Analysis: Fox News Underreports Significant Advancements In LGBT Equality

Fox News Underreported The Ninth Circuit’s Decision That Proposition 8 Was Unconstitutional. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, Fox News’ coverage of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision to invalidate California’s gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, was significantly less extensive than CNN’s or MSNBC’s. Between February 7 and 8, Fox covered the story only 7 times, approximately three times less than either CNN or MSNBC.

Fox News Underreported Certification Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal. According to an Equality Matters analysis, during the period between July 21 and July 24, Fox News underreported the certification of the repeal of the military’s DADT policy, failing to dedicate even a single segment to covering the event.

[Equality Matters, 7/29/11]

Fox News Underreported Beginning Of Same-Sex Weddings In New York. According to an Equality Matters analysis, Fox News largely ignored the beginnings of same-sex weddings in New York in July 2011. Once again, Fox failed to devote even a single segment to the story, mentioning it only briefly during news alerts. 

[Equality Matters, 7/28/11]

• Fox News Also Underreported Passage Of NY Marriage Equality Law. As Think Progress noted in June, Fox almost completely ignored the passage of New York’s historic marriage equality law in June 2011. [Think Progress, 6/27/11] 

* Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Snapstream and TV Eyes for the phrases “same sex marriage,” “gay marriage,” “Proposition 8,” “Prop 8,” and “Ninth Circuit” between February 7 and February 8. Reruns were excluded, as were mentions of the decision initiated by guests rather than hosts. Passing references to the decision, which didn’t include a description of what the decision entailed, were also excluded. 

Gingrich Claims Catholic Adoption Agencies Were “Forced To Close” In Massachusetts, Washington, D.C.

Gingrich: Catholic Adoption Agencies Are “Being Forced To Meet The Secular Demands Of The State.” From the January 10 edition of CNN’s Starting Point:

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN (HOST): You were talking about gay adoption and you said that the church, the Catholic Church, was forced to close its adoption centers. Isn’t what really happened that, if the church decided it was going to continue to take federal funds and have access to those foster children, that they couldn’t continue to discriminate against gay couples who wanted to adopt?

NEWT GINGRICH: That’s right.

O’BRIEN: They weren’t really forced to close, they made the decision.

GINGRICH: No, no. They were forced to close because you’re saying to a religious group “give up your religion.” That’s absurd. The idea that the state would impose its secular values on a religious organization is an absurdity.

O’BRIEN: If you want funding. Isn’t that if you want funding?

GINGRICH: No, no, in Massachusetts–

O’BRIEN: You can do whatever you want but if you want funding.

GINGRICH: No, that’s not true. That’s not true. There are states now, including the District of Columbia, which essentially adopt laws that say you can’t offer an adoption service unless you meet the secular standards of the state. They are in effect saying the secular standards of the state are more important than religious freedom. I think it is inherently anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. It is in favor of a secular model, that I think is wrong. And I think that it’s wrong for the government to impose its values on religion. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment, is to not have the government imposing values on religion. [CNN, Starting Point, 1/10/12]

Reality: Catholic Charities Chose To Stop Receiving Public Funding For Adoption Services

Family Equality Council: Choice To Stop Public Adoption Services “Was Made By Catholic Charities Alone.” Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Mr. Gingrich’s comments are patently false and inherently anti-family.  The decision to end public adoption services in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia was made by Catholic Charities alone. They wanted to continue to receive public funding without adhering to the law and when the state refused to make an exception for them they balked at providing critical social services to youth.

This has nothing to do with the government trying to impose values on religion. On the contrary, this had to do with the Catholic Charities trying to impose its values on children and families who needed social services.

His comments are a distraction at a time when we should be focused on the best interests of children and finding them loving and permanent homes. [Jennifer Chrisler Email, 1/10/12, emphasis added]

Massachusetts’ Catholic Charities "Voluntarily" Chose To Stop Providing Adoption Services Instead Of Serving Same-Sex Couples. According to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) blog:

So here’s a little reality check. Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly. […]

Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, the non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989—long before marriage equality was but a doodle on Mary Bonauto’s legal pad. [GLAD.org, 3/10/11, emphasis original]

Catholic Charities Of Boston Was Never Denied An Adoption License. According to a GLAD fact sheet on Catholic Charities and adoption services in Massachusetts:

Did the state “deny” Catholic Charities of Boston “its adoption agency license”?

No. For 17 years Catholic Charities of Boston complied with non-discrimination laws and put the best interests of children first, in some cases placing a child with gay or lesbian parents. Catholic Charities chose to close down its adoption services. At no point was it denied an adoption license. [GLAD.org, 12/22/11]

Catholic Adoption Agencies Can Still Choose To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples In Private Adoption Services. Steve Major, director of communications for the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Catholic Charities facilitates relatively few public adoptions nationwide. In areas where they’ve declined to comply with existing non-discrimination rules and stopped doing public placements (Massachusetts, D.C., parts of California – and will be the likely result in IL where the issue is still working its way through the state courts) there has been little to no impact on the state’s ability to place children. Other adoption agencies have agreed to step in and continue the work of finding children their forever families.

Catholic Charities and other religiously affiliated organizations who receive public funding should be obligated to follow the same non-discrimination laws that other agencies adhere to.  If they place their own religious objections ahead of the law and the best interests of kids, they should withdraw from conducting public adoptions. They are free to continue facilitating private adoptions. [Steve Major Email, 9/9/11, emphasis added]

“Not A Man!”: Keith Ablow’s War Against Chaz Bono

Ablow: Chaz Bono Is A Woman Suffering From A “Psychotic Delusion.” In a May 17 FoxNews.com column – which was taken down shortly after being posted – Ablow criticized Chaz Bono for drawing attention to transgender issues, accusing him of suffering from a “psychotic delusion”:

Chaz Bono is not a man. She is a woman who has undergone radical surgeries and is taking male hormones in order to look like a man. That isn’t a political position, it’s a biological reality. [...]

[W]hile Chaz Bono may now feel that her journey toward self-acceptance has ended, I am not convinced. I say this because, absent the gender politics involved, I was taught to consider Chaz Bono’s contention that she is male as a psychotic delusion—a fixed and false belief.

Psychosis is not a predictor of long-term emotional well-being or stability.

Mind you, I am not judging Ms. Bono. But there is nothing substantially different from a woman believing she is a man than there is about a woman believing she is a CIA agent being followed by the KGB (when in reality, she is, say, a salesperson at J. Crew). [FoxNews.com, 5/17/11]

Ablow: Dancing With The Stars Will Turns Kids Transgender. In a September 1 column on FoxNews.com, Ablow warned parents not to let their children watch Chaz Bono on ABC’s Dancing with the Stars, arguing that “gender dysphoria” could be “kindled” by watching a transgender person being celebrated on television:

I advise parents to not allow their children to watch the episodes in which Chaz appears. […]

The last thing vulnerable children and adolescents need, as they wrestle with the normal process of establishing their identities, is to watch a captive crowd in a studio audience applaud on cue for someone whose search for an identity culminated with the removal of her breasts, the injection of steroids and, perhaps one day soon, the fashioning of a make-shift phallus to replace her vagina. […]

It would be wrong to think that gender dysphoria cannot be kindled by celebrating those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery. Human beings do model one another—in terms of emotion, thought and behavior. By broadcasting, applauding and mainstreaming the journey of a very disordered person who endured, and likely will continue to endure, real suffering based on extraordinarily deep psychological problems, we suggest that that journey is a smart—even heroic—one to take. [...]

Chaz Bono should not be applauded any more than someone who, tragically, believes that his species, rather than gender, is what is amiss and asks a plastic surgeon to build him a tail of flesh harvested from his abdomen. [FoxNews.com, 9/2/11]

Click here to see how Ablow previously embraced Transgender people on his own television show prior to joining Fox

Ablow: “Chaz Bono Is Not A Man!” On the September 9 edition of Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard, Ablow said:

ABLOW: There are a lot of kids who will be watching. Look. Kids go through phases. Adolescents. There may be tomboys watching who are girls. They don't really need to be encouraged to say 'hey wait, wait a second. Maybe I'm not just a tomboy. Maybe I'm a boy!' Chaz, look at them applauding him with a standing ovation. Now look, this is a guy who has had a terrible run of things. An incredibly tortuous path and it's not over. So I don't like the idea that you'd suggest to adolescents and young people a surgical remedy at the plastic surgeon's office for a psychiatric condition! [...]

ABLOW: The emperor has no clothes. Chaz Bono is not a man. Alan, Chaz Bono is not a man! Newsflash... Test him. Go get the DNA my friend. I stand with reality. [Fox Business Network, America’s Nightly Scoreboard, 9/6/11]

Ablow: Transgender People Are Analogous To People Who Believe They Are Zebras. From the September 8 edition of Howard Stern’s SiriusXM program:

ABLOW: Here’s an analogy: If a person came to me tattooed as a zebra – Zebraman... go on TV, but if you want me to agree with you that you’re a zebra, well now you’re invading my reality... It’s dancing with a woman as a man. I'm not going to have my kids watch a show in which people pretend to be farm animals. [The Howard Stern Show, 9/8/11]

Ablow: APA Yielded To Political Pressure On Transgender Issues. On the September 14 edition of Fox News’ America Live, host Megyn Kelly confronted Ablow about his Bono comments, citing statements from the American Psychiatric Association condemning Ablow’s analysis. In response, Ablow said:

ABLOW: The DSM-5, the Working Group, you have to understand organized psychiatry has presided over the decimation of psychotherapy. That book that he’s involved with, our diagnostic manual, has spliced and diced the range of human experience into such sterile categories that they’ve yielded to political pressure throughout the years completely. [Fox News, America Live, 9/14/11]

Ablow: Transgender People Are “Exact Parallel” To Anorexics, Heroin Addicts. From the September 19 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

ABLOW: We know, Bill, people model their behavior after one another. We wouldn’t invite people with anorexia to go on fashion shows and talk about how wonderful they feel now that they’re thinner and how they want more liposuction. This is an exact parallel. [...]

ABLOW: If that’s what you want, open the gates. Open up the DSM-4, our diagnostic manual in psychiatry, take the heroin-dependent people, put them on TV with their drug paraphernalia and have them speak about how happy they are. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/19/11]

Ablow Resigned From APA Over His Chaz Bono Comments. On the September 19 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Ablow announced that he had resigned from the American Psychiatric Association in light of his Chaz Bono comments:

O’REILLY: Now you resigned, today, from the American Psychiatric Association because they disagree with you, correct?

ABLOW: Look, I’ve supported them, I’ve written books that explain psychiatric thinking on behalf of the American Psychiatric Press, one of my mentors was the president of the American Psychiatric Association, but the bottom line is when you have volume after volume coming out where they’re taking diagnoses out, putting new diagnoses in, what kind of medicine is this? A group that supports Obamacare. A group that can literally say, “Hey I’m not going to take your call doctor because there’s no evidence that watching this fellow on TV can hurt anyone.” Well guess what, there’s no evidence on the other side either. So no, I’m out. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/19/11]

Keith Ablow’s Campaign Against Transgender Acceptance

Ablow: J. Crew Ad Promotes “Psychological Sterilization.” In an April 11 FoxNews.com column, Ablow criticized a J. Crew advertisement for depicting J. Crew president Jenna Lyons painting her son’s toenails pink, writing:

Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” [my word choice] is not known. [...]

[E]ncouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? Why not make race the next frontier? What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage? Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians? [FoxNews.com, 4/11/11]

Ablow: J. Crew Ad is An “Attack On Masculinity.” On the April 12 edition of Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard, Ablow said:

ABLOW: Gender distinctions have a place in society. If this woman wants to paint her son’s toenails pink, I guess we should have no objection to someone who’s male modeling a sundress in their catalogue. I think it’s a message she meant to send. It’s an attack on masculinity. [Fox Business Network, America’s Nightly Scoreboard, 4/12/11]

Ablow Misinforms About Treatment For Transgender Youth. On the October 18 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Ablow warned against providing hormone blockers to transgender youth, suggesting that not enough research had been done on how to treat transgender children:

ABLOW: It’s very tough to reverse course. And this has been written about. There are people who undergo these transformations, they may regret it later. But when you’re a boy, who, at three, is taken at his word, signing to his adoptive female parents, “I am a girl, too,” and you then are dressed as a girl and then you get hormone injections, it’s tough to reverse course even though they say “well, we’ll stop the estrogen when he’s 15 so he can decide.” Well, maybe.

