Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has a pretty consistently antagonistic record on LGBT issues. He insisted that VA’s universities could not protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, going so far as to say that homosexual acts are “a detriment to our culture.” More recently, he opposed allowing same-sex couples from being allowed to adopt, a position that influenced the State Board of Social Services to vote down the proposed provision.

This week, he’s now punishing law firm King & Spalding for backing out of its contract to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. Calling the firm weak and untrustworthy, he terminated the state’s relationship with the firm such that they are no longer on retainer to provide special counsel to the state:

King & Spalding’s willingness to drop a client, the U.S. House of Representatives, in connection with the lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was such an obsequious act of weakness that I feel compelled to end your legal association with Virginia so that there is no chance that one of my legal clients will be put in the embarrassing and difficult situation like the client you walked away from, the House of Representatives. [...]

Virginia does not shy away from hiring outside counsel because they may have ongoing professional relationships with people or entities, or on behalf of causes that I, or my office, or Virginia as a whole may not support. But it is crucial for us to be able to trust and rely on the fact that our outside counsel will not desert Virginia due to pressure by an outside group or groups. [...]

Virginia seeks firms of committment, courage, strength and toughness, and unfortunately, what the world has learned of King & Spalding, is that your firm utterly lacks such qualities.

Cuccinelli conveniently ignores the fact that K&S’s contract with the House was not properly vetted and contained provisions that compromise the firm’s principles. Perhaps he thinks a “strong” firm is one that betrays its own employees and never revisits decisions that were made hastily and improperly, let alone correct them.

In the wake of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Stanford University this week became the third prominent university (joining Ivy Leaguers Harvard and Columbia) to invite the military’s ROTC program back onto campus. Yale is considering doing the same. Most of these universities banned ROTC in 1969-70 due to student outrage over the Vietnam War, but more recently, they have opposed military recruiters on campus because DADT conflicts with their sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies.

With the impending repeal of DADT, campuses no longer see a conflict and are ending the ban. Unfortunately, a conflict persists. While the repeal of DADT will end discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Uniform Code of Military Justice will continue to discriminate against people who are transgender and gender non-conforming. Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford all have nondiscrimination protections for gender identity/expression in addition to protections for sexual orientation. By welcoming back ROTC, these campuses are suggesting it was not okay to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, but it is okay to discriminate against the trans community.

Stanford’s President John Hennessy and Provost John Etchmendy attempted to address this conflict in a joint statement:

Our support for reestablishing the ROTC program should not be misconstrued. We understand the concerns about the military’s continuing discrimination against transgender people, and we share those concerns. But if the leadership of the military is drawn from communities that teach and practice true tolerance, change is more likely to occur. The U.S. military has demonstrated an ability and willingness to change over time, and we believe Stanford can contribute by providing leaders capable of helping create that change.

The only conclusion is that either the university was not interested in teaching tolerance under DADT or it’s unconcerned with persisting discrimination now. Harvard and Columbia‘s presidents did not acknowledge the conflict with transgender discrimination in their statements.

Unlike its Ivy League brethren, Brown University decided this week to maintain its ban on ROTC, but did not directly address the issue of transgender discrimination.

Perhaps having bored of directly attacking law firm King & Spalding for backing out of its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), critics are now attacking the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for having pressured K&S to make that decision.

A surprising number of newspapers who oppose DOMA have been among the chorus of critics. A Washington Post editorial asserted that HRC “sullies itself and its cause by resorting to bullying tactics.” The Los Angeles Times said HRC had “stumbled,” intentionally downplaying K&S’s commitment to being an inclusive firm as “no contradiction.” Margaret Talbot echoed this sentiment in The New Yorker, suggesting the tactic carried “an unfortunate whiff of McCarthyite groupthink.” Even Attorney General Eric Holder, in addition to defending Clement, compared HRC to those who criticized the lawyers who defended Guantanamo detainees, implying that a law like DOMA and a person like a detainee have the same “right” to a defense.

