an hour of posting its original headline, Fox Nation removed the “war on marriage” language from its post:

During the May 6 edition of Fox News’ America’s News Headquarters, Shannon Bream hosted a segment to discuss North Carolina’s upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment that would prohibit the state from recognizing any “domestic legal union” outside of heterosexual marriage. The segment featured Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), and Marc Solomon, National Campaign Director for Freedom to Marry.

The discussion eventually turned to the subject of the amendment’s broad wording, which critics have warned could threaten domestic violence protections and health benefits for unmarried couples:

BREAM: Brian, does [the amendment] go too far?

BROWN: Not at all. These are all scare tactics because those that want to redefine marriage in North Carolina realize that they’ve lost the marriage debate. So they’re throwing out absolute scare tactics. They’ve thrown out the idea that somehow domestic violence won’t be prosecuted. Thirty law enforcement officials, including judges and district attorneys, have said that that is just an out and out lie, as have lawyers. The same is true with the health benefits. Seventeen states have marriage amendments that protect marriage from attempts to redefine it in other ways that include civil unions or domestic partnerships and what Marc’s claiming simply is not true.

What Brown refers to as a “scare tactic” is actually a concern that’s been raised by family law professors from every law school in North Carolina. Due to the measure’s vague wording, domestic violence protections between unmarried individuals could potentially be considered ‘domestic legal unions’ and be invalidated under the amendment.

The statement released by the “thirty law enforcement officials” cited by Brown has also been debunked by several family law professors, including one who argued that the statement “completely misses the point.”

Brown’s complaints about the use of “scare tactics” in North Carolina are ironic considering the fact that many commentators have noted the anti-gay extremism and horror stories that NOM and its anti-gay allies have been peddling in North Carolina over the past several months.

Previously:

Alliance Defend Fund “Overruled” Narrower Version Of NC’s Amendment One

NC Law Professor: Amendment One Supporters ‘Completely Miss The Point’ On Domestic Violence Protections

NC Law Professor Corrects The Record: Amendment One Could 'Invalidate' Domestic Violence Protections

On Tuesday, North Carolinians will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment which would prohibit the state from recognizing any form of “domestic legal union” other than heterosexual marriage. As critics of the amendment have pointed out, the measure’s broad wording would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships while also threatening health benefits and domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.

In Sunday’s edition of the Fayetteville Observer, NC House Majority Leader Paul Stam (R) – a chief proponent of the amendment – explained that the measure’s broad wording was actually the result of pressure from the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund (ADF):

Stam, the Raleigh lawmaker, said he wanted a more narrowly worded amendment but was "overruled" by "national experts" he identified as the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group.

Stam says the state needs the amendment to protect marriage from efforts to de-legitimize it. If unmarried straight couples want the benefits of marriage, he said, they should get married.

"If they're not married, don't claim the benefits of marriage," he said. "Choose one or the other." [emphasis added]

The ADF has a history of fighting against LGBT equality, even when it isn’t related to same-sex marriage. ADF’s president, Alan Sears, recently said that “no compromise is possible” with those who promote the “homosexual agenda,” adding “It’s a form of totalitarianism.” That kind of anti-gay activism got the ADF labeled one of the “most influential anti-gay groups” in America in 2005.

It’s also raised the ire of Chris Fitzsimon, Director of NC Policy Watch, who wrote on Monday:

I don’t recall electing the Alliance Defense Fund to represent me or to overrule members of the North Carolina General Assembly.  Apparently Stam’s first allegiance is to a hate group, not the people in Wake County that he is supposed to represent.

The president of the Alliance Defense Fund is Alan Sears, who along with Craig Osten, wrote a book a few years ago, “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.”

The book is heavily promoted by the organization and many other zealots on the so-called Christian right.  I read it this weekend after seeing Stam’s comments.  It is disgusting.

The authors just don’t believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, they believe that it leads to “polygamy, endogamy (the marriage of blood relatives), bestiality and child marriage,” comments by the way that Stam himself made during the legislative debate last year.

They say that “pedophilia and homosexuality are intrinsically linked” and they see a conspiracy everywhere to promote the “radical homosexual agenda.” [emphasis added]

It’s disturbing to note that, at least initially, North Carolina’s anti-gay amendment was written to be broader than what some of its principal supporters thought was appropriate. Given the amendment’s broad scope – and the anti-gay extremists who pushed to expand it – it’s no surprise that even a number of conservatives are now criticizing the amendment for going “too far.”