I think it’s time. Here’s the thing. It’s time for the President’s Commission on Bioethical Concerns, just as with stem cells, to get involved here, summon the best minds from around the world to look at this issue, because the theory that people are born into the wrong bodies needs to be looked at scientifically. We need guidelines here for how to behave toward those young kids particularly who are at risk to be misinterpreted. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 10/18/11]

Ablow: Letting A Transgender Girl Into Girls Scouts Is A “Form Of Abuse.” In an October 28 article for FoxNews.com, Ablow expressed his opposition to the Girl Scouts’ decision to accept a transgender girl, calling it a “form of abuse”:

Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and part of Fox News' Medical A-Team -- while prefacing himself by saying, "I know a lot of experts will disagree with me" -- cautioned the Girl Scouts against welcoming boys who present themselves as girls until more data is available on any potential harm it could do.

“On the face of it, it seems to be expecting far too much psychologically of young girls to ignore the anatomy of a boy and act as though he is a girl," Ablow said. "The girls are just developing comfort with their own bodies, after all.”

He, too, called it a "form of abuse."

"This is all [putting] the cart before the horse. We're conducting social, cultural, sexual experiments on the fly, using our own kids as guinea pigs, without the necessary research to guide us," he said. [FoxNews.com, 10/28/11]

Keith Ablow’s Year Of Anti-Gay Pseudoscience

Ablow: Pedophilia, Homosexuality Are Both Sexual Orientations, Influenced By Environment. In an August 11 column for FoxNews.com , Ablow wrote:

[F]or many people, environment and social influences do indeed impact sexual desires and sexual behavior. [...]

[S]ome adult men who have unresolved issues connected to important females in their lives during childhood and adolescence will close the door (perhaps permanently) to intimacy with females and find their sexual drive directed out of necessity toward males. They may not be unhappy about this situation, but the outlet for their erotic drives might indeed have been based partly on the tenor and tone of their early relationships, not purely on their genetic makeup.

When a magazine publishes photos of a child which are intended to be erotic, and when many thousands of adult women purchase that magazine, thereby blessing its content, that normalizes the notion that children are appropriate objects of sexual fantasy. And it has the potential to encourage men who would otherwise never have expressed their unconscious sexual interests in children to actually act upon them. [...]

We humans are powerfully influenced by one another and by the cultural values and perspectives we promulgate. Those influences can impact sexuality so dramatically as to determine not only whether one acts upon sexual feelings toward men or women or children, but also whether one ever feels such desires at all. [Fox News, 8/11/11]

Ablow: Lesbian Parents Influenced Their Transgender Child To Identify As Female. While discussing a story about a transgender child that had chosen to go on hormone blockers, Ablow said:

ABLOW: What’s happening here? We have two women raising a child. He’s adopted. And he’s come to believe that he too is female. That argues for a complete psychological evaluation, not just of the boy, but of his parents as well to see whether psychological forces are at play here to make him say such things. We need to do away with stigma and look at this as scientists and really understand what’s happening -- not make it a cultural debate, but a scientific one. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 10/18/11]

Ablow: Lesbian Mom Trying To Project “Her Own Discomfort With Masculinity” Onto Her Son. In an October 26 column for FoxNews.com, Ablow responded to the news that J. Crew’s Lyons had begun dating a woman by writing:

I thought Lyons was promoting a cultural agenda at her son’s expense—and at the expense of all our sons whose masculinity was being downplayed. Why else would you pick that photograph, decide for Beckett that it was a really good one with which to brand him in the minds of millions, and make sure that his hair was long and wavy for the photo shoot? Why spend tens of thousands of dollars (or a hundred thousand or more) to distribute that particular photo of Beckett to millions of us? […]

If reports in the media, from the New York Post's Page Six, for example, are correct, Lyons is now divorcing her husband, is romantically involved with a woman and battling over how much of a settlement to give her husband, since she was the breadwinner in the family. […]

What it says is that my worry that Ms. Lyons might be expressing her own discomfort with masculinity and projecting it onto her son—and mine, and yours—seems to have been justified. 

It says that Lyons does seem to have been promulgating her perspectives on gender roles having no value. 

It says that she was, indeed, apparently using J. Crew—a brand so many of our kids gravitate toward— as her launching pad for a mini-campaign to change the way our kids think about their bodies and their gender identities. [FoxNews.com, 10/26/11]

Ablow: Benetton Ad Claims “Homosexual Sex... Would Lead To World Peace.” In a November 17 column for FoxNews.com, Ablow criticized a new ad campaign by Benetton featuring images of world religious and political leaders kissing, writing:

The only psychological interpretation of such ads that makes sense to me as a psychiatrist is that the corporate leaders at Benetton literally believe that homosexual sex between world leaders -- or at least homosexuality, as an orientation -- would lead to world peace. They have tipped their collective hands as a company and indicted marital fidelity, faith and heterosexuality, labeling them the real sources of hatred and suffering around the globe. In the collective mind of Benetton, if religious leaders and political figures would just have sex with one another all would be well.

Really. That is what they seem to think--or at least what they want our sons and daughters to think.

No matter, Benetton would have us believe, that we may have vast differences on human rights. No matter that we may have profound differences on religious tolerance. No matter that we may have fundamental differences on economic policies, respect for international law and child labor. All these non-issues will melt away with enough wet kisses between men who were once so backwards as to believe that ideas and ideals and knowledge of history and courage still mattered. No, Benettonians -- that new movement of homoerotic Utopians -- are telling us, homosexual sex is what matters -- and so much of it, in such unrestrained fashion as to unite men from democracies with men from dictatorships, Catholic and Muslim leaders, black men and white men. See, we had it all wrong talking about hearts and minds, about the Greatest Generation and lessons from history. We had it wrong elevating principle over pleasure and sacrifice over sexual gratification. We had it wrong thinking we could move the world forward while allowing men to be attracted to women. Our connections must be made man-to-man, with our tongues and genitals. That is the only road forward. [FoxNews.com, 11/17/11]

Analysis: News Networks Regularly Host Family Research Council Spokespersons 

FRC Listed As An Anti-Gay Hate Group In November 2010. In November 2010, the Family Research Council (FRC) was added to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) list of anti-gay hate groups due to its “propagation of known falsehoods” about gays and lesbians. [SPLC, November 2010]

FRC Spokespersons Made 52 Television Appearances Since Being Labeled A Hate Group. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, FRC spokespersons – including Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, and Ken Blackwell – have been invited to appear on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News a total of 54 times in the twelve months since Perkins first appeared on MSNBC to discuss being labeled as a hate group. 24 of those appearances were on Fox News, 19 were on MSNBC, and 11 were on CNN:

SPLC: FRC’s “Specialty Is Defaming Gays And Lesbians.” From an October 7 SPLC report:

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws and anti-bullying programs. To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. [...]

The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. [...]

Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” That doesn’t matter to the FRC, though. [SPLC Report, “The Anti-Gay Lobby,” 10/7/11, via LGBTQNation, emphasis added]

Analysis: News Networks Frequently Host FRC President Tony Perkins

FRC President Tony Perkins Made 32 Television Appearances Since Being Labeled A Hate Group Leader. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, FRC president Tony Perkins has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News a total of 34 times in twelve months after being his organization was labeled as a hate group:

Perkins Has Been A Consistent Source Of Anti-Gay Propaganda. As president of FRC, Perkins has promoted a number of vile and hateful smears about gays and lesbians, including:

• “It Gets Better” Project Tries To “Recruit” Kids Into A “Lifestyle” Of “Perversion.” [Right Wing Watch, 8/18/11]
• “Research Is Overwhelming” That Gay Men Are More Likely To Molest Children.  [MSNBC, Hardball, 11/29/11]
• Gay Teens Commit Suicide Because They Know Being Gay Is “Abnormal.” [National Public Radio, 10/26/10]
• Anti-Bullying Programs Promote “Indoctrination Into Homosexuality.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 5/26/11]
• Gay Activists Are Intolerant, Hateful, Spiteful Pawns Of The Devil. [Right Wing Watch, 5/3/11]
• Senators Who Vote For DADT Repeal Will Have “The Blood Of Innocent Soldiers On Their Hands.” [Right Wing Watch, 12/16/10]
• "Kids Do Worse In These Same-Sex Households. They’re More Susceptible To Violence.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends Sunday, 4/24/11]
• Gays Are Trying To “Spread Fear And Intimidation So That They Can Disrupt And Destabilize” The Legal System, Like Terrorists. [Good As You, 4/29/11]

SPLC: Perkins Has Ties To Anti-Abortion Extremists And A White Supremacist Organization. Perkins is reported to have “failed to report an illegal conspiracy by antiabortion activists to his superiors” while acting as a reserve police officer in Baton Rouge in 1992. Perkins also has ties to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group that once described African-Americans as a “retrograde species of humanity.” [SPLC Report, “The Anti-Gay Lobby,” 10/7/11, via LGBTQNation]

Analysis: News Networks Host FRC “Experts” Peter Sprigg, Ken Blackwell

FRC’s Peter Sprigg, Ken Blackwell Have Made 15 Television Appearances In The Past Twelve Months. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, FRC “experts” Peter Sprigg and Ken Blackwell have appeared on either CNN, MSNBC, and Fox 15 times since their organization was labeled an anti-gay hate group:

Sprigg Is One Of FRC’s Most Active Producers Of Anti-Gay Propaganda. While acting as FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg has made a number of extreme anti-LGBT remarks and been the chief author of much of FRC’s anti-gay propaganda:

• Anti-Bullying Programs Indoctrinate “Impressionable School Children.” [FRC Pamphlet, “Homosexuality In Your Child’s School,” 2006]
• Transgender People Should “Stop Pretending To BE The Opposite Of Your Real Sex.” [Peter Sprigg tweet, 3/9/11]
• Harvey Milk May Have Been A Pedophile, Faked A Hate Crime. [WorldNetDaily, 8/12/09]
• It Is Better To “Export Homosexuals From The United States Than To Import Them Into The United States.” [Medill Reports, 3/19/08]

SPLC: Sprigg Relies On Junk Science To Produce Anti-Gay Research. From an October 7 SPLC report:

Sprigg authored a 2010 brochure touting “The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.” In the brochure, Sprigg claimed that ex-gay therapy works, that sexual orientation can change, that gay people are mentally ill simply because homosexuality makes them that way, and that, “Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is many times more common than consensual sex between adult men, and most of those engaging in such molestation identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” He also claimed that “homosexuals are less likely to enter into a committed relationship” and “less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner.” Sprigg’s sources are a mixture of junk science issued by groups that support ex-gay therapy and legitimate science quoted out of context or cherry-picked, a tactic long used by anti-gay groups to bolster their claims about gay people. [SPLC Report, “The Anti-Gay Lobby,” 10/7/11, via LGBTQNation, emphasis added]

Blackwell Has Promoted “Ex-Gay” Therapy, Compared Gay Couples To Barnyard Animals. Even before becoming FRC’s Senior Fellow of Family Empowerment, Blackwell was promoting anti-gay talking points:

• “Homosexuality is A Compulsion That Can Be Contained, Repressed, Or Changed.” [The Gist, 1/12/09]
• “Homosexuality Is A Lifestyle, It’s A Choice, And That Lifestyle Can be Changed.” [Right Wing Watch, 1/6/11]
• Same-Sex Marriage “Defies Barnyard Logic... The Barnyard Knows Better.” [WTOL, 10/20/04]
• President Obama Shows Same Respect For Marriage That He Did For Osama Bin Laden’s Body. [FRC Column, 11/4/11]

Analysis: News Networks Fail To Identify FRC As A Hate Group

Networks Consistently Fail To Inform Audiences About FRC’s Hate Group Status. An Equality Matters analysis** found that – aside from two segments on the topic of FRC’s hate group label in 2010 – CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News consistently failed to inform audiences about FRC’s hate group status while hosting FRC spokespersons:

*Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Nexis and TV Eyes for the terms “Family Research,” “Tony Perkins,” “Ken Blackwell,” and “Peter Sprigg” between November 29, 2010 (when MSNBC first profiled FRC’s hate group status) and November 29, 2011.  For programs that were not available in either search database, we conducted a search through our internal archives. Four segments (three on Fox News and one on MSNBC), did not appear in search results but had been recorded by either Equality Matters or the Family Research Council, so they were included in the report.

**Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Nexis and TV Eyes for the terms “hate group,” and “Southern Poverty Law Center” between November 29, 2010 and November 29, 2011. For programs that were not available in either search database, we conducted a search through our internal archives.

Right-Wing Media Reviv eDiscredited Prostitution Smear Against Barney Frank

Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell: Media Don’t Want To Talk About Frank’s “House Of Male Prostitution.” After airing several news reports announcing Frank’s retirement, Fox News’ Sean Hannity asked Media Research Center president Brent Bozell: “What is missing” from these reports? Hannity continued:

HANNITY: Did anyone -- because you follow this a little more closely than I do because you’re looking for bias -- did anybody mention a guy by the name of Stephen Gobie in any of these reports?

BOZELL: No. No. That’s a chapter they don’t want to revisit. They don’t want to talk about the house of male prostitution that was going on in his townhouse. [Fox News, Hannity, 12/1/11]

Talk Show Host Larry Elder: Media Outlets Avoided Mentioning Frank’s Supposed Ties To A Male Prostitute. In a December 1 column on Townhall.com, radio talk host Larry Elder chastised the media for failing to mention “liberal, gay, untouchable” Frank’s apparent ties to to a male prostitute:

The Big Three nightly news anchors and the Times also managed to avoid any mention of Frank's congressional reprimand for fixing the parking tickets of a male prostitute.

"Representative Frank," writes National Review, "was reprimanded by the House for making misleading statements to a Virginia prosecutor on behalf of the prostitute -- whom the congressman eventually put on his own payroll -- and for having fixed dozens of parking tickets on this behalf." Frank denied knowing that his lover, a convicted drug dealer, was running a prostitution business out of the congressman's house. The boyfriend, however, insisted that Frank knew about it. [Townhall.com, 12/1/11]

Radio Host Michael Reagan: Frank’s Prostitution Ties Are Part Of His “Sexual Deviancy.” In a December 1 column on Townhall.com, syndicated talk radio host Michael Reagan cited Frank’s “homosexual roommate and lover [who] had once used the congressman’s residence almost as a brothel” as an example of Frank’s “sexual deviancy”:

Paul Kane of the Post continued to slobber: “On the left, Frank was a hero both for his effort to rein in the nation’s largest banks and for his role in promoting gay rights, having been the first member of Congress to declare his sexual orientation while in office.”

The Post glossed over the fact that Barney Frank’s homosexual roommate and lover had once used the congressman’s residence almost as a brothel. That, I assume, comes under the heading of “promoting gay rights.”

For all his sexual deviancy, Barney Frank’s greatest offense had more to do with his ultra-left wing policies. [Townhall.com, 12/1/11]

Jason Mattera: Frank’s Apartment “Was Also Operating As Gay Brothel.” In a November 29 column on Human Events, editor Jason Mattera seemed to mock the idea that Frank didn’t know about the “gay brothel” in his apartment:

Unlike the Times, the Washington Post did mention Frank’s, er, interesting partner choices over the years, one that resulted in the infamous “allegations involving his relationship with a male prostitute who worked out of the lawmaker’s Capitol Hill townhouse.” (Side note: The Washington Post frames the boyfriend as someone who “worked” out of Barney’s house? I guess that’s one way to put it. Another was that Barney Frank’s Washington, D.C., apartment was also operating as gay brothel, of which Frank denies he had any knowledge. Snort.) [Human Events, 11/29/11]

Limbaugh: “If Running A Prostitution Ring In Your House Couldn’t Make You Resign, What Does?” From the November 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: If running a prostitution ring in your house couldn’t make you resign, what does? This is a question -- wait a minute -- Barney did not run the prostitution ring. He said he didn’t know that it was going on. It was his partner at the time, Steven Gobie. Yeah. Barney fixed parking tickets for the clientele at the house. So if running a prostitu- if having a prostitution ring being run out of your basement couldn’t embarrass you to retire, you have to -- you do have to wonder what it is. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/28/11]

Fox’s Greg Gutfeld: Frank Will “Open Up A Bed And Breakfast... It’ll Just Be Beds.” On the November 29 edition of Fox News’ The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld stated:

GUTFELD: Can I make a prediction though? In a – where do we see Frank going? I see a memoir in eight months called “Being Frank,” ‘cause I think that’s nice. You like that? You like that? He’ll talk about being gay, struggling with his weight, and then he’s going to later after that open up a bed and breakfast. In it, there won’t be any breakfast, it’ll just be beds, but it’ll be highly successful. [Fox News, The Five, 11/29/11]

House Ethics Committee Cleared Frank Of All Allegations

House Ethics Committee Concluded That Frank “Did Not Have Either Prior Or Concomitant Knowledge Of Prostitution Activities” In His Apartment. From the Report Of the Committee On Standards Of Official Conduct (CSOC):

Based upon information obtained under subpoena and sworn testimony, the Committee concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that Representative Frank did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment. ... Representative Frank's landlords ... submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion. ... The Committee, therefore, further concludes that no further action is warranted.

Sworn Testimony Contradicted Gobie’s Allegations That He Used Frank’s Apartment For “Prostitution Activities.” From the CSOC report:

Not only have Representative Frank's landlords, Colonel and Mrs. James Daugherty, submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion, Mr. Gobie's assertion has also been rendered questionable by the fact that his claims of call-forwarding service were contradicted by the telephone company. […]

While much has been said, written, and speculated with respect to Representative Barney Frank's relationship with Stephen L. Gobie, it is clear that most, if not all, of such media attention has been the product of assertions made by Mr. Gobie. As has been discussed in detail in prior sections of this Report, the Committee went to great lengths in seeking testimony or other information relevant to the assertions. In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself. [CSOC Report, emphasis added, 7/20/90]

Anti-Gay Activists Use Penn State Scandal To Attack Homosexuality, “Homosexual Marriage”

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer: “This Illustrates The Truth... That Homosexuals Molest Children At Much Higher Rates Than The Heterosexual Population.” During the November 10 edition of the American Family Association’s (AFA) “Focal Point” radio show, AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer said:

FISCHER: I think the main takeaway from this, and this is what people do not want to focus on, this is what the media does not want any attention drawn to, is that what this illustrates is the truth, it’s a simple stubborn fact, that homosexuals molest children at much higher rates than the heterosexual population. And this is a fact of life that the gay lobby does not want us to know but this illustrates it. This man has victims that are in the dozens, minimum, and likely much more than that. And again, I went over this the other day so I’m not going to repeat all of the evidence for you because it’s abundant. This is in peer-reviewed publications like the Sexual Offending Against Children report, the Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and what they have discovered is that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. [AFA’s “Focal Point,” 11/10/11]

WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah Suggests Molestation Was Unreported Due To Fear Of Being Accused Of Homophobia. In a November 16 column for WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah wrote:

We may not fully understand the details of what Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did or didn't do to young boys in locker rooms and showers, though he does admit inappropriate behavior. But the real question is how he did it for so long without consequences.

But now that being accused of homophobia is considered an offense, while practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue, should it really surprise anyone that such behavior would go unreported or unchallenged for so long?

In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts and that there is nothing wrong with them, it would seem that an environment conducive for predators of children is being created under the watchful eye of the state and the media.

Remember also that Penn State is a public university. There is probably no institution more conscious of the new "sin" of homophobia than the American college campus. There are few imaginable offenses more grievous than homophobia in that environment. One pays a price for exhibiting any symptoms of this dread disease – especially in academia. [WorldNetDaily, 11/16/11]

WND’s David A. Noebel: Homosexuality And Pedophilia Are Both “Deviant, Degenerate, And Disgusting.” In a November 15 column for WorldNetDaily, former Summit Ministries president David A. Noebel wrote:

Could it be that there is still an ethical absolute? Wouldn't it be ironic to witness the demise of moral relativism at the hands of liberalism's most cherished activity – homosexuality? Yes, Virginia, there is truth after all. It is always ethically wrong for a grown man to violate a 10-year-old boy.

The scandal centers on Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant football coach, whose alleged pedophilic acts involved boys (8 at present, but the count is rising) as young as 10. His sexual abuse of these boys is not fit family reading material, making it difficult to fully comprehend the seriousness of the case. Indeed, the subject of homosexual activity is likewise difficult to discuss in public. Neither practice provides table talk material. Both are deviant, degenerate and disgusting.

Homosexuality in America is now out of the closet, front and  center (and has been for some time). Now homosexual man/boy activity (pederasty) is under the microscope, its normality, genetic implications and social acceptance being examined.

From what we are witnessing at Penn State and the firing of its president, Dr. Graham Spanier, and beloved head football coach, Joe Paterno, it appears that the public in general and the university trustees in particular are voting against man/boy activity – the same kind of activity being promoted in our society within NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

In other words, our libertine culture is in the process of making pederasty as acceptable as the lavender revolution itself. [WorldNetDaily, 11/15/11]

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera: “This Was A Case Of A Serial Homosexual Predator Raping Boys.” In a November 10 press release, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, wrote:

Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem. Yet pro-“gay” liberals will deny any linkage between homosexuality and Sandusky’s rape/seduction of boys. In fact, after news of the Penn State scandal came to light, “gay” activists stressed that Sandusky is married and that most pedophile cases involve “straight, married men.” However, behavior is what matters – not a person’s marital status or self-described “sexual orientation.” Sandusky was married but was he really “straight” (sexually or morally)? Some inner demons or life traumas – probably in his own youth – caused him to lust for boys, wrecking untold misery in the lives of his victims. Behavior is the issue, and this was a case of a serial homosexual predator raping boys. [AFTAH press release, 11/10/11]

Michael Brown: “A Man Who Is Sexually Involved With Boys Is A Homosexual Pedophile.” In a November 15 column for OneNewsNow, anti-gay activist Michael Brown urged Rush Limbaugh to make the homosexuality-pedophilia connection, writing:

It was surprising to hear Rush Limbaugh say the words, "I don't have the guts to bring it up" -- but he did, on November 8, to his massive radio audience. [...]

What is it that, in his words, could end his career? What is it about the Penn State scandal that is "glaring; it's right in front of everybody," and yet "Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it"?
 
Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man allegedly abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? And could it be that even Rush Limbaugh didn't have the guts to address this? (Contrary to the protestations of some, a man who is sexually involved with boys is a homosexual pedophile; a man who is sexually involved with girls is a heterosexual pedophile.)
 
Of course, the fact there are homosexual pedophiles does not mean that all (or most) gays are child abusers. Certainly not! And yet even Rush Limbaugh, it appears, would not address this directly. [...]

But we return to Rush. If, in fact, I misunderstood him, then he has my profound apology. If I understood him correctly, then he has my profound appeal: Speak up, Rush, and don't be afraid. Surely you have the guts. [OneNewsNow, 11/15/11]

Cal Thomas: Penn State Scandal A Result Of “Culture That Forbids Almost Nothing,” Including Homosexuality. On November 14, Washington Examiner columnist Cal Thomas wrote:

On its website, the American Psychological Association brags, "Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations."

