U.S. Rep. James Lankford has joined the legendary ranks of Oklahoma’s political conservatives who openly express archaic views about gay people, and it’s been captured on video by the ThinkProgress blog.

Last week, I wrote about the somewhat muted response from Oklahoma’s conservatives to President Barack Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage and that remains true, but ThinkProgress caught up with Lankford, a Republican, last week and asked him about his position on job discrimination against gay people.

Lankford’s position is simply that homosexuality is a “choice” and thus the gay community doesn’t merit the same official anti-discrimination protections given to other groups. Here’s what he said, according to ThinkProgress:

Well, you’re now dealing with behavior and I’m trying to figure out exactly what you’re trying to mean by that. Because you’re dealing with — race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently — skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, “Gay or straight?”

When asked if “you don’t think someone is born gay necessarily?,” Lankford responded this way: “Do I personally? No. I don’t. I think it’s a choice issue. Are there tendencies and such? Yes. But I think it’s a choice issue.”

Lankford’s comments came after a group of Senators called for hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would largely ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace.

The ThinkProgress piece and video has a sort of “gotcha” feel to it, but Lankford and others in Oklahoma’s Congressional delegation should be held accountable for their outdated views. The idea that homosexuality is just a “choice” for people has been debunked by the world’s medical and science communities for years.

Is Lankford’s position based on religious beliefs? Is it political expediency?

Lankford’s comments may not be that earth shattering for folks here in red-dirt country, but even in Oklahoma there’s a growing tolerance and acceptance of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) community.

The Oklahoma City Council, for example, recently passed an anti-discrimination measure that includes sexual orientation. That was an important step. Oklahoma City is in Lankford’s district.

How much longer can Oklahoma’s conservative politicians use intolerance of gay people as a campaign tool? It might still sell well with older Christian fundamentalists, but the demographics clearly show younger people are more tolerant and accepting of the LGBT community. It’s a matter of time.

I wonder how many times the word “Chesapeake” will be spoken on national television as the Oklahoma City Thunder take on the Los Angeles Lakers Monday in round two of the NBA playoffs.

Of course, the Thunder host the Lakers in the Chesapeake Energy Arena Monday so it’s highly likely the company name will be repeated often with or without accompanying shots of the building’s sign. It’s a slam dunk.

But is this good news? Does it point out an inherent problem for arena naming rights?

Chesapeake Energy Corp and its chief executive officer Aubrey McClendon, a part owner of the Thunder, has been the focus of much negative media attention—even network television news—in recent days, which began with special reports from Reuters. Oil and gas industry analysts are questioning Chesapeake’s business practices and McClendon’s own financial dealings.

The company and McClendon are under intense scrutiny right now. A U.S. Senator has even called for a Department of Justice investigation. The company is currently under investigation by the Security and Exchange Commission. A major shareholder group has been critical of Chesapeake’s management. McClendon has been removed as chairman of the company’s board of directors, though he continues to serve as CEO.

I won’t rehash the company’s and McClendon’s specific misfortunes (I’ve written about them here and here), but it’s probably a safe bet the negative stories will keep coming.

Some will undoubtedly say it might be an unfair comparison but Chesapeake Energy Corp. is beginning to carry the same negative connotation as the names BP and Enron.

So the fact that Oklahoma’s City major arena carries the Chesapeake name is not good for the city’s image right now as the Thunder try to get into the conference finals. That could change, but unless natural gas prices rise astronomically and quickly the company will surely face continued interest from reporters and government agencies. All of this shows why selling arena naming rights to big corporations can be a risky business.

Oklahoma City’s national image has improved greatly over the last decade or so, and it’s a shame that over the next week or even longer a national television audience will be reminded of how tentative, perhaps, that improvement has been as they hear “Chesapeake” over and over. Any major disruption to Chesapeake—downsizing, layoffs, a sale requiring relocation—would devastate Oklahoma City.

Sure, the Thunder and Oklahoma City’s taxpayer-funded arena will survive, but most of us could suffer in this area if Chesapeake can’t make it.

The conservative Oklahoma political response to President Barack Obama's announcement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage was strangely muted.

Conservative politicians here have used their opposition to gay rights as a fear-mongering campaign tool for years and the anti-Obama hysteria runs deep in one of the reddest states in the county.

So where's all that faux outrage and indignation based on Biblical teachings? Maybe it's coming soon. I wouldn't be surprised.

Even U.S. Jim Inhofe could only manage this bit of political sloganeering:

President Obama’s announcement today is not surprising. He is trying to shore up his liberal base in an election year. All along, he has supported the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. At the same time, he has shirked his responsibility as the Chief Executive, and unilaterally deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law, unworthy of enforcement. Even though he had previously said that he did not support gay marriage, his actions have indicated otherwise all along.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Traditional marriage is a long-standing common sense American value that is the backbone of our society, and it is worth defending.

There's not much hellfire and damnation in that statement. Remember, Inhofe once took to the U.S. Senate floor to proclaim: "I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship." That's got a lot more meat for the Christian fundamentalists.

A Tulsa World article outlined some other political responses, and, for the most part, they seemed tepid. Gov. Mary Fallin's office, for example, issued this statement: "Governor Fallin believes that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Even state Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City), one of the world's most infamous gay bashers, could only muster this as the news hit, according to the Worldarticle: "I think it's a sad day when the leader of the free world comes out against the bedrock institution that has been the foundation of society." Where's the attendant gay terrorist attack?

As I write this, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, who once warned against rampant lesbian debauchery in southeastern Oklahoma schools, hadn't even offered an official statement yet on an issue he used to win his Senate seat in the first place.

Could it be that just as Obama's views on same-sex marriage "evolved," as he put it, so, too, some conservatives--even in Oklahoma--are beginning to recognize extremist opposition to gay rights isn't the political slam dunk it once was? Polls shows that the country is evenly divided on same-sex marriage, and demographics alone show that support of gay marriage will only increase in coming years. In larger historical terms, it's only a last gasp of intolerance when North Carolina, Oklahoma or any state bans same-sex marriage.

Obama's announcement is an important one for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community. Although it's only rhetorical at this point, it represents the first time a sitting president has pretty much endorsed full equal rights for LGBT people.

Obama, in announcing the decision, even referred to Christianity when he said:

. . . we [Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.

This language makes it even more surprising Oklahoma conservatives weren't out thumping their version of the Bible after Obama made the announcement. Again, maybe it's coming soon.

I personally don't think the issue is religious, though I can accept Obama's logic given the religious context. It's really a question of basic equality for everyone. Access to a government-issued marriage license isn't and shouldn't be a religious issue, but Obama's announcement was landmark regardless of the specifics of how he evolved in his support of same-sex marriage.