Previously:

NC Law Professor: Amendment One Supporters ‘Completely Miss The Point’ On Domestic Violence Protections

NC Law Professor Corrects The Record: Amendment One Could 'Invalidate' Domestic Violence Protections

“Too Far”: Experts, Conservatives Condemn North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Gay activist and founder of the “It Gets Better” project, Dan Savage, came under fire following comments he made during last week’s National High School Journalism conference. During a discussion on school bullying, Savage criticized people who use biblical passages to condemn homosexuality, saying “we can learn to ignore the bullshit in the bible about gay people.” Several students walked out of the event in protest, prompting Savage to remark at how “pansy-ass some people react” when LGBT people defend themselves fromr eligious-based bigotry.

In response to his comments, right-wing activists and news outlets have condemned Savage as a “bully” and “anti-Christian bigot.” Others, however, have used the incident as an excuse to attack the Obama administration over its support for the “It Gets Better” campaign.

On Sunday – just two days after video of Savage’s speech reached the internet –Breitbart website Big Government’s Ben Shapiro published an article criticizing the White House for endorsing Savage’s anti-bullying efforts, writing:

[T]here’s much more to Dan Savage than just anti-religious bullying. He’s one of the biggest bullies on the planet. And he’s the point person the White House specifically chose – and fundraised for – in order to push their anti-bullying agenda.

Now, it’s not as though the White House was ignorant of the fact that the It Gets Better Project is run by Savage. On the contrary – search the White House website for Savage’s name, and two It Gets Better links come up. Not just that – in June 2011, Savage himself visited the White House and hung out with Administration officials; the picture above shows Savage, his partner Terry Miller, and Vice President Biden as snug as peas in a pod. And Biden isn’t the only high official Savage hung out with. 

Breitbart.com went on to publish story after story attempting to connect Savage to the White House:

In addition, Shapiro published a list of administration officials who had participated in producing videos for the “It Gets Better” project, asking them to “either step away from the It Gets Better Project” or call for Savage’s resignation from it. “Anything less,” he wrote, “is an endorsement of his bully tactics.”

Other right-wing outlets quickly jumped on board. 

Fox Nation promoted Shapiro’s list, criticizing “Dem Elites” for teaming up with “Anti-Christian Bully Dan Savage”:

The Blaze followed suit, publishing an article chronicling Savage’s “history of bizarre rhetoric & ties to the Obama White House”:

RedState escalated the attack, going so far as to accuse the Obama administration of choosing Savage to be its “handpicked ambassador” to “attack Christians”:

Dan Savage is President Obama’s handpicked ambassador to represent his administration and to attack Christians, the Bible, and Christianity.  The War on Christians is very real.  The administration plan is very clear.  They will attack the church for being intolerant of ideas and practices that contradict Biblical teachings.  We have seen it in the Obamacare mandate and we see it now in the administration’s endorsement of homosexuality and the bullying of those who refuse to conform.

It wasn’t long before anti-gay activists jumped at the opportunity to attack the administration for its pro-LGBT policies. Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins went on Mike Huckabee’s radio show to attack Obama for “anoint[ing]” Savage as “an apostle of division and intolerance.” As Perkins wrote in his May 1 Washington Update:

As I told Mike Huckabee during an interview yesterday, the White House has given Savage a platform through his "It Gets Better" campaign to be an apostle of division and intolerance. By lending him that legitimacy, he's gaining access to schools across America for what is ultimately a one-sided, hate-filled assault on free speech. And in the end, it's the children who suffer. People like Dan Savage are putting so much attention on homosexuality that it's actually preventing us from dealing with the real problems of bullying. Even liberal surveys show that " students are more often bullied, called names, or harassed because of 'the way they look or their body size' than because of their sexual orientation." [emphasis added]

And by Wednesday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had launched an email campaign calling on the administration to distance itself from Savage’s comments:

However, in reality, the Obama administration’s ties to Dan Savage are tenuous at best.