It once considered such behavior otherwise, and while even most conservatives no longer regard homosexuality as a mental illness, many still regard it as sinful. That theological diagnosis, too, has been discarded in our increasingly secular and anomalous society where everything is to be tolerated except those people who assert that, according to a standard higher than opinion polls, some things remain intolerable.

What changed? Pressure groups aided by secular education and the entertainment industry. [...]

What we tolerate and promote we get more of, and what we discourage and reject we get less of. C.S. Lewis said it best in "The Abolition of Man": "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

The message at Penn State was that we live in a culture that forbids almost nothing. Jerry Sandusky apparently believed that and crossed one of the few remaining lines of morality left in our culture. But even that line might soon be erased if the pressure groups and their campaign contributions grow large enough. [Washington Examiner, 11/14/11]

Pat Buchanan: Acceptance Of “Homosexual Marriage” Contributed To Penn State Scandal. During a November 15 interview for TruNews Radio with Rick Wiles, Pat Buchanan argued:

BUCHANAN: Let’s take this Penn State thing. Of course it’s a horrible disgrace for someone who is a national icon – Joe Paterno – to have remained silent in the face of these horrors that were going on but, you know, these horrors – there’s an organization that marches in the gay pride parade in New York called, used to, called the North American Man Boy Love Association, which advocated voluntary sex along the lines of exactly what was going on at Penn State. And we had many of our icons – political icons have marched in that parade right behind that NAMBLA float. And this is America. Now that would not have occurred in the 1950s in America. It would not have happened. People would have said ‘what kind of idiocy, insanity is this. But this is now, I mean homosexual marriage is now the civil rights cause of the decade. [TruNews Radio, via Media Matters, 11/15/11]

American Family Association Of Pennsylvania’s Diane Gramley: “Anything Goes” Attitude Led To Child Molestation Scandal. An article for OneNewsNow reported on Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania:

"Although he definitely did not fulfill his moral obligation to do more than what he did, he acknowledges that," she points out. "But I think that we need to look more at the [roles of] Gary Schultz and Tim Curley."

Gramley was relieved that President Graham Spanier was also excused from his job, as she has advocated his dismissal for years because of his promotion of the homosexual agenda on campus.

"They played games that were geared to body parts. They also had ... sex fairs, and they had the same type games," the pro-family group president reports. "They had Larry Flynt come in. Of course, he's the publisher of Hustler magazine, and he came in as a speaker."

Now, as the school searches for new leadership, Gramley says it is not enough to find a new president who merely has lobbying and fundraising skills, but it is important to find one who recognizes the dangers of permitting an "anything goes" attitude. [OneNewsNow, 11/15/11]

Arkansas Family Council’s Jerry Cox: Penn State Scandal Reveals Problems With Same-Sex Parenting. In an interview for Public Radio International’s “To The Point” radio show, Jerry Cox of the Arkansas Family Council said: 

COX: I find it interesting that we talk about the Penn State situation and then we talk about other situations where certain categories of people say ‘it’s alright to adopt, it’s alright to be a foster parent. In both of those situations, the rights of the children seem to have been put second place. [...]

If you have a same-sex couple with an adoptive child, what you’re in effect saying is that moms don’t matter or dads don’t matter. You’re saying that one of the genders doesn’t matter. And the research is really to the contrary. The research seems to indicate that children fare much better if they are much better if they are in a stable home, male mother and father. [PRI’s “To The Point,” 11/11/11]

Scientific Research Has Found No Credible Link Between Homosexuality And Pedophilia

APA: “Homosexual Men Are Not More Likely To Sexually Abuse Children Than Heterosexual Men Are.” According to the American Psychological Association:

Studies on who commits child sexual abuse vary in their findings, but the most common finding is that the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child. Sexual abuse by strangers is not nearly as common as sexual abuse by family members. Research further shows that men perpetrate most instances of sexual abuse, but there are cases in which women are the offenders. Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are. [APA, accessed 11/17/11]

Credible Research Has Found No Link Between Homosexuality And Pedophilia. According to Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis:

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote: 

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994). [“Facts About Homosexuality And Child Molestation,” accessed 11/17/11]

Expert: Evidence Of Homosexuality-Pedophilia Link Is Misinterpreted, Methodologically Flawed. According to Dr. Herek:

Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.[...]

Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders. [“Facts About Homosexuality And Child Molestation,” accessed 11/17/11]

Expert: Men Who Molest Young Boys Aren’t Necessarily Gay. According to Joe Kort, Adjunct Professor at Wayne State University’s School of Social Work:

To call child molestation of a boy by a man "homosexual" or of a girl by a man "heterosexual" is to misunderstand pedophilia. No true pedophile is attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies. Accordingly, Herek suggests calling men's sexual abuse of boys "male-male molestation" and men's abuse of girls, "male-female molestation."

Interestingly, Anna C. Salter writes, in "Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists and other Sex Offenders", that when a man molests little girls, we call him a "pedophile" and not a "heterosexual." Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, "homosexual. Herek writes that because of our society's aversion to male homosexuality, and the attempts made by some to represent gay men as a danger to "family values," many in our society immediately think of male-male molestation as homosexuality. He compares this with the time when African Americans were often falsely accused of raping white women, and when medieval Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Both are examples of how mainstream society eagerly jumped to conclusions to that justified discrimination and violence against these minorities. [Psychology Today, 9/15/08]

Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm Gave Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2009

WinShape Is Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm. The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2009 alone, WinShape received $7,814,788 from Chick-fil-A Inc. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11] 

WinShape Gave Over $1.7 Million To Anti-Gay Groups. In 2009 alone, WinShape donated $1,733,699 to multiple anti-gay groups:

• Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
• Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
• National Christian Foundation: $240,000
• Focus On The Family: $12,500
• Eagle Forum: $5,000
• Exodus International: $1,000
• Family Research Council: $1,000

[Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Marriage And Family Legacy Fund (MFLF)

Chick-Fil-A Vice President Launched Marriage And Family Legacy Fund. Donald "Bubba" Cathy, Chick-fil-A’s senior vice president, helped launched the Marriage and Family Legacy Fund (MFLF), which “pool[s] funds for a national marriage media campaign and provide start-up grants for local initiatives to promote stable, lasting marriages.” [Philanthropy Roundtable, October 2007]

MFLF Is A Project Of The Anti-Gay Marriage CoMission. The MFLF was created to be the “implementation and funding arm” for the Marriage CoMission, a coalition of groups formed in response to the “downward spiral of marriage and the traditional family in America.” [MFLF Executive Summary, accessed 10/28/11, Marriage CoMission, accessed 10/28/11]

• Marriage CoMission Is Supported By Prominent Anti-Gay Activists. Since its inception, the CoMission has been supported by anti-gay activists such as Exodus International's Alan Chambers and Citizens for Community Values' Barry Sheets. [Marriage CoMission, accessed 10/28/11]

Click here to learn more about the Marriage CoMission and its ties to anti-gay groups

WinShape Donated $994,199 To Marriage And Family Legacy Fund.  WinShape donated $994,199 in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Fellowship Of Christian Athletes (FCA)

Fellowship Of Christian Athletes Conference Has "Freed" People From Homosexuality. Every year, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) holds a National College Conference that Danny Burns, the conference Program Director, described as one in which "God freed some people from homosexuality, sexual sins, addictions and even ushered newcomers into His Kingdom." Burns’ comment has since been edited on FCA’s website. [Equality Matters, 3/22/11, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, accessed 10/28/11]

Fellowship of Christian Athletes Website Highlights Coach Who Was “Delivered From Homosexuality. [Fellowship of Christian Athletes, accessed 10/28/11]

FCA Ministry Leader Application Condemns "Impure Lifestyle" of Gays. The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA's Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays as engaging in an "impure lifestyle":

God desires His children to lead pure lives of holiness. The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternate lifestyle acceptable to God.

While upholding God’s standard of holiness, FCA strongly affirms God’s love and redemptive power in the individual who chooses to follow Him. FCA’s desire is to encourage individuals to trust in Jesus and turn away from any impure lifestyle. [FCA Application, accessed 10/28/11]

WinShape Donated $480,000 To Fellowship of Christian Athletes. WinShape donated $480,000 to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

National Christian Foundation (NCF)

National Christian Foundation Donates To Anti-Gay Groups. The National Christian Foundation (NCF) is a grant-making foundation that has made "hundreds of grants" to anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family, Family Life, and the Family Research Council, according to the Philanthropy Roundtable's publication "Reviving Marriage In America: Strategies for Donors." NCF allows donors to direct their donations and has experienced a surge in interest among donors in funding marriage-related giving. [Philanthropy Roundtable, accessed 2/8/11]

WinShape Donated $240,000 To National Christian Foundation.  WinShape donated $240,000 to the National Christian Foundation in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Focus On The Family (FOF)

Focus On The Family Is An Anti-Gay Group. Focus on the Family (FOF) has been listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In 2005, SPLC wrote:

Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF's Web site is a [FOF Founder James] Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: "Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them." Another article claims that "the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids." [SPLC, Spring 2005]

WinShape Donated $12,500 To Focus On The Family. WinShape donated $12,500 to Focus on the Family in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Eagle Forum

Eagle Forum Is An Extreme Right-Wing Anti-Gay Group. Phyllis Schafly’s Eagle Forum consistently promotes disparaging claims about LGBT people. The group opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to decriminalize homosexuality in 2003 and has railed against courts for promoting a “gay agenda” in schools. [Eagle Forum, 7/18/03, August 2006]

WinShape Donated $5,000 To Eagle Forum. WinShape donated $5,000 to Eagle Forum in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Exodus International

Exodus International Promotes “Ex-Gay” Therapy. Exodus International is one of the world’s largest promoters of “ex-gay” therapy,  the practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. The organization refers to being LGBT as “perverse” and a form of “sexual brokenness.” [Truth Wins Out, accessed 10/28/11]

WinShape Donated $1,000 To Exodus International. WinShape donated $1,000 to Exodus International in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Family Research Council

Family Research Council Is Designated As An Anti-Gay Hate Group By the SPLC. The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem." [The Washington Times, 11/24/10; SPLC, accessed 3/14/11]

WinShape Donated $1,000 To Family Research Council. WinShape donated $1,000 to the Family Research Council in 2009. [Winshape 2009 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 10/28/11]

Click here for more on Chick-fil-A's ties to anti-gay causes and organizations

Despite Ties To Anti-Gay Groups, Chick-Fil-A President Denies Company Has An Anti-Gay Agenda

Pennsylvania Chick-Fil-A Sponsored Anti-Gay Group's Marriage Event. In January, a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Pennsylvania donated food to the group Family Life to put on an event called the "Art Of Marriage" Both Chick-fil-A and co-sponsor Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI) were originally listed as sponsors of the "Art Of Marriage" event, although Chick-fil-A scrubbed its name from the event's advertisements after the controversy began. [New York Times, 1/29/11; Joe. My. God., 1/4/11]

Co-Sponsor Of Event Has Long History Of Anti-Gay Activity. PFI has a history of anti-gay activism. For instance, in 2010, the group worked to kill a state bill that would have prohibited discrimination against LGBT people in housing, employment, and public accommodations, and a lawyer for PFI, argued that discrimination against gay and lesbians was a "moral choice." [Delaware County Times, 12/23/10]

Chick-Fil-A's President Released A Statement Denying The Company's Ties To Anti-Gay Groups. In response to the controversy, Chick-fil-A president and COO Dan Cathy released a statement denying that Chick-fil-A's donation was an endorsement of traditional marriage, arguing that Chick-fil-A has "no agenda against anyone," and that the company would not "champion any political agendas" relating to marriages or families. [PR Newswire, 1/29/11]

Analysis: Fox News Underreported Suicide Of LGBT Teen

Fox Almost Completely Ignored The Suicide Of An LGBT Teen. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, Fox News almost completely ignored the September 18 suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, a bullied gay teen from New York. In the two weeks following Rodemeyer's death, CNN mentioned the story nine times, and MSNBC mentioned the story five times. Fox mentioned it just once, while discussing proposed anti-bullying legislation in New York. Fox never mentioned Rodemeyer by name.