Ever eager to self-victimize, marriage equality opponents like the National Organization for Marriage have similarly embraced the opportunity to paint LGBT activists as “bullies.” Glenn Beck took time to reinforce this meme on his show Wednesday:

BECK: So a private firm picked the case up. Well, here’s where the bullies come in. They start getting hammered with phone calls. This law firm gets hammered with phone calls and pressured. And so all these activists force the law firm to reconsider and they dropped the case. We’re trying to teach our kids about bullies in school, and boy do we teach them every day because we let the bullies win every day.

What all of these critics ignore is K&S’s own integrity as a law firm. If it stakes its reputation partly on its commitment to not discriminating, its clients (like Coca-Cola) should be concerned that it has accepted a contract that allows for such discrimination, particularly if the firm’s Diversity Committee was not consulted. If it’s defending a statute that harms many of its employees and even limits their right to speak out against it, there should be nothing wrong with encouraging those employees to voice their concerns. HRC’s campaign to hold K&S accountable to their own commitment to equality is anything but “bullying.”

Throwing around the term “bullying” like that is not only an inaccurate depiction of HRC, it ignores the severity of true bullying that LGBT youth experience every day. While someone will eventually have to defend DOMA so the cases can proceed, K&S is under no obligation to be that someone.  Talking a friend down from the edge of a cliff is not “bullying.” Perhaps critics of HRC should evaluate the difference between positive and negative peer pressure when determining who the real bullies are.

A series of simple billboards featuring a gay couple and the message “Someone you know is in love” is causing controversy in central NY. The goal of  the campaign is to reach gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people living in rural areas and encourage them to access the many health services Planned Parenthood offers through its Out For Health program.

But as Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) pushes for marriage equality, opponents are seeing the ad as a tax-funded endorsement of same-sex marriage. While many have written to Planned Parenthood that they disapprove of the “homosexual lifestyle” (revealing the overt homophobia often found in conservative areas), state senator Thomas O’Mara (R) has publicly condemned the ads as a misuse of grant funding:

I object to this message that seems to be in support of same-sex marriage and using taxpayer dollars to support that political agenda.

The grant from the New York State department of health aims to address health disparities in the LGBT community, as those documented by numerous recent studies. Out For Health identifies some of these disparities on its website, including access to healthcare, mental health, smoking and substance abuse, and partner violence. Planned Parenthood, of course, also offers testing and treatment services for various sexually transmitted diseases, some of which disproportionately affect the LGBT community.

Given the choice between opposing marriage equality and promoting the health and welfare of his constituents, O’Mara seems to be suggesting opposing same-sex marriage is the higher priority.

RI House Speaker Gordon Fox (D)

Many expected passing marriage equality for same-sex couples in Rhode Island would be an easy accomplishment this year. Same-sex marriages from neighbors Massachusetts and Connecticut are already legal in the state. Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) indicated he would sign a marriage equality bill. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have Democratic majorities, and an August 2010 poll showed that a clear majority of Rhode Islanders — 59 percent — support marriage equality.

Unfortunately, members of the House Judiciary Committee continue to keep the bill from moving forward. After months without progress, House Speaker Gordon Fox (D) today compromised on his commitment to marriage equality by throwing his support behind a civil unions bill. In a letter to his colleagues, he wrote:

Based on your input, along with the fact that it is now clear to me that there is no realistic chance for passage of the bill in the Senate, I will recommend that the House not move forward with a vote on the marriage equality bill during this legislative session.  I will instead support full passage of a civil unions’ bill that grants important and long overdue legal rights to same-sex couples in Rhode Island.

Fox went on to use the Defense of Marriage Act to defend his position, arguing that since DOMA prevents access to federal marriage rights, offering civil unions to Rhode Island same-sex couples would be just as good as full marriage equality. Civil unions, however, do not provide the full benefits and protections of marriage. As the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission concluded (PDF), offering civil unions “invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.”

Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI) echoed these concerns in a statement this afternoon condemning Fox’s decision. According to Martha Holt, chair of MERI’s board of directors:

Civil unions are unacceptable because they marginalize gay and lesbian couples in very significant ways. The General Assembly will essentially be legalizing a two-class system that subjects thousands of Rhode Island same-sex couples to discrimination.  We cannot support legislation that establishes a second class of citizens in Rhode Island.