It is true that several administration officials, including Obama, have endorsed and made videos for the anti-bullying “It Gets Better” project. So have 30,000 other individuals, organizations, and politicians since the project’s inception. If, as Shapiro asserts, making these videos is akin to ‘essentially fundraising’ for Savage, then a laundry list of other entities – including Google, the World Bank, professional sports teams, and even service members in Afghanistan – are also guilty of promoting Savage’s alleged “anti-Christian” bigotry.

It’s also true that Savage was invited to last year’s reception for LGBT Pride month at the White House, where he was photographed talking to Vice President Joe Biden. As the founder of perhaps the most influential and successful grassroots anti-bullying campaign in American history, it seems reasonable for Savage to be invited to attend. Savage was one of several hundred attendees, and even wore a button calling on Obama to “evolve already” and support marriage equality.

None of this is exactly evidence of an insidious, secretive anti-Christian alliance. The Obama administration recognized the importance of combating bullying against anti-LGBT youth and decided to lend its support to a wildly popular anti-bullying campaign. Unfortunately for anti-gay groups and news outlets, breathless headlines do not a real news story make.

Previously:

FRC's Perkins: Obama Has "Anointed Dan Savage As An Apostle Of Division And Intolerance"

CNN's Loesch Agrees With Caller Who Accuses Dan Savage Of Trying To "Take Out Homosexual Rage On Children"

CNN's Loesch: Dan Savage Exploited Anti-LGBT Bullying Because "Nobody Was Reading His Damn Columns Anymore"

A second North Carolina family law professor has responded to Vote for Marriage NC’s latest effort to downplay legal concerns about the state’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment and its impact on domestic violence protections.

On Tuesday, Vote for Marriage NC touted a statement from “a coalition of District Attorneys, legal professionals, and other law enforcement officials” which attempted to respond to reports that the overly-broad wording of the amendment would invalidate domestic violence protections for unmarried women. Earlier today, the group released a television ad promoting the statement and condemning opponents of the amendment for allegedly misleading voters:

According to Wake Forest University law professor Suzanne Reynolds, however, Vote for Marriage NC’s latest statement “completely misses the point.” In an email to Equality Matters Wednesday, Reynolds – who specializes in family law and is the co-founder of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Center of Forsyth County – wrote:

The statement issued on May 1 correctly points out that that the law of domestic violence currently protects both married and unmarried couples who live in the same household. Pointing out what the law does now, however, completely misses the point. What I am afraid of occurs only if Amendment One passes.

Unlike other law protecting us from criminal conduct, domestic violence law requires that the victim and batterer have a “personal relationship.” We learned by tragic experience in this country and state that the more general law of assault and battery simply is inadequate to address the very different threat of violence in the home. Before someone is entitled to the extraordinary relief that the law of domestic violence provides, however, the victim must have a “personal relationship” with the batterer. Currently in North Carolina, a victim may invoke the law of domestic violence for her protection even if that “personal relationship” is an unmarried relationship – between persons of the same or different sexes.

But if Amendment One passes, the state constitution ties the state’s hands: the state will be constitutionally forbidden from recognizing an unmarried relationship as a valid “domestic legal union.” If a batterer lives with his victim – of the same or different sex – he will surely argue that the victim lives in a domestic union that the state constitution declares is no longer legal. Consequently, she must rely on the law of assault and battery – law that we already know is inadequate to the special vulnerability of someone who is battered in the home.

Why am I so certain that batterers will raise these arguments? Because in states with marriage-related amendments, they already have. The domestic violence laws of these other states, like the current domestic violence law of North Carolina, protected persons who were unmarried. But after the state passed a marriage-related amendment, batterers argued that the amendment restricted domestic violence protection to married victims and batterers.

Eventually the appellate courts of both states concluded that the wording of the constitutional amendments did not prevent the state from continuing to use domestic violence law to protect victims in unmarried relationships. But, both of those amendments were much narrower than the breathtakingly broad Amendment One. In both states, the marriage-related amendments restricted the state only from creating a status that approximated marriage.

That is not what Amendment One does. Amendment One tells the state of North Carolina that no domestic union except marriage is legal or valid. Perhaps the leadership of Amendment One wishes that it had not proposed an amendment with such far-reaching potential consequences. But that’s the Amendment on the ballot.

If the group that spoke on May 1 thinks that the claim I just described is false, let me explain that family law professors at every law school in the state agree with me. I respect the group who spoke on May 1, but their job is different from the job of a family law professor. The job of family law professors includes speaking up when laws pose unintended harm to the family. And for family law professors, no matter how a person’s family came into being, all members of that family deserve the most effective law the state can provide to keep them from being beaten.