CNN, MSNBC Have Extensively Covered Anti-LGBT Bullying

CNN, Anderson Cooper Have Been Active In Raising Awareness About Anti-LGBT Bullying. CNN has been actively involved in raising awareness about the problem of anti-LGBT bullying, covering the issue extensively over the past several months.

• CNN Launched A "Stop Bullying: Speak Up" Page. CNN launched a "Stop Bullying: Speak Up" page to serve as a resource about school bullying, including anti-LGBT bullying. [CNN.com, accessed 10/24/11]
• Time Warner, Facebook Launch Anti-Bullying App. Time Warner, CNN's parent company, worked with Facebook to launch a "multiplatform campaign" against bullying, including an app that "will allow users to make a commitment to stop bullying and recruit others to join the cause." [CNN.com, 7/13/11]
• CNN Hosted A "Town Hall" Conversation On Bullying. CNN hosted and aired a special "Town Hall" meeting on bullying at Rutgers University. The special featured interviews with a number of bullied students, as well as experts on school bullying. [Daily Targum, 10/10/11]
• CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Commissioned Study On Schoolyard Bullying. CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 commissioned a study on schoolyard bullying and reported on the study's results during a week of episodes dedicated to the topic. [CNN, 10/12/11]
• CNN's Anderson Cooper Extensively Covered LGBT Teen Suicide. CNN's Anderson Cooper was active in Rodemeyer's death. Cooper interviewed Rodemeyer's family, documenting the harassment targeted at Jamey even after his funeral. [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 9/21/11 via TV Eyes, 9/27/11]

MSNBC, Thomas Roberts Devoted Multiple Segments To Anti-LGBT Bullying. MSNBC devoted several segments to the problem of anti-LGBT bullying in September.

• MSNBC Invited Kathleen Sebelius To Discuss Anti-Bullying Efforts. As part of its "Education Nation" series, MSNBC invited Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to discuss government anti-bullying efforts. [MSNBC, MSNBC Live, via Equality Matters, 9/26/11]
• Thomas Roberts Covered Rodemeyer's Story. MSNBC host Thomas Roberts spent several segments to discussing the Rodemeyer's death. In the days following the suicide, Roberts interviewed Nadin Khoury, a student activists working to stop school bullying. Roberts also interviewed TV host Steve Wilkos, who discussed the problem of cyber-bullying and anonymous harassment. [MSNBC, MSNBC Live, via TV Eyes, 9/27/11, 9/26/11]

Fox Criticizes Anti-Bullying Efforts, Promotes Anti-Gay Narratives

Fox's Routinely Criticizes Anti-Bullying Efforts. Fox has a history of criticizing anti-bullying efforts as overreaching and unnecessary.

• Fox Ran Five Segments In September Attacking New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Law. According to an Equality Matters analysis**, Fox News devoted five segments in the month of September to criticizing New Jersey's new anti-bullying law for allegedly being too expansive.
• Fox Ran Multiple Segments Attacking California Gender Diversity Lessons. Fox News ran multiple segments criticizing a California public school for introducing students to lessons on gender diversity. One Fox guest objected to the lesson by stating: "Bullying is such an excuse because kids do not bully each other based on gender." [Equality Matters, 5/27/11]
• Fox Repeatedly Attacked California's FAIR Education Act. Fox News repeatedly attacked California's FAIR Education Act, which requires public schools to recognize the contributions of LGBT historical figures. Fox guests called LGBT history lessons "irrelevant" "propaganda." [Equality Matters, 7/15/11]

Fox Promoted Stories That Depicted Anti-Gay Groups And Individuals As Victims. Fox News promotes stories that depict anti-gay groups and individuals as victims of alleged intimidation and bullying by gays and lesbians.

• Fox Ran Nine Segments On Vanderbilt's Non-Discrimination Policy. According to an Equality Matters analysis***, Fox News was the only major network to criticize Vanderbilt University's non-discrimination policy, which prohibits religious groups from excluding LGBT students. Fox ran six segments about the university's policy between September and October.
• Fox Interviewed A Texas Student Who Was Suspended After Stating That Homosexuality Is Wrong. [Fox News, America's News HQ, via Equality Matters, 10/4/11]
• Fox Interviewed Anti-Gay New York Town Clerk. Fox interviewed Rose Marie Belforti, a New York town clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs. [Fox News, Happening Now, via Equality Matters, 9/29/11]

*Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and Nexis for the terms "Jamie," "Jamey," and "gay, suicide" between September 18 and October 1.

**Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and Nexis for the terms "bully," "bullying" and "gay, suicide" between September 1 and October 20.

***Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and Nexis for the terms "Vanderbilt" between September 1 and October 20. 

Weeks after Fox News’ Dr. Keith Ablow was rebuked by the psychiatric community for his comments about Chaz Bono, a cast member on ABC’s Dancing with the Stars, Fox invited the “Medical A-Team” contributor back on air to criticize a same-sex couple’s decision to put their transgender daughter, Tammy, on hormone blockers. During the segment, co-host Martha MacCallum and Ablow repeatedly refused to identify Tammy by her chosen gender and misinformed about the facts surrounding her case. 

Same-Sex Parents Facilitated Transgender Daughter’s Decision To Explore Gender Identity

Herald Sun: “Lesbian Couple Want To Help Boy To Become Girl.” In an October 18 article, the Herald Sun reported:

A LESBIAN couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty, so that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.

The couple's supporters say the Hormone Blocking Therapy has only minor side effects and is appropriate for a child who is unsure of his gender.

[…]

Tommy's parents, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, told CNN they support their child and feel this is the best way for him to find an answer to a question he has been asking all his life.

They say Tommy -- whom they now call Tammy -- began taking GnRH inhibitors over the summer to give him more time to explore the female gender identity with which he associates.

Tommy began saying he was a girl when he was three years old, his parents said. He was learning sign language due to a speech impediment, and one of the first things he told his mothers was, "I am a girl."

The child's parents also said Tommy threatened to mutilate his genitals when he was seven, and psychiatrists diagnosed a gender identity disorder. One year later, he began transitioning to Tammy.

After much deliberation with family and therapists, the child began taking hormone blockers a few months ago. The medication, which must be changed once a year, was implanted in the boy's upper left arm.

Tommy will continue the treatment until he turns 14 or 15, at which point he will be taken off the blockers and pursue the gender he feels is the right one. [The Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia, 10/18/11]

Ablow Suggested Same-Sex Couple Are Responsible For Child’s Decision

Ablow: “We Have Two Women Raising A Child. He’s Adopted. And He’s Come To Believe That He Too Is Female.” On Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Ablow claimed:

ABLOW: What’s happening here? We have two women raising a child. He’s adopted. And he’s come to believe that he too is female. That argues for a complete psychological evaluation, not just of the boy, but of his parents as well to see whether psychological forces are at play here to make him say such things. We need to do away with stigma and look at this as scientists and really understand what’s happening -- not make it a cultural debate, but a scientific one.

MacCALLUM: Yeah. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 10/18/11]

Medical Association: Same-Sex Parents Do Not Increase The Likelihood Of Children Being LGBT. According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, “the leading national professional medical association dedicated to treating and improving the quality of life for children, adolescents, and families affected” by mental, behavioral, or developmental disorders:

Sometimes people are concerned that children being raised by a gay parent will need extra emotional support or face unique social stressors. Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:

• Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
• Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
• Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
• Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior). [American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, August 2011]

American Psychological Association Study Found No Link Between Same-Sex Parenting And Children’s Gender Identity. According to the American Psychological Association:

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents has increased, three major concerns about the influence of lesbian and gay parents on children have been often voiced. One is that the children of lesbian and gay parents will experience more difficulties in the area of sexual identity than children of heterosexual parents. For instance, one such concern is that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior.

A second category of concerns involves aspects of children's personal development other than sexual identity. For example, some observers have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents would be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, would exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, or would be less psychologically healthy than other children.

A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships. For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers. Another common fear is that children living with gay or lesbian parents will be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent's friends or acquaintances.

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents. Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. [American Psychological Association, 7/30/04, citations removed for clarity]

MacCallum Suggested Parents Forced Child To Undergo Therapy

MacCallum Suggested Child Had No Choice About Whether To Undergo Therapy. MacCallum stated: 

MacCALLUM: Some of these issues are so complex and people are tormented throughout their lives with feeling -- having these feelings, you know, being born the wrong sex. But, you know, this child is so young, and that’s what has raised all of these concerns about whether or not he has any choice, you know, in this matter.

Tammy Has Reportedly Identified As Female For Eight Years. According to CNN:

One of the first things Thomas Lobel told his parents was that they were wrong.

The 3-year-old had learned sign language because he had apraxia, a speech impediment that hindered his ability to talk. The toddler pointed to himself and signed, "I am a girl."

"Oh look, he's confused," his parents said. Maybe he mixed up the signs for boy and girl. So they signed back. "No, no. Thomas is a boy."

But the toddler shook his head. "I am a girl," he signed back emphatically.

Regardless of the fact he was physically male, Thomas has always maintained that he is a girl. When teased at school about being quiet and liking dolls, Thomas would repeat his simple response, "I am a girl."

Thomas, now 11, goes by the name of Tammy, wears dresses to school and lives as a girl. [CNN, 9/27/11]

Parents Deny Coercing Child Into Changing Gender. From CNN:

After seeing therapists and psychiatrists, the mental health specialists confirmed what Thomas had been saying all along. At age 7, he had gender identity disorder.

The diagnosis was hard for [Pauline] Moreno and [Debra] Lobel to accept.

"The fact that she's transgender gives her a harder road ahead, an absolute harder road," Moreno said.

They have been accused of terrible parenting by friends, family and others, that "we're pushing her to do this. I'm a lesbian. My partner is a lesbian. That suddenly falls into the fold: 'Oh, you want her to be part of the lifestyle you guys live,' " Moreno said.

But that couldn't be further from the truth, they said. People don't understand how a hurting child can break a parent's heart.

"No parent wants to be in this situation," said Lisa Kenney, managing director of Gender Spectrum, a conference for families of gender nonconforming children. "Nobody had a child and imagined this was what would happen."

Transgender kids do not come from lax parenting where adults "roll over" to their kids' whims, said [Dr. Johanna] Olson, who treats transgender children.

"The parents are tortured by it," she said. "These are not easy decisions. Parents go through a long process going through this."

Moreno and Lobel allowed their child pick his own clothes at age 8. Thomas chose girl's clothing and also picked four bras. Then, Thomas wanted to change his name to Tammy and use a female pronoun. This is called social transitioning and can include new hairstyles, wardrobe. Aside from mental health therapy, this stage involves no medical interventions. Social transitioning is completely reversible, said Olson, a gender identity specialist.

Every step of the way, her parents told Tammy, "If at any time you want to go back to your boy's clothes, you can go back to Thomas. It's OK." Tammy has declined every time. [CNN, 9/27/11] 

Ablow Claimed Hormone Blocking Is “Very Tough To Reverse” 

Ablow: “It’s Very Tough To Reverse Course” Following Hormone Blockers. During the discussion, Ablow asserted that the child’s hormone treatments would be “tough to reverse.” From the broadcast:

MacCALLUM: Is this any form of irresponsible, at the very least, parenting that could be legislated in any way?