Fox’s announcement came just two days after the president of MERI, Kathy Kushnir, submitted her resignation. Fox said the new civil union bill is being drafted and should be introduced soon.

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL) decried budget negotiations with Republican legislators this week as “theater of the absurd”  and gave the party’s leadership a deadline of 10 days to send him their budget. With only four weeks left to address a $5 billion budget shortfall, they have responded by introducing a referendum to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

Minnesota faces no threat of same-sex marriage, having passed its own Defense of Marriage Act in 1997. Still, Sen. Warren Limmer (R), the bill’s chief author who has fast-tracked it to a committee vote, thinks it’s a pressing issue:

Personally I don’t think there’s going to be that much backlash on this. We want to give the public as much time as possible to consider it.

There has actually been quite a bit of backlash, as many accuse the GOP of using the referendum to increase their 2012 voter turnout. Businesses are speaking out against the proposed amendment as well:

“In so many ways, this constitutional amendment is bad for Minnesota employers and a distraction from the real priority for the state: growing the economy,” said Charlie Zelle, CEO of Jefferson Bus Lines and chair of the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce. “Instead, we need to move Minnesota forward by pursuing policies that are good for business, good for all Minnesota families and will make our state stronger and more competitive.”

Republicans have insisted on no tax increases, attempting to close the $5 billion shortfall with spending cuts alone. They have been flying around the state this week to explain their budget strategy rather than actually working to negotiate their plan. There’s no word on how a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage will address the very urgent budget concerns facing the state.

Nevada continues to advance transgender equality, but Tennessee is considering a bill that would roll back municipalities’ ability to offer protections:

- MARYLAND: Following a violent anti-trans hate crime, Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D) wrote to her colleagues that it was a “wake-up call” for the need for trans protections.

- NEVADA: The state Senate advanced two bills that would protect trangender Nevadans from discrimination in housing and public accommodations. A bill that would have made gender identity or expression a protected class under hate crime law failed to pass.

- NEW YORK: New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D) contributed this week to the momentum for marriage equality in the state, saying the state is “on the verge of what I believe is going to be an amazing, amazing victory.”

- TENNESSEE: Tennessee’s House has passed a bill that would nullify Nashville’s recently passed sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination protections. The Senate State and Local Government committee was set to discuss the bill this morning, but deferred action until next week. The “Don’t Say Gay” bill will be debated on the Senate floor on Thursday.

- TEXAS: The state Senate again may consider a bill that would ban transgender Texans from marrying the opposite gender, thereby making it legal for them to enter same-gender marriages. Meanwhile, Dallas County today passed gender identity protections from discrimination.

Keep track of how LGBT issues are advancing in the states at our State LGBT Watch.

Last week, the House GOP hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement and his law firm of King and Spalding to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act at the cost of $520 per hour. King and Spalding’s decision to take-up the case led many Americans and some King and Spalding clients to question the wisdom of defending an explicitly anti-gay law and the firm eventually dropped it. Clement responded by resigning and joining the firm of Bancroft PLLC, where he has promised to continue representing the House GOP.

The developments — which seem to signify that defending anti-gay laws is politically out-of-step in a society that has grown increasingly accepting of gay people — may not constitute major mainstream news, but CNN and MSNBC did cover the story within hours of King and Spalding announcing that they would drop the case. A ThinkProgress review of cable coverage revealed that MSNBC ran three separate segments, while CNN had just one. Fox News remained completely silent on the matter, failing to even mention the story in the network’s flagship news program Special Report:

Ignoring stories which undermine conservative causes, however, is the norm at Fox. Last year, Fox News remained silent when former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman — who had orchestrated President Bush’s gay-bashing 2004 re-election campaign — came out as gay and refused to run a single segment on Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s racially-charged rant, after which she resigned from talk radio.