In the experience of other states, eventually the appellate courts determined that the marriage-related amendment allowed the state to continue to use its law of domestic violence for victims in unmarried relationships. If Amendment One forces the issue, I will certainly argue that our much broader amendment nevertheless allows the state to continue to recognize unmarried relationships as “valid” for purposes of domestic violence protection. But I don’t know if that argument will prevail, and with all due respect, neither does the group that appeared on May 1. At a minimum, we can expect that the law will be unclear for a period of time, a period of time during which victims of domestic violence will be at greater risk. I’m not willing to tolerate that risk, and I hope a majority of the voters of North Carolina aren’t either. [emphasis added]

Reynolds’ comments are in line with those made by University of North Carolina law professor Maxine Eichner, who yesterday explained that, because of Amendment One’s broad wording, North Carolina’s domestic violence protections for unmarried partners “would be struck down,” even if state courts “applied the same rationale” as other states with marriage amendments.

Family law experts from every law school in the state have raised similar concerns about the amendment’s potential impact on domestic violence laws.

Previously:

NC Law Professor Corrects The Record: Amendment One Could 'Invalidate' Domestic Violence Protections

“Too Far”: Experts, Conservatives Condemn North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Meet The “Legal Experts” Supporting North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

This week, Equality Matters discusses infighting between Maine's biggest anti-gay groups and the right wing media's desperate attempt to use Dan Savage as an excuse to attack the "It Gets Better" project:

iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/equality-matters/id429665764

RSS: http://equalitymatters.org/rss/m3.rss

To listen to last week’s podcast, click here.

On Tuesday, Vote for Marriage NC – the group leading the effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in North Carolina – held a press conference aimed at responding to legal concerns raised about the amendment’s potential impact on domestic violence protections. According to the group’s press release:

Today, a coalition of District Attorneys, legal professionals, and other law enforcement officials sharply rebutted claims that the pending constitutional amendment on marriage would strip citizens of domestic violence protections. ... Additionally, a written statement was issued by over a dozen prosecutors and law enforcement officials that said, “The protections of North Carolina’s domestic violence statute (General Statutes 50B-1) do not depend on the marital status of the victim or her relationship to the abuser. 

The press conference came just days after the group promoted a report by a number of anti-gay “legal experts” attempting to downplay the amendment’s potential impact on non-marital legal agreements.

According to University of North Carolina law professor Maxine Eichner, however, Vote for Marriage NC vastly underestimates the scope of the marriage amendment. In an email to Equality Matters Wednesday, Eichner – whose areas of legal expertise include family and women’s law – wrote:

First, as indicated in the “Statement from Family Law Professors,” which was signed by family law professors from every law school across the state, every one of us believes that the Amendment One threatens domestic violations protections for unmarried couples, whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex.

Second, no one whatsoever – whether they be a district attorney or a law professor – can say with absolute certainty that the amendment will or will not impact domestic violence protections.  That is because courts will have the ultimate say on what the amendment means.  And at this time, the amendment’s prohibition on “domestic legal unions” has not been interpreted by courts in this state or any other state.

Third, in Ohio after the state passed a more-narrowly drawn amendment than our own, courts dismissed domestic violence charges or overturned them on appeal in at least 30 cases.  Domestic violence protections in that state were thrown into chaos for almost three years.  At that point, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that domestic violence protections for unmarried couples did not violate the Ohio amendment.  It did that, however, based on the narrower language of the Ohio amendment, which barred the state only from recognizing a legal status that “approximates” marriage.  Our amendment’s language, though, bars any recognition of “domestic legal unions,” not simply those that approximate marriage.  If a North Carolina court applied the same rationale as the Ohio Supreme Court to our amendment’s language, domestic violence protections for unmarried partners would be struck down. 

Fourth, the written statement from prosecutors and law enforcement officials that our domestic violence protections do not depend on the marital status of the victim is certainly accurate based on current North Carolina law.  The relevant question is whether it will still be accurate if the amendment passes.  The North Carolina Constitution, as the state’s fundamental legal document, invalidates state law that conflicts with it. [emphasis added]

Eichner’s comments reflect widespread concern among legal experts about the amendment’s overly broad wording, especially in relation to domestic violence protections. They also reflect growing bipartisan criticisms among politicians as well as legal, business, and medical experts about the amendment’s potential to result in unintended consequences.