ABLOW: Well, here’s the thing. It’s very tough -- and I agree with the other guest. It’s very tough to reverse course. And this has been written about. There are people who undergo these transformations, they may regret it later. But when you’re a boy, who, at three, is taken at his word, signing to his adoptive female parents, “I am a girl, too,” and you then are dressed as a girl and then you get hormone injections, it’s tough to reverse course even though they say “well, we’ll stop the estrogen when he’s 15 so he can decide.” Well, maybe. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 10/18/11]

Endocrine Society: Hormone Blockers Are Reversible. According to the Endocrine Society, “the world’s oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to research on hormones and the clinical practice of endocrinology,” the effect of GnRH analogs, the hormone blockers Tammy is reportedly taking, is reversible:

An advantage of using GnRH analogs is the reversibility of the intervention. If, after extensive exploring of his/her reassignment wish, the applicant no longer desires sex reassignment, pubertal suppression can be discontinued. Spontaneous pubertal development will resume immediately. [Endocrine Society Guidelines, September 2009, via Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, citations removed for clarity]

Hormone Blockers Give Transgender Children Time To Decide If They Want To Transition. In May 2008, NPR reported on a family with a transgender daughter:

Robert and Danielle soon came to find out about a new, highly controversial, treatment for preteen kids with gender identity issues. The treatment allows kids to postpone puberty and avoid developing the physical attributes of the sex they were born with.

The treatment has been offered in the United States only for around four years. Essentially, kids who meet the criteria for gender identity disorder are given monthly injections of a medication that blocks their bodies from releasing sex hormones. This means that while the children continue to grow taller, for the three or four years they are on the medication, they are kept from maturing sexually.

[…]

But not everyone believes that it is possible to know with this level of certainty that a child is transgender. There are two views in this debate.

Polly Carmichael, a British psychologist who works at the Portman Clinic in London, which has a unit specifically dedicated to gender identity, says the identity of most children this age is in constant flux.

"You can have a child who is presenting with absolute certainty, but it may be that at a later point they will decide that is not in fact what they want and their feelings may indeed change," Carmichael says.

[…]

This makes deciding on treatment very difficult, because there is one very serious side effect to the second part of the treatment.

Taking testosterone or estrogen immediately after blocking puberty will make a teenage patient sterile.

[Norman] Spack, the endocrinologist at Children's Hospital in Boston, says that because the gonads do not mature before they are exposed to the hormones of the opposite sex, the gonads become too damaged to produce either viable eggs or viable sperm.

"This is one of the most controversial aspects of this. At what age can a young person fully understand the implications of doing something that will make fertility for them, by today's technology, virtually impossible?" he says.

Spack, however, is quick to point out that there is no risk of infertility from the hormone-blocking treatment alone. Infertility only comes when the hormone-blocking treatment is paired with Stage 2, the use of opposite-sex hormones. And so, Spack says, hormone blockers should really be seen simply as a treatment that gives families more time to think about what to do.

"It's a lot different to be talking to a 14-, 15-, 16-year-old about the implications of this than a 10- to 12-year-old," he says. "And so it buys you time ... without the tremendous fear of their body getting out of control." [National Public Radio, 5/8/08]

Ablow Suggested There Are No Guidelines For Helping Transgender Youth

Ablow: “We Need Guidelines Here For How To Behave Toward Those Young Kids Particularly Who Are At Risk To Be Misinterpreted.” Ablow further stated:

ABLOW: It’s time for the President’s Commission on Bioethical Concerns, just as with stem cells, to get involved here, summon the best minds from around the world to look at this issue, because the theory that people are born into the wrong bodies needs to be looked at scientifically. We need guidelines here for how to behave toward those young kids particularly who are at risk to be misinterpreted. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 10/18/11]

Endocrine Society Has Several Guidelines For Diagnosing Gender Identity Disorder. From the Endocrine Society’s “Clinical Practice Guideline” for the treatment of transsexual persons:

1.1 We recommend that the diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID) be made by a mental health professional (MHP). For children and adolescents, the MHP should also have training in child and adolescent developmental psychopathology.

1.2 Given the high rate of remission of GID after the onset of puberty, we recommend against a complete social role change and hormone treatment in prepubertal children with GID.

[…]

Because GID may be accompanied with psychological or psychiatric problems, it is necessary that the clinician making the GID diagnosis be able 1) to make a distinction between GID and conditions that have similar features; 2) to diagnose accurately psychiatric conditions; and 3) to undertake appropriate treatment thereof. Therefore, the SOC [Standards of Care] guidelines of the WPATH [World Professional Association of Transgender Health] recommend that the diagnosis be made by a MHP. For children and adolescents, the MHP should also have training in child and adolescent developmental psychopathology. [The Endocrine Society, September 2009, via Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, citations removed for clarity]

Endocrine Society Recommends Transgender Youth Hormone Blockers For Most Children As They Change Their Minds As Teenagers. From the Endocrine Society guidelines:

Transsexual persons seeking to develop the physical characteristics of the desired gender require a safe, effective hormone regimen that will 1) suppress endogenous hormone secretion determined by the person’s genetic/biologic sex and 2) maintain sex hormone levels within the normal range for the person’s desired gender. A mental health professional (MHP) must recommend endocrine treatment and participate in ongoing care throughout the endocrine transition and decision for surgical sex reassignment.

The endocrinologist must confirm the diagnostic criteria the MHP used to make these recommendations. Because a diagnosis of transsexualism in a prepubertal child cannot be made with certainty, we do not recommend endocrine treatment of prepubertal children. We recommend treating transsexual adolescents (Tanner stage 2) by suppressing puberty with GnRH analogues until age 16 years old, after which cross-sex hormones may be given.

[…]

Given the high rate of remission of GID after the onset of puberty, we recommend against a complete social role change and hormone treatment in prepubertal children with GID.

[…]

In most children with GID, the GID does not persist into adolescence. The percentages differ between studies, probably dependent upon which version of the DSM was used in childhood, ages of children, and perhaps culture factors. However, the large majority (75–80%) of prepubertal children with a diagnosis of GID in childhood do not turn out to be transsexual in adolescence. … Clinical experience suggests that GID can be reliably assessed only after the first signs of puberty.

This recommendation, however, does not imply that children should be entirely denied to show cross-gender behaviors or should be punished for exhibiting such behaviors. [The Endocrine Society, September 2009, via Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, citations removed for clarity]

Center Of Excellence For Transgender Health Supports The Use Of Hormone Blockers For Transgender Youth. The Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, whose mission “is to increase access to comprehensive, effective, and affirming health care services for trans and gender-variant communities,” states:

Pubertal suppression would be appropriate (with parental/guardian informed consent) for those patients who have had a persistent and consistent cross sex identity from childhood who are entering puberty and have reached Tanner Stage 2. Occasionally, there may be patients who desire halting their pubertal trajectory who are further along in their development. For these patients, GnRH analogues may be useful, but it is important to note that side effects are more common when a person already has circulating adult levels of sex hormones. [Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, accessed 10/18/11]

Ablow Is Unqualified To Discuss Gender Identity Issues

Ablow Has A History Of Engaging In Pseudoscience. Ablow has a history of engaging in pop-psychology, relying on pseudoscience in order to promote conservative talking points. [Equality Matters, 9/26/11]

Ablow Has A History Of Attacking LGBT People. Ablow’s previous attacks against the transgender community have provoked condemnation from a number of prominent medical experts, including the president of the American Psychiatric Association. [Media Matters, 9/16/11]

[via Good As You, 9/9/11]

NOM: Gay Marriage Will Be Taught In Public Schools

CLAIM: Massachusetts Schoolchildren Are Being Forced To Learn About Gay Sex And Same-Sex Marriage:

Massachusetts second graders were taught in class that boys can marry other boys. They were force-fed a book in class called “King & King” about a prince who marries another prince. Federal courts ruled parents had no constitutional right to object. [NOM Mailer, via Good As You, 9/9/11]

REALITY: PolitiFact Has Rated NOM’s Claim “False.” After investigating NOM’s claim, Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact concluded:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False. [PolitiFact, 2/10/11]

NOM: Marriage Equality Leads To Gay Sex Education

CLAIM: Massachusetts Middle School Students Were Taught “How To Perform Lesbian Sex”:

A lesbian middle-school sex-ed instructor in Massachusetts taught her students how to perform lesbian sex. When asked about parent protests, she said, “Give me a break, it (gay marriage) is legal now.” [NOM Mailer, via Good As You, 9/9/11]

REALITY: Gay-Friendly Sex Education Programs Existed Before Massachusetts’ Marriage Equality Law. From the September 13, 2004, edition of National Public Radio’s All Things Considered:

SMITH: But many teachers say they're less afraid now since the high court decision legalizing gay marriage. Deb Allen teaches eighth-grade sex ed in Brookline. She keeps a picture of her lesbian partner and their kids on her desk and gay equality signs on the wall. Allen says she's already been teaching a gay-friendly curriculum for nearly a decade, but she says she does begin this year feeling a bit more emboldened.

Ms. DEB ALLEN (Eighth-Grade Teacher): In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now.' [NPR, 9/13/04, via Nexis, emphasis added]

NOM: Kindergartners Will Be Taken To Same-Sex Weddings

CLAIM: California Kindergarteners Were Taken A Lesbian Wedding:

California kindergartners were taken to a lesbian wedding. The school called it a “teachable moment.” [NOM Mailer, via Good As You, 9/9/11]

REALITY: California First-Graders Were Allowed To Attend Their Teacher’s Wedding As A Field Trip. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.

The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs. [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/11/08]

• The Field Trip Was A Parent’s Idea, Not The School’s. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: "A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day." [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/11/08]
• Students Were Allowed To Opt Out Of The Field Trip. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: "As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said." [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/11/08]

NOM: Students Will Be Taught That They Can “Be Both Genders”

CLAIM: California Public Schools Invited “Gender Diversity” Consultants To Talk To Students:

California public schools invited a “gender diversity” consultant into fourth grade classes to teach kids they can choose to be a boy, or a girl, or be both genders! [NOM Mailer, via Good As You, 9/9/11]

REALITY: Gender Diversity Lesson Took One Hour, And Had Nothing To Do With Same-Sex Marriage. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

A one-hour elementary school lesson on gender diversity featuring all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish caused a stir in Oakland on Monday, with conservative legal defense organizations questioning the legitimacy of the topic and providing legal counsel to parents who opposed the instruction.

On Monday and today, Redwood Heights Elementary School students at every grade level were being introduced to the topic of gender diversity, with lesson plans tailored to each age group.

The lesson on gender differences was one small part of a much larger effort to offer what parents last year said they wanted at the school: a warm, welcoming, safe and caring environment for all children, said Principal Sara Stone. [San Francisco Chronicle, 5/24/11]

NOM: Catholic Adoption Agencies Will Be Forced To Shut Down

CLAIM: Catholic Charities Have Been Forced To Stop Providing Adoption Services Due To Same-Sex Marriage:

Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, Washington, DC and Illinois have been forced to close their adoption agencies because they believe that children should have both a mother and a father. [NOM Mailer, via Good As You, 9/9/11]

REALITY: Massachusetts’ Charities Chose To Stop Providing Adoption Services. According to the Gay & Lesbian Advocated & Defenders (GLAD) blog:

So here’s a little reality check. Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly.

[…]

Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, the non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989—long before marriage equality was but a doodle on Mary Bonauto’s legal pad. [GLAD Blog, 3/10/11]

REALITY: Catholic Adoption Agencies Can Still Choose To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples In Private Adoption Services. Steve Major, director of communications of the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Catholic Charities facilitates relatively few public adoptions nationwide. In areas where they’ve declined to comply with existing non-discrimination rules and stopped doing public placements (Massachusetts, D.C., parts of California – and will be the likely result in IL where the issue is still working its way through the state courts) there has been little to no impact on the state’s ability to place children. Other adoption agencies have agreed to step in and continue the work of finding children their forever families.

Catholic Charities and other religiously affiliated organizations who receive public funding should be obligated to follow the same non-discrimination laws that other agencies adhere to.  If they place their own religious objections ahead of the law and the best interests of kids, they should withdraw from conducting public adoptions. They are free to continue facilitating private adoptions. [Email exchange, 9/9/11, emphasis added]

REALITY: New York State Law Already Prohibits Discrimination In Adoption Services. According to Lambda Legal:

Consistent with the best interests of children, New York law and policy already prohibits discriminating against lesbian and gay adults and couples in the area of adoption, whether or not these adults are granted the right to marry in New York. Many lesbian and gay adults have adopted children from the foster care system, giving loving homes to children in need.