Last night, Fox News’ Sean Hannity discussed a recent attack on a transgender woman at a Maryland McDonald’s who was brutally beaten by another woman for trying to use the women’s bathroom. Hannity used the beating to argue against hate crimes legislation:

HANNITY: I don’t care why they did it. They should get the full punishment, which should be severe for any conduct like that. Forget about what their thoughts at the time or what motivated them…Does it really matter—let’s say the beating is for whatever reason is one because this woman may or may not be transgender. It doesn’t matter. This is an act of violence against a human being. So what does it matter what their motivation is, their thought process is. They are guilty of the crime. We don’t need to start figuring out what is in their head.

HAYES: They are guilty of an assault, clearly. You have different kinds of assaultive behavior. So the question is—is this something that’s based on their gender, their race, their sexual orientation, whatever it is. [...]

HANNITY: I’m saying all acts of violence by definition are hateful. Punish people appropriately for the hideous crimes in both cases –

HAYES: That would be a misdemeanor in New York.

HANNITY: I wouldn’t call that – that’s no misdemeanor.

HAYES: This goes on in our schools —

Watch it:

Hate crimes laws go after violent crimes, not thoughts. In fact, the law Congress passed in 2009 specifically stipulates that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

That law — which added sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected groups to an existing 1968 hate crimes law — allowed local governments to receive needed resources from the federal government for investigations and prosecutions for bias-motivated crimes that don’t just target people for who they are, but seek to intimidate entire communities of people.

More than thirty states already have hate crime legislation that includes anti-gay crimes, but “attempts to protect transgender people have foundered in the Maryland legislature.” Earlier this month, the state legislature “rejected an anti-discrimination measure that would have prevented employers, creditors and housing providers from discriminating against transgender people.”

While King & Spalding did not specify reasons yesterday for dropping the DOMA defense aside from “inadequate vetting,” there was plenty that could have influenced the decision. K&S openly celebrates its LGBT employees, but Paul Clement’s contract with the House of Representatives did not include discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Further, the contract imposed a “gag rule,” meaning no K&S employee could have spoken out against the Defense of Marriage Act. It’s also likely that some of K&S’s clients, including Coca Cola, spoke out against the contract, and as Equality Matters’ Richard Socarides put it, “This kind of thing could have stuck to them for decades. People no longer want to be associated with this kind of discrimination.”

Regardless of the exact reasons, immediately following the decision and Clement’s resignation from the firm, conservatives and equality opponents quickly conspired to attack King & Spalding while celebrating Clement as a hero. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) launched the first blow, saying he was “disappointed in the firm’s…careless disregard for its responsibilities.” Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) issued an even harsher rebuke:

King and Spalding’s cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession.  Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles. I’m confident that with him at the helm, we will fight to ensure the courts – not the President – determine DOMA’s constitutionality.

Groups who advocate against marriage equality also joined the smear campaign. The National Organization for Marriage called the decision “appalling” and has promised an investigation into K&S’s “shocking lack of professional ethics.” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council decried K&S as advocates for a “cabal that want to undermine policy and society” through “smear and silence tactics.” Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel and Liberty University School of Law called the decision “absolutely astounding” and “a politically bad move.” Even Clement’s new firm, Bancroft P.L.L.C., started a Twitter account yesterday just to celebrate Clement’s arrival and his “commitment to the interests of his clients.”

It seems clear that opponents of marriage equality have been vilifying King & Spalding to distract from the true narrative of the House’s DOMA Defense: Boehner is spending at least $500,000 of taxpayer money on a $5 million lawyer for the sole purpose of defending discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Maryland’s Montgomery County Public School District has been considering a new sex education curriculum that would include facts affirming homosexuality—that it is not a disease or choice and that gays and lesbians can live happy lives and successfully raise children. However, disreputed “researcher” Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (FRC) has used his influence on the curriculum advisory committee to force a change in the new provision. Towing the line for PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) and citing another disavowed researcher, Robert Spitzer, Sprigg argued that the proposed statements promoted bigotry against “ex-gays.”

As a result, the committee edited one of the statements to leave room for the possibility that sexual orientation can be changed:

Sexual orientation is not a choice and the American Medical Association opposes “therapies” that seek to change sexual orientation that are premised on the assumption that people can or should change their sexual orientation.