Previously:

“Too Far”: Experts, Conservatives Condemn North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Meet The “Legal Experts” Supporting North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Maddow: Why Is Romney Silent On North Carolina's Anti-Gay Amendment?

The fight over same-sex marriage in Maine will head to the ballot box in November, but a different kind of battle is already being waged between the state’s most prominent anti-gay groups.

In March, anti-gay activists Mike Heath and Paul Madore launched the “No Special Rights PAC,” promising to “take off the gloves” in the fight against marriage equality.  From the outset, Heath and Madore strived to differentiate themselves from traditional “pro-family” groups, criticizing groups like National Organization for Marriage (NOM) for trying to “sugarcoat the message” against same-sex marriage by downplaying “the evil essence of homosexuality.” As Heath wrote in a March 16 blog post:

In 2009 national evangelical groups came together under the banner of the "National Organization for Marriage" with Catholics and Mormons.  They raised and spent more money in that one campaign than we were able to raise in four previous campaigns on "gay rights" combined.   Even with all that we barely won.

Their message purposely downplayed the evil essence of homosexuality and sodomy.  They tried to sugarcoat the message.  It barely worked then.  It isn't going to work this time. [emphasis added]

This week, however, NOM joined with Maine’s Christian Civic League to launch Protect Marriage Maine, a separate effort to defeat the pro-equality referendum in November.  In an April 23 press release, NOM president Brian Brown suggested that he would distance his group from the No Special Rights PAC, saying:

“Our campaign will be about the importance of marriage and the consequences to society if marriage is redefined,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “We reject attempts to make this campaign about the morality of homosexuality. The campaign is about marriage, and we look forward to educating voters about the importance of maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” [emphasis added]

It wasn’t long before No Special Rights PAC fired back at Protect Marriage Maine alleged “power grab.” According to an April 24 press release:

"They're a little late,"  said Paul Madore, co-chair of the No Special Rights PAC.  "We got started years ago and haven't heard boo from them."

[...]

Heath and Madore are not surprised by this power grab by the monied interests in the pro family movement.  They expected it, and will not allow it to deter them in their effort to win this campaign.

Special Rights PAC wasn’t alone in condemning Brown’s comments. Peter LaBarbera, president of the anti-gay hate group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, lashed out at Brown, tweeting:

The rift between Maine’s anti-gay groups actually goes all the way back to the 2009 battle to repeal Maine’s marriage equality law, when “Stand for Marriage Maine” decided to distance itself from Heath and Madore’s extreme rhetoric. Although Maine’s marriage equality was eventually repealed, Heath stated that he was “horrified” by Stand for Marriage Maine’s relatively tame messaging strategy.

In Washington state, the NOM-headed anti-gay group seems to have set aside its differences with some of the state’s more extreme anti-gay elements in the fight to repeal marriage equality. It remains to be seen if a similar alliance will form in Maine or if the battle over anti-gay messaging strategy turns into an all-out war by November.

Previously:

Meet Mike Heath, Co-Founder Of Maine’s Anti-LGBT “NO Special Rights PAC”

Anti-Gay Extremists Teaming Up For Washington Marriage Fight

NOM Pledges To Peddle “Gay Indoctrination” Talking Point In Washington State

On Monday, Fox News’ resident anti-gay mouthpiece Todd Starnes posted an article about a proposed city ordinance in Hutchinson, Kansas which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

Rather than focus on the specifics of the ordinance, or Kansas’ history of supporting anti-LGBT discrimination, Starnes chose to depict the measure as an assault on churches:

In typical Starnes fashion, the article was little more than an excuse to promote the talking points of anti-gay activists – including Liberty Counsel’s Matthew Staver – who warned that churches would be forced to host gay weddings and “drag parties”:

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”

He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties. [emphasis added]

In reality, the ordinance includes specific exemptions for religious organizations that don’t offer their services to the general public. According to an official Hutchinson Human Relations Commission (HRC) FAQ Sheet (which Starnes even links to in his article):

Religious based groups, non-profit institutions controlled by religious associations or societies and non-profit private clubs that are not open to the public are exempt from the requirements of Chapter 3 now and would continue to be exempt should the proposed amendment become law. There is an exception to this exemption, if any of these groups open their services to the general public.