Domestic Relations Law § 110 provides that “[a]n adult married person, an adult married couple together, or any two unmarried adult intimate partners together may adopt another person.”

New York State regulations require that State-supervised private adoption agencies providing foster care and adoption services, including faith-based and non-faith-based agencies alike, not discriminate against lesbian and gay adults applying to adopt children in foster care. 18 NYCRR § 421.16(h)(2) specifically provides that “Applicants shall not be rejected solely on the basis of homosexuality.” Thus, already adoption agencies working with children in the foster care system are prohibited from discriminating against lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents, whether these adults are married or not. [Lambda Legal, accessed 9/9/11]

NOM: Religious Organizations Will Lose Their Tax-Exempt Status For Not Performing Same-Sex Weddings

CLAIM: A New Jersey Religious Organization Lost Tax Exempt Status For Not Helping Perform A Civil Union Ceremony:

A religious organization in New Jersey had its tax exemption partially revoked because it would not make its private property available for gay civil union ceremonies, which are against their religious teachings.

REALITY: A New Jersey Methodist Association Lost Part Of Its Real Estate Tax Exemption For Prohibiting A Same-Sex Couple From Using Its Pavilion. According to the New York Times:

A boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J. that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.

In a letter to the administrator of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns the pavilion property, the state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, declined to recertify the pavilion as eligible for a real estate tax exemption it has enjoyed since 1989 under the state’s Green Acres Program, but did renew the tax-exempt status of the rest of the boardwalk and the beach, also owned by the association.

The issue arose after the association, which has owned the land, the beach and 1,000 feet of the sea itself since 1870, rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Boardwalk Pavilion.

[...]

Every three years since 1989, the association has applied for, and received, tax exemptions for its boardwalk, beach and the pavilion under the Green Acres Program, designed to encourage the use of privately owned lands for public recreation and conservation. This is the first time any part of its application has been turned down.

Facing a deadline of last Saturday mandated by the Green Acres rules, [state commissioner of environmental protection Lisa] Jackson said it was important to make clear where her department stood on the definition of open property.

“When people hear the words ‘open space,’ we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people,” said Ms. Jackson. “And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.” [New York Times, 9/18/07, emphasis added]

NOM: Wedding Photographers Will Be Fined For Not Servicing Same-Sex Couples

CLAIM: A New Mexico Wedding Photographer Was Fined For Not Photographing A Same-Sex Couple:

A New Mexico wedding photographer was found guilty and fined for refusing to photograph a gay “commitment” ceremony against her religious beliefs.

REALITY: The Photographer Was Fined Under New Mexico’s Non-Discrimination Law, Not A Marriage Equality Law. According to the Albuquerque Journal:

The state Human Rights Commission ruled this week that an Albuquerque wedding photographer discriminated against her would-be client by refusing to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.

Vanessa Willock filed a civil complaint with the labor department's Human Rights Bureau in 2006, saying Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Albuquerque's Elane Photography, told her in an e-mail that she only photographed "traditional" marriages and would not photograph same-sex ceremonies.

In an order issued Wednesday, a panel of commissioners ruled that Huguenin discriminated against Willock based on sexual orientation and ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock's attorney's fees of $6,637.93.

 [...]

State law prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, religion and sexual orientation in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation.

State law does not, however, recognize a marriage between two members of the same sex

Francie Cordova, the [New Mexico Human Rights] bureau's labor relations director, said the case fell under public accommodation. [Albuquerque Journal, 4/11/08]

NOM Has A History Of Using Mailers To Promote Anti-Gay Misinformation

NOM’s Maryland Mailers Promoted Hate Group Propaganda. In Maryland, NOM sent out anti-marriage equality mailers that echoed the talking points of MassResistance, a group that’s been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [Equality Matters, 3/3/11]

NOM’s New York Mailers Accused Marriage Equality Supporters Of Wanting To “Poison Young Minds.” In the run up to the passage of New York’s marriage equality bill, NOM released mailers warning that marriage equality would “forever change the innocence of our kids” and was an “excuse to poison young minds.” [Equality Matters, 5/16/11]

Santorum Claims States Shouldn’t Involve Themselves In Criminalizing Sodomy

Santorum: “I Don’t Think That That’s Something That The State Should Involve Itself In. From the August 31 edition of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight:

SANTORUM: There are a lot of things in society that are quote “sins” or moral wrongs that we don’t make illegal. Just because something is immoral or something that is wrong doesn’t mean that it should be illegal and that the federal government or any level of government should involve themselves in. The case that I was talking about that started the controversy – the case was Lawrence v. Texas – I said if I was a state legislator in the state of Texas dealing with the Texas sodomy law, I would have voted against it because I don’t think that that’s something that the state should involve itself in. But the bottom line is whether the court then has the right to create new rights and in creating new rights it opens up, in my opinion, Pandora’s box, which it did in the case of the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts which led to gay marriage in Massachusetts, gay marriage in Iowa, and a whole host of other states.

Santorum Previously Said State Sodomy Laws Were “There For A Purpose”

Santorum: “Sodomy Laws… Were There For A Purpose,” Because Sodomy “Undermine[s] The Basic Tenets Of Our Society And The Family”. From a 2003 interview with the Associated Press:

SANTORUM: [I]f you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

[…]

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

[…]

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. [USA Today, 4/23/03]

Herman Cain: Impeaching Obama Over DOMA Would Be “A Great Thing”

Cain Told Bloggers That He Would Support Impeaching President Obama Over His Decision Not To Defend DOMA. As Politico reported:

Asked on a conference call with bloggers this evening why Republicans can't just impeach Barack Obama, Herman Cain answers that it's mostly a matter of legislative politics, POLITICO's Elizabeth Titus reports:

"That’s a great question and it is a great — it would be a great thing to do but because the Senate is controlled by Democrats we would never be able to get the Senate first to take up that action, because they simply don’t care what the American public thinks. They would protect him and they wouldn’t even bring it up," Cain said, citing the administration's position on the Defense of Marriage Act as an impeachable offense.

More from his answer: "So the main stumbling block in terms of getting him impeached on a whole list of things such as trying to pass a health care mandate which is unconstitutional, ordering the Department of Justice to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act — that’s an impeachable offense right there. The president is supposed to uphold the laws of this nation … and to tell the Department of Justice not to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act is a breach of his oath. … There are a number of things where a case could be made in order to impeach him, but because Republicans do not control the United States Senate, they would never allow it to get off the ground." [Politico, 8/16/11, emphasis added]

Cain Has Previously Claimed Obama’s DOMA Decision “Border[ed] On Treason.” During an interview with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer in February, Cain called the Obama administration’s DOMA decision “a breach of presidential duty bordering on treason”:

FISCHER: I want to give you an opportunity, Herman, as a possible 2012 candidate: what is your take on President Obama's refusal to defend the institution of natural marriage?

CAIN: I think it is a breach of presidential duty bordering on treason. The oath of office by the president says that he will protect, observe, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, which means all of its subsequent laws. The fact that he says that he has asked the Department of Justice not to enforce it, to me, is a breach duty as President of the United States. [Right Wing Watch, 2/28/11]

Many Former Presidents Have Chosen Not To Defend Unconstitutional Laws

George W. Bush DOJ Didn’t Defend A Law Prohibiting The Display Of Marijuana Policy Reform Ads. In ACLU et al., v. Norman Y Mineta, the Justice Department chose not to defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transportation systems:

The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The Solicitor General Paul Clement stated in a letter to Congress that, "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision."  [ACLU, 1/26/05]

Clinton Administration Didn’t Defend A Law Requiring Dismissal Of HIV-Positive Service Members. In a 1996 press briefing, Jack Quinn, then counsel to President Clinton, stated that the Clinton administration would not defend a law requiring the dismissal of HIV-positive men and women serving in the armed forces, because they deemed it unconstitutional:

QUINN: As Mike indicated, we anticipate that tomorrow the President will sign the Department of Defense Authorization bill. As you also know, the President's indicated previously that there's a provision in that bill that he finds completely abhorrent and offensive -- the Dornan Amendment, which would require the Armed Forces to toss out of the military everyone who is HIV positive, no matter what the cause of that affliction, and despite the fact that these people are physically and medically able to perform their military duties.

This provision of the bill, in the President's judgment, is mean-spirited and serves no purpose other than to punish people who deserve this government's help, not its hatred.

The President's response to this provision is three parts. First, we will vigorously support the Kennedy-Cohen legislation which we anticipate will soon be introduced to repeal the Dornan Amendment. The President calls upon Congress to act swiftly on this legislation and pass it.

The second, the President has determined that this provision is unconstitutional. He's, therefore, directed the Attorney General not to defend it in court. The President has been informed in this regard by the Department of Defense that in its judgment the Dornan Amendment serves no legitimate military purpose; that it is arbitrary, unwarranted, and unwise. [White House Press Briefing by Jack Quinn and Walter Dellinger on HIV Provision via Clinton Presidential Center, 2/9/96]

George H. W. Bush Didn’t Defend  Federal Statutes That Required Minority Preferences In Broadcast Licensing. As Former Justice Department Attorney Martin Lederman explained in 2005, while Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts worked in President George H. W. Bush's Office of the Solicitor General, he was instrumental in the decision for the Justice Department not to defend federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast licensing in Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission:

[A] memo in the files of Associate White House Counsel Fred Nelson (see the back page of this) reveals that Roberts was "[r]eluctant to defend [the] commission's position." In the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice not only did not defend the federal statutes -- it urged the Court to declare them unconstitutional. Acting Solicitor General Roberts, appearing on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, argued that insofar as the federal statutes required the FCC to continue its preference policies, they were unconstitutional. The Acting SG's amicus brief went further still: It urged the court to reject the deference to Congress suggested in Fullilove, and to apply strict scrutiny to federal affirmative action programs (a position that would, of course, restrict Congress's future legislative prerogatives -- i.e., that would substantially limit federal power). [Balkinization, 9/8/05]

Ronald Reagan Chose Not To Defend A Congressional Resolution Vetoing An INS Deportation Decision. In INS v. Chadha, the Reagan administration was actively involved in arguing that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional:

Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals held that § 244(c)(2) violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, and accordingly directed the Attorney General to cease taking any steps to deport Chadha based upon the House Resolution.  [Syllabus, INS v. Chadha, accessed 2/24/11]

President, DOJ Have Authority To Refuse To Enforce Unconstitutional Laws

1994 DOJ Memo Outlines Circumstances In Which The President May Appropriately Decline To Enforce A Statute That He Views As Unconstitutional. From 1994 Department of Justice memorandum, written by then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger:

I have reflected further on the difficult questions surrounding a President's decision to decline to execute statutory provisions that the President believes are unconstitutional, and I have a few thoughts to share with you. Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.

First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).

Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Memorial of Captain Meigs, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 462, 469-70 (1860) (asserting that the President need not enforce a statute purporting to appoint an officer); see also annotations of attached Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Moreover, as we discuss more fully below, numerous Presidents have provided advance notice of their intention not to enforce specific statutory requirements that they have viewed as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983) (noting that Presidents often sign legislation containing constitutionally objectionable provisions and indicate that they will not comply with those provisions).