Subtle though it may be, this change ignores that major medical organizations (such as the American Psychological Association) have found that not only can people not change their sexual orientation, but in fact that it is harmful to try.

By continuing to encourage the harm of ex-gay therapy, Sprigg reinforces FRC’s reputation as an anti-gay hate group. Nonetheless, GOP presidential contenders like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann continue to work “hand-in-hand” with them.

Yesterday, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) — who at one point compared homosexuality to bestiality — was asked if he believed the federal government should extend any legal protections to gay and lesbian relationships. Santorum replied that society extends “all sorts of contractual benefits” to all people, but said that gay people were not deserving of certain “exceptional” “privileges” like marriage:

SANTORUM: The question is: what are you going to do to try to impact public policy to recognize particular relationships? My feeling is the relationship that should be recognized in public policy that provides exceptional benefit, unusual unique benefits to society is marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman who are there to join together for the purpose of continuing society, which is having children and raising the children in a home with a mom and a dad.

WALLACE: But you wouldn’t give them any rights as a matter of public policy?

SANTORUM: It depends what you mean by ‘rights.’ Are you talking benefits as far as rights? They have the right to be able to — employment. I don’t know what you mean by rights. What I’m talking about are privileges. Privileges of marriage, privileges of government benefits is a different thing than basic right to live their lives as they well should and can as free Americans.

Watch it:

While Santorum now says that gay people should have the right to “employment,” in 1996, he also considered that a “privilege.” Santorum voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have prohibited public and private employers from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment decisions. The bill fell by the slimmest of margins, 49-50.

“This bill would give entitlement status based on sexual orientation to a degree that would offend most Americans,” Santorum said. “The bill would extend special privileges, not based on a person’s status in our society, but rather based on their lifestyle choice.”

On Wednesday, the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill advanced out of the Tennessee Senate Education Committee. The measure, which has been introduced multiple times since 2005, would prohibit teachers from discussing homosexuality in grades K through 8, even with students who may be gay or have gay family. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Stacey Campfield (R), has previously rationalized the measure by arguing that it would allow teachers more time to focus on core subjects like arithmetic, but during a 2009 interview with SiriusXM’s Michelangelo Signorile, Campfield went a step further. He said that homosexuality is a “learned” behavior and compared the Gay Rights Movement to bestiality:

CAMPFIELD: What you’re getting into is the thing, is it a genetic issue or is it none genetic issue? Is it a learned behavior or is it something that cannot be controlled? [...]

SIGNORILE: Most of the science now shows that homosexuality is something biological…

CAMPFIELD: No. You don’t believe that. Who are you kidding? Come’n now. [...]

SIGNORILE: You teach about the Civil Rights Movement. Why not teach about the Gay Rights Movement?

CAMPFIELD: Because they’re different types of movements. If I want to talk about the bestiality movement, do you think we should be teaching that?

Listen:

The bill (SB49) now advances for consideration by the full Senate. A similar bill (HB229) has not advanced out of the House Education General Subcommittee.

Ex-anti-gay strategist Louis Marinelli, who recently defected from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), continues to spill details about the inner-workings of the organization. (NOM has apparently threatened legal action.) Today, Marinelli confirmed suspicions that on the “Summer for Marriage Tour,” a series of anti-marriage equality rallies he helped coordinate, NOM was eagerly looking to portray LGBT supporters as “crazy.” NOM would use the pictures Marinelli took on it blog to describe the counter-protesters as “militant” and “intolerant, inconsiderate bullies.”

It turns out the strategy backfired, because it scared away would-be NOM supporters. Here are excerpts from an email sent by Matthew Haas, who orchestrates NOM’s video projects:

I just want to follow-up on the email David [LeJeune] sent. We want to focus on the positive for photos and video. We want happy people, people clapping, families, speakers shaking hands with people coming out. We want to still capture the protestors (especially if they do something exceptionally crazy), but that will not be the main focus.

…

ALSO, for both photos and video, we want the crowds to look as big as possible. We got feedback that people are afraid to come out to the stops actually, which is really a shame because they’re afraid of what the protestors may do.

Whether or not this fear was the primary factor responsible for the low turnout of supporters at most of NOM’s rallies is unclear.