For example, if a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party. If the church only rents the building to their parishioners, they can continue to do so. [emphasis added]

Starnes also falsely claimed that the ordinance would “have a major impact” on business owners who would be “required to provide special bathrooms” for transgender people – an assertion that’s also debunked in the HRC FAQ Sheet.

Despite being riddled with inaccuracies, Starnes’ article has been picked up and touted by organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC), National Organization for Marriage (NOM), and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).

Previously:

Meet Todd Starnes, Fox’s Mouthpiece For Anti-Gay Hate Groups

Fox’s Starnes Peddles FRC Talking Points Over Kentucky T-Shirt Controversy

Fox’s Starnes Turns Gay Pride At Military Academy Into An Attack On DADT Repeal

This week, Equality Matters discusses Fox News’ meltdown over Glee’s first transgender character and the truth behind the “legal experts” defending North Carolina’s anti-gay marriage amendment:

iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/equality-matters/id429665764

RSS: http://equalitymatters.org/rss/m3.rss

To listen to last week’s podcast, click here.

Vote FOR Marriage NC, the leading group working to pass North Carolina’s anti-gay marriage amendment, has been touting a white paper published by three law professors who claim to have debunked many of the concerns raised about the amendment’s broad language. In a recent press release, the group hailed the professors for being an “independent source”:

“For months, the media and opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment have been spreading false information regarding the affect [sic] of the Amendment on current law,” said Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Vote FOR Marriage NC. “Now we have an independent source as well as legal scholars refuting the false claims by our opponents."

The professors themselves – all from the Campbell University School of Law in North Carolina – reiterated [that point throughout their paper, depicting themselves as neutral, unbiased commentators] their neutrality and role as unbiased commentators throughout the paper:

The reason for this paper is a narrow one. We do not endorse or oppose the proposed Amendment. There are thoughtful arguments on both sides, and we encourage a robust public debate about the Amendment. Our aim instead is to help clarify for North Carolina voters the Amendment’s legal meaning and likely effects.

In reality, however, all three professors have anti-gay agendas, and none of them appear to have expertise relating to family law.

Lynn R. Buzzard

According to his Campbell University bio, Lynn R. Buzzard specializes in international law dealing with “religious liberty, refugee and asylum issues” in countries like China and Russia. He also has a background in theological studies and a history of working the religious organizations.

Years before the fight over gay marriage gained national attention, Buzzard was a stalwart opponent of the mainstreaming and normalization of homosexuality.

In 1995, Buzzard lamented the “slide” of American culture into non-Christian morality, writing:

[T]he culture moves relentlessly and recklessly toward a Romans 1 crisis, an inexorable descent from a rejection of God to the basest animalism.

[...]

Consider the American family. Has the plea for responsible sex, the celebration of “promise keepers,” or the targeting of dead-beat dads provided us with a vision of sexuality and family life which provides a nurturing environment for children?

In a 2003 interview with North Carolina’s News & Observer, Buzzard voiced his support for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying:

The biggest concern is the extent to which it poses an assault, whether intended or not, on the basic institution of marriage. Many observers, of whom I'm one, feel the institution of marriage has been at the core of Western culture, that it's the principal institution -- not government, not the state, not business, but the family -- and that there has been this historic linkage between the institution of marriage and child-rearing and family, and the relationship of sexuality and marriage. All of those are at risk in this movement to redefine the notion of marriage. 

[...]

One of the confusions that is prominent today is that whatever a society chooses to tolerate, it must also affirm. I don't believe that's true. We tolerate all kinds of speech which the government wouldn't celebrate. A free society requires even freedom to offend, but no one would say because I have the freedom to say a racist remark that the state must treat it with equal respect or equal status. There are all kinds of ways in which we permit a broader range of freedom than we would hold up as ideal. In the same way, our society may accept a wide range of sexual behavior without criminal penalty; that's different from saying society must treat all sexual behavior as having the same value for society. 