While the general proposition that in some situations the President may decline to enforce unconstitutional statutes is unassailable, it does not offer sufficient guidance as to the appropriate course in specific circumstances. [Department of Justice Memorandum, 11/2/94]

Legal Scholar: “The President’s Duty To Preserve, Protect, And Defend The Constitution Requires The President To Disregard Unconstitutional Statutes.” From a paper by University of Virginia Law School professor Saikrishna Prakash, published in the Georgetown Law Journal:

Recent Presidents have claimed a power to disregard statutes that they deem unconstitutional, prompting critics to make an array of arguments against these assertions. As a matter of text, the Faithful Execution Clause supposedly bars such non-enforcement. As a matter of history, the English Parliament specifically prohibited a royal discretionary power to disregard statutes. Moreover, American Presidents did not exercise a power to disregard unconstitutional laws until almost a century after the Constitution's creation. Taken together, these arguments are said to refute the regal pretensions of modern Presidents. This Article serves as an antidote to such claims, while sharpening our understanding of the proper Executive Branch stance towards unconstitutional statutes. The critics are correct in supposing that the President lacks a discretionary power to disregard unconstitutional statutes; instead, the Constitution is best read as obliging the President to disregard statutes he regards as unconstitutional. First, the Constitution never empowers the President to enforce unconstitutional statutes. He no more has the power to enforce such statutes than he has power to enforce the statutes of Georgia or Germany. Second, the President's duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires the President to disregard unconstitutional statutes. When the President enforces a statute he regards as unconstitutional, he violates the Constitution no less than if he were to imprison citizens without hope of trial. Third, the Faithful Execution Clause requires the President to choose the Constitution over unconstitutional laws, in the same way that courts must choose the former over the latter. Consistent with these understandings, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional laws. Indeed, President Jefferson halted Sedition Act prosecutions on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. According to Jefferson, his duty to defend the Constitution barred him from executing measures that violated it. [Georgetown Law Journal, June 2008]

Perkins States That “Same-Sex Attraction” Is Not A Choice

In Response To PolitiFact, Perkins Admitted Same-Sex Attraction Is Not A Choice. In response to a PolitiFact report debunking Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s claim that science is in “dispute” regarding whether being gay is a choice, Perkins stated on his Washington Update blog that while “same-sex attraction” is not a choice, choosing to act on those attractions is:

PolitiFact analyzed former Gov. Tim Pawlenty's recent statements on the origins of homosexuality. Meet the Press host David Gregory had asked: "Is being gay a choice?" Pawlenty began his response by saying, "Well, the science in that regard is in dispute." PolitiFact rated that lone sentence as "false." But the "choice" question is meaningless unless you also define what you mean by "gay." Same-sex attraction is not a choice, but homosexual conduct and homosexual self-identification are choices. [Family Research Council, 7/27/11]

Perkins: “Attractions Aren’t A Choice. Actions Are.” In a series of tweets promoting his Washington Update post, Perkins again claimed that while same-sex attractions aren’t a choice, “one need not be a slave of feelings”:

[Twitter.com/tperkins, 7/27/11]

The Family Research Council Has Pushed The Attraction/Action Difference Before

FRC: “For The Most Part,” Same-Sex Attraction Is Not A Choice. In a 2004 FRC book entitled Getting It Straight: What the Research Show about Homosexuality, FRC Senior Fellows Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey wrote:

Debates over homosexuality are often presented in terms of a false dichotomy—either a person is “born gay,” or a person “chooses to be gay.” The truth lies between these two extremes. For the most part, people do not choose what sexual feelings or attractions they experience. Each of us does, however, choose the sexual behaviors in which we engage [Family Research Council, 2004]

FRC: “Involuntary” Attractions Are “No Excuse” For Failing To Control Same-Sex Behavior. In a 2007 FRC report entitled “Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right,” FRC Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg wrote:

Attractions are indeed “involuntary.” But people do choose, and can be held responsible for, what overt sexual behaviors they actually engage in. A heterosexual married man might feel sexually attracted to a woman who is not his wife, but if he acts on that attraction, he is rightly condemned for an act of adultery. The fact that his sexual attraction was “involuntary” is no excuse for failing to control his actual behavior. [Family Research Council, “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right,” 2007]

FRC: “Homosexual Attractions May Be Involuntary” But Not Immutable. In a 2010 FRC Report entitled “The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,” FRC Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg wrote: “Homosexual attractions may be involuntary (but they are not immutable); engaging in homosexual relations, however, is clearly voluntary.” [Family Research Council, “The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,” 2010, emphasis original]

In Reality, Perkins And FRC Continue To Promote The Myth That Same-Sex Attraction Can Be Changed

Perkins: People Can "Change From Homosexuality Toward Heterosexuality," Reparative Therapy Can Alter One’s “Sexual Attraction.” In a July 24 op-ed in the Columbia Daily Tribune, Tony Perkins cited research to assert that “reorientation” therapy change a person’s “sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning”:

In reality, the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has detailed “125 years of clinical and scientific reports documenting that volitional change from homosexuality toward heterosexuality is possible.”

To complain of the absence of “adequate scientific rigor” in such reports is a Catch-22 because the APA’s own attempts to discourage such therapy inhibit the very research that is needed. Of course, no responsible reorientation therapist claims changing one’s sexual orientation is easy or guaranteed — any more than overcoming depression or anxiety is easy, for example. Truth Wins Out even noted the counselor it secretly taped admitted this.

But homosexual activists do not merely claim change is difficult — they claim it is impossible, and the evidence contradicts them.

Even Robert Spitzer, one of the psychiatrists who led the 1973 effort to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, confirmed in a study 30 years later that change is possible, noting, “The changes following reparative therapy were not limited to sexual behavior and sexual orientation self-identity” but ... “encompassed sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning ... the core aspects of sexual orientation.” [Columbia Daily Tribune, 7/24/11, emphasis added]

• Major Medical Associations Have Rejected The Claim That Sexual Orientation Can Be Changed. “Ex-gay therapy” has been rejected by the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as several other major groups. [Truth Wins Out, accessed 7/29/11]

Perkins Claimed Same-Sex Attractions Can Be Changed And Gay People Can Be "Transformed" Through Jesus Christ. In an October 11 op-ed in the Washington Post, Tony Perkins implied that same-sex attractions could be changed through “the power of Jesus Christ”:

Some homosexuals may recognize intuitively that their same-sex attractions are abnormal--yet they have been told by the homosexual movement, and their allies in the media and the educational establishment, that they are "born gay" and can never change. This--and not society's disapproval--may create a sense of despair that can lead to suicide.

The most important thing that Christians can offer to homosexuals is hope--hope that their sins, just like the sins of anyone else, can be forgiven and their lives transformed by the power of Jesus Christ. [Washington Post, 10/11/10]

Perkins Suggested That “Biblical Counsel And Guidance” Could Help With “Unwanted Same-Sex Attractions.” In a July 13 tweet, Tony Perkins defended Marcus Bachmann’s clinic’s practice of “ex-gay” therapy, writing:

[Twitter.com/tperkins, 7/13/11]

Perkins Promoted The Claim That Same-Sex Attraction Could Be Changed On His Radio Show. On the July 15 edition of FRC’s Washington Watch Weekly radio show, Tony Perkins invited Dr. Julie Hamilton -- a representative of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) -- to promote the myth that a person’s same-sex attractions could be changed through therapy. The radio show was posted online under the header “Does therapy to remove unwanted same-sex attractions work?”:

HAMILTON: [W]hat we found is that over the last 125 years change of sexual orientation has been documented in the scientific literature. And so we know, looking at that, that for years it has been clear, and even in recent studies it is very clear that people can and do change in the area of behavior as well as attraction. […]

PERKINS: Dr. Hamilton, you lay out the evidence but I have to ask the question: Why is the mental health world so resistant, then, to embrace what the research actually shows on this issue?

HAMILTON: Well it seems that this issue has just become highly politicized, and so many of the statements and many of the stances that are taken are based more in what’s politically correct or incorrect rather than what the science reveals. And so people are, I think there’s an agenda and I think one of the things that maybe is a popular belief right now is that homosexuals are simply born that way but the research is very clear that people are not born that way. But if the general public believes that people are born that way, then attempting to change that would appear to be the wrong step. But the research is clear that people are not simply born homosexual and that people can change. And truthfully, it’s harmful not to offer options to clients who are dissatisfied with their lives and who want choices for their lives.

PERKINS: Wow. Just to think about this, the ramification of the professional therapists that are yielding to this political pressure, that in fact what we may see is people that are locked into lifestyles that they actually want out of. And that, as you pointed out, is very destructive. [Family Research Council, Washington Watch Weekly Radio Show, 7/15/11, emphasis added]

• NARTH Has A History Of Promoting Discredited Research. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:  

The claims of ex-gay ministries that homosexuality can be deprogrammed are supported in propaganda disseminated by Exodus and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality with the same brand of discredited pseudo-science that in recent decades has been cited as proof that homosexuals are more prone to be child molesters than heterosexuals and, more recently, that adopted children are worse off with gay or lesbian parents than with a heterosexual couple.

"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative conversion therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation," the American Psychiatric Association has officially stated. [Southern Poverty Law Center, 2005]

FRC: People Can Change Their “Internal Sexual Desires Or Attractions.” In the FRC’s 2010 report “The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,” FRC Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg cites numerous studies that he claims prove gay people can change their “internal sexual desires”:

One’s internal sexual desires or attractions are undoubtedly the most difficult aspect of “sexual orientation” to change, but the evidence demonstrates that many people have experienced change in that way as well. Some people in therapy have experienced significant reductions in their same-sex attractions, even when that was not the goal of therapy, as a result of the resolution of other personal issues in their lives.

One “meta-analysis” combining data from thirty studies on reorientation therapy, conducted between 1954 and 1994, showed that 33% of subjects had made some shift toward heterosexuality.

Similarly, a survey of over 800 individuals who had participated in a variety of efforts to change from a homosexual orientation found that 34.3% had shifted “to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation.”

The most methodologically rigorous (prospective and longitudinal) study yet conducted, on subjects who had sought change through religious ministries, which was published in a 414-page book, showed that 38% achieved success, defined as either “substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction” (15%) or “chastity” with homosexual attraction “either missing or present only incidentally.”

One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the possibility of change came from an unlikely source -- Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who was instrumental in the pivotal 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. Spitzer studied two hundred people who had reported some measure of change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation as a result of what is sometimes called “reparative therapy” for unwanted same-sex attractions. He concluded,

The changes following reparative therapy were not limited to sexual behavior and sexual orientation self-identity. The changes encompassed sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning, and being bothered by homosexual feelings. The changes encompassed the core aspects of sexual orientation.

This is not to say that change is easy, that it is typically accomplished through prayer or will-power alone, or that the success of reorientation therapy can be guaranteed. However, personal testimonies, survey data and clinical research all make clear that change from a predominantly homosexual to a predominantly heterosexual orientation is possible. [Family Research Council, “The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality,” 2010, footnotes removed for clarity, emphasis added]

Analysis: Fox News Underreported News Of DADT Repeal’s Certification

CNN And MSNBC Reported DADT Repeal’s Certification More Extensively Than Fox News. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, in the period between July 21 and July 24, CNN covered the administration’s certification 26 times, MSNBC covered the story 11 times, and Fox News covered the story 5 times, including a 2 a.m. rerun of an earlier mention. Moreover, CNN and MSNBC both ran a number of longer segments in order to cover the story, inviting guests like OutServe’s Jonathan Hopkins and R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans.

*Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Snapstream and TV Eyes for the phrase “don’t ask” and the terms “gay” and “military” between July 21 and July 24. Teases for upcoming segments were excluded. Reruns were included, though reruns of longer segments were not counted as additional segments.

Analysis: Fox News Continues To Underreport New York Marriage Developments

CNN And MSNBC Thoroughly Covered Gay Weddings In New York, While Fox Remained Largely Silent. According to an Equality Matters analysis*, while New York’s first same-sex weddings were taking place on Sunday, July 24, MSNBC and CNN covered the event extensively. Both networks ran multiple segments featuring married gay and lesbian couples and prominent New York politicians, including pro-equality Republican State Senator James Alesi. Fox News didn’t dedicate a single segment to the story, only briefly mentioning the weddings in news alerts.

*Equality Matters searched news transcripts by Snapstream and TV Eyes for the words “marriage” and “New York” on July 24. Teases for upcoming segments were excluded. Reruns were included, though reruns of longer segments were not counted as additional segments.