This month marks the one-year anniversary of the repeal of the military's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy. Unsurprisingly, not a single one of the Family Research Council's (FRC) doomsday predictions about the end of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” have come true in the past year, which is just the latest example of FRC's inability to produce credible and unbiased policy analysis. So why do media outlets keep taking the group seriously?

In the months leading up to DADT's repeal, FRC officials issued countless warnings that allowing open service would undermine unit cohesion, increase the rate of sexual assault, bring back the draft, and risk millions of lives. The group also dismissed a comprehensive survey by the Pentagon which found that repealing DADT would not hinder military performance, calling the study "suspect."

It's not the first time FRC has made wildly inaccurate claims about policies that advance LGBT equality.  Some examples of FRC's “expert” policy analysis:

• Non-discrimination laws would make it a "civil right" for a “temporarily cross-dressing male” to enter women's restrooms and expose himself
• Hate crime laws “suppress free speech” and respond to a "phony 'crisis'"
• The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) “would require every employer in America to open every position to homosexuals... and 'transgenders'”

FRC's inability to provide credible policy research might have something to do with its sources of “expert” analysis. FRC's Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, for example, is Peter Sprigg - a man who spent 10 years as a "professional actor" and served as an ordained Baptist minister before joining FRC.

The group also has a history of relying on discredited and junk research to make disparaging assertions about LGBT people: gay people are more likely to be pedophiles, homosexuality can be cured, etc. FRC's propagation of known falsehoods about gays and lesbians is the reason the organization was labeled a “hate group” in 2010. 

Given FRC's record of wildly inaccurate “policy analysis,” it's unclear why the clearly biased organization remains relevant in policy discussions. FRC president Tony Perkins regularly appears on all three major cable news networks to provide commentary on a wide range of political issues. Fox News' Mike Huckabee referred to FRC as “one of the most respected family organizations in America." And the Washington Post's Dana Milbank recently referred to the group as a "mainstream conservative think tank."

As the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) noted in a recent report:

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. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. [emphasis added]

In a column earlier this month titled "Why Must We Take the Family Research Council Seriously?", Daily Beast correspondent Michael Tomasky highlighted the media's double standard when dealing with right-wing groups like FRC.  Discussing the groups' ties to anti-Muslim speakers, Tomasky wrote:

All right, this is crackpot stuff. But according to the Serious Men and Women of Washington, the FRC is not a crackpot outfit. Can you imagine if the Center for American Progress, say, or Jim Wallis's group featured a speaker who alleged that Romney had a secret plan to convert everyone to Mormonism and force Christians to reject all they'd been taught and embrace Joseph Smith's teachings? I know I said last week I generally steer clear of analogies, but this one is pretty precise.

[...]

FRC can do this and still be accorded respect. Why? Because we just take it as a given and accept that the right wing is full of nativist and reactionary and racist cranks. And this, remember, is a religious organization.

A similar analogy can be made with regards to FRC's anti-gay politics. Mainstream media outlets just assume - and accept - that FRC's extreme homophobia is par for the course when it comes to conservative Christians organizations. 

It's not just that FRC is an anti-gay hate group, though; it's a hate group that's consistently flat-out wrong about its policy analysis, especially when dealing with LGBT issues. The Family Research Council continues to be viewed as a “think tank” despite overwhelming evidence that its “policy analysis” is really nothing more than baseless horror stories motivated by extreme anti-gay animus.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but when it comes to the media's treatment of FRC, wrong after wrong (after wrong after wrong) makes a right-wing “think tank.”