Also impacting this debate is a kind of radical individualism, coupled sometimes with a kind of hedonism, which says that I ought to do what I want. [retrieved via Nexis, emphasis added]

Buzzard doesn’t seem to have changed his mind about the amendment since then. In a letter to the editor of the News &Observer last September, he criticized the paper for arguing in opposition to the amendment, writing:

[T]he ultimate effect of The N&O's position is that it's OK for judges to "amend" the constitution and define marriage as they wish - by construing broad constitutional language - but dangerous, reactionary and hostile to "rights" for citizens to amend their constitution to reflect their views. I guess rule by oligarchy - the elite "wise" people (judges) - is preferable to democratic processes where the people speak. [emphasis added]

For fifteen years, Buzzard was also executive director of the Christian Legal Society (CLS), a national organization of Christian lawyers with a history of anti-gay activism.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the CLS in a case involving one of its student groups at the University of California Hastings. The Supreme Court upheld the university’s decision to revoke the student group’s recognition pursuant to university rules requiring groups to accept “all comers” after the group barred membership to “unrepentant homosexuals.”

In fact, a number of CLS student groups across the country have faced losing recognition after violating university guidelines prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbian students.  

William A. Woodruff

William A. Woodruff’s legal experience centers on issues relating to civil litigation, litigation involving the military, trial advocacy, and preparing law students entering the legal profession.

Woodruff has a history of anti-gay activism and legal work. Most notable he was a strong opponent of allowing gays to serve in the military under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). He appeared alongside a number of ant-gay Republican Senators to argue in opposition to lifting the ban on gay service members in 1993. 

In 1995, he co-authored a law review article titled “Gays in the Military: What About Morality, Ethics, Character and Honor?,” again arguing in opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military.The article stated: “Service members who have a genuine propensity to indulge in homosexual acts have a serious handicap, which many would call a character defect, regardless of how soldierly, good, or noble they may be in other respects.”

That year, he penned another article in opposition to open homosexuality in the military, defending the proposition that “homosexual conduct” would harm “good order, discipline, moral, and unit cohesion.”

Woodruff was also included in the acknowledgments for The Pink Swastika, a book that argues, among other things, that the Nazi Party “is best understood as a neo-pagan, homosexual cult.”

Like Buzzard, Woodruff is a member of the anti-gay Christian Legal Society.

E. Gregory Wallace

Associate Law Professor E. Gregory Wallace is the least vocally anti-gay of the three professors, but still strongly opposes marriage equality. According to his bio, he teaches “constitutional law with a concentration in free speech, church and state, and constitutional interpretation.”

As InterstateQ noted in February, Wallace isn’t an unbiased commentator when it comes to the debate over same-sex marriage. He has ties to the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law’s “Marriage Law Project” (MLP) a legal assistance program that “seeks to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

In 1999, Wallace signed MLP’s London Conference Statement, which stated:

We believe that marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman, a community of life and love. Marriage so understood is built into the fabric of social life, and cannot be arbitrarily redefined by lawmakers. Male-female marriage provides incomparable benefits to society, especially for children and for those who invest their lives in raising their children. Our domestic and international laws should preserve, protect and promote the institution of marriage.

[...]

Redefining marriage to include same-sex unions will introduce unprecedented moral, social and legal confusion into our communities. It will not advance the causes of freedom, equality, justice, and human rights. Rather, it will weaken marriage, and ultimately undermine these causes too. [emphasis added]

In 2000, Wallace signed a similar statement directed towards the parliament of the Netherlands, which stated:

Redefining marriage to include same-sex unions will introduce unprecedented moral, social and legal confusion into our communities. The casualties of this confusion will be the families and children of the future, and therefore our societies as a whole.

We would remind the Dutch Parliament that many legal scholars, including the undersigned, do support marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In that respect, we represent the beliefs and practices of the overwhelming majority of humanity. No country is an island. Your actions will have fateful consequences not only for Europe, but for every country in the world. [emphasis added]

Family law professors from every law school in the state of North Carolina (including Campbell University) have criticized the white paper, reaffirming widespread concern about the marriage amendment’s vague wording.

While groups like Vote FOR Marriage NC have been all too eager to promote the professors’ white paper as an “independent” defense of the anti-gay marriage amendment, the reality is that all three of its authors have histories of anti-gay activism that call their neutral, unbiased judgment into question.

Previously:

MSNBC Spotlights Battle Over North Carolina's Amendment One

NC’s Brad Miller: Marriage Amendment “Goes Too Far”

Meet The “Legal Experts” Criticizing New York’s Marriage Equality Bill