Family Research Council: a hate group? Can junk social science save it from opprobrium?

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
- a regular on TV news shows

The Family Research Council has lashed out at the Southern Poverty Law Center - a "massively funded liberal group" for designating as a "hate group" the conservative promotional powerhouse - sponsors of the annual Values Voters Summit to which conservative politicians flock.  `Advancing Faith, Family, and Freedom' their banner asserts.  "Mainstream media" seek out FRC spokespersons in quest of `balanced' presentations.

SPLC founder Morris Dees

One of FRC's claims is that the designation is a fundraising and publicity ploy by SPC.  Perhaps so.   We are accustomed to the idea that "hate groups" specialize in crude group libels "the Protocols of Zion show that the Jews... ", or see implausible conspiracies  (the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission..."), or call for extreme measures (drive the Arabs from Eretz Israel...")  


But what about a group that says that it bases its views not on characteristics of birth, but rather on an "empirical question, subject to being verified"?  That evidence, it asserts, shows that homosexuality is a choice, not a trait and that the "natural family" serves its members and society better than any other form.  Should they be lumped with the neo-Nazis and the Aryan Nation? Or is that just the hyperbole from which we need wean our public dialog?  


Curiosity led me to  FRC's  " The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality" - an FRC fact sheet:

Homosexual activists would have us believe that the same is true of their homosexuality. They want us to believe that their homosexual “orientation” is something they are born with, cannot choose whether to accept or reject, and cannot change; and that it does no harm (to themselves or to society), while being protected by the principles of the Constitution.

However, these are empirical questions, subject to being verified or refuted based on the evidence. And the evidence produced by research has simply not been kind to this theoretical underpinning of the homosexual movement. It has become more and more clear that none of the “five-I” criteria apply to the choice to engage in homosexual conduct.1

The homosexual movement is built, not on facts or research, but on mythology. Unfortunately, these myths have come to be widely accepted in society—particularly in schools, universities and the media. It is our hope that by understanding what these key myths are—and then reading a brief summary of the evidence against them—the reader will be empowered to challenge these myths when he or she encounters them.

But then I read this  Thanksgiving 2010 offering from FRC president Tony Perkins about the present "lame duck" session of Congress?

Lame Ducks Talk Turkey

If it means working through Christmas Eve dinner, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is ready. When it comes to overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," that's how committed he is to playing Santa to a microscopic number of homosexuals who want to pink-ify the military. And he's not alone. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) would gladly forgo the figgy pudding to ram the Defense bill through Congress "if it takes that." But while they're off trying to stuff HRC's stocking, Democrats risk playing Scrooge for the rest of America, who needs Congress to focus on the December 31^st tax hikes--or risk waking up to a $2,300 invoice from the IRS on January 1.

Whose priorities will win out? The nation won't know until after Thanksgiving when the real Capitol showdown begins.