Despite backing away from this strategy, NOM has not held back its self-victimization rhetoric. At last week’s House Judiciary Committee “defending marriage” hearing, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher repeatedly complained that same-sex marriage would lead to opponents like her being labeled as bigots and “hateful.” Watch it:

Progress toward marriage equality continues to ebb and flow, with a court defeat in Montana, a question for judicial retribution in Iowa, changing hearts in Colorado, and a growing coalition in New York:

- COLORADO: After voting against civil unions earlier this month, Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R) has written that his position continues to evolve on the issue. Meanwhile, an anti-bullying bill advanced yesterday out of the Senate Education Committee.

- IOWA: Five House Republicans have called for the impeachment of the four remaining Iowa Supreme Court justices who joined the 2009 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, but today Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen (R) quashed their effort.

- MONTANA: A Helena District Court Judge dismissed a lawsuit from six same-sex couples seeking to be recognized as domestic partners because of a 2004 amendment to the Montana Constitution that banned same-sex marriage.

- NEW YORK: A new coalition of groups working toward marriage equality in NY grew to include the gay Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans. Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) is “deeply offended” that Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is working with this coalition and is organizing an anti-gay marriage rally “to paralyze all traffic in the Bronx.”

- TENNESSEE: The Tennessee Senate Education Committee advanced a “Don’t Say Gay” bill that would prohibit any discussion of LGBT people or families in grades K-8.

- TEXAS: The Texas Senate adjourned without taking up SB 723, which would have limited transgender Texans’ ability to marry, but they also removed enumerated LGBT support from an anti-bullying bill.

- VIRGINIA: Guided by the advice from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), the Virginia State Board of Social Services voted 7-2 against new rules that would have allowed same-sex couples to access adoption and foster care services.

Keep track of how LGBT issues are advancing in the states at our State LGBT Watch.

ThinkProgress attended the “Bully Free DC Day” Rally.

District of Columbia Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) declared today “Bully Free DC Day” and offered his support to a coalition of national and local groups rallying for passage of the Bullying and Prevention Act of 2011. Students, teachers, and youth advocates spoke alongside District councilmembers in support of the anti-bullying legislation, but also pressured the Council to make it stronger.

The bill, in its current form (PDF), does not protect all the characteristics enumerated in DC’s Human Rights Law. Associational language is not included, so students who might be bullied for having friends or relatives with the protected characteristics would also not be protected. According to the Family Equality Council, only 11 states currently enumerate bullying protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, and fewer still (five) include associational language. Other concerns expressed about the bill include that it does not include accountability measures for teachers and students who witness bullying nor does it call for aggregated reporting of documented incidents.

A study released this week shows that schools that have specified anti-bullying policies have lower rates of attempted suicide among their students, both LGBT and heterosexual. D’ Angelo Morrison, a gay DC youth, spoke at today’s rally of how he attempted suicide after being made to feel “weird, ugly, unimportant, and depressed” and said the bill needed to be passed to “save the lives of our youth.”

Today’s rally marked groundbreaking cooperation among national and local groups speaking together for one issue. Coordinated by the Safe Schools Action Network (SSAN), the DC Safe Schools Coalition includes national groups such as GLSEN, the It Gets Better Project, and the Family Equality Council. Shannon Cuttle, executive director of SSAN, said today, “If we can get this legislation passed, it’ll be a symbol of what a community can do together.”

Colorado Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)

Earlier this month, Colorado’s House Judiciary Committee failed to advance Senate Bill-172, which would have allowed residents to enter into civil unions and provided same-sex couples with critical legal protections. The bill passed the Senate, but a motion to move the measure onto the Committee on Appropriations did not garner a majority and fell in a 5-6 party line vote. But now, Senator Shawn Mitchell (R), who voted against the measure, may be having second thoughts. In a post on Colorado Peak Politics, Mitchell explains his evolving position:

[Civil unions] could make them less likely in the first place if heterosexual couples choose civil unions over traditional marriage….It further erodes the cultural consensus and social expectation that reinforce marriage as unique, that a man and woman commit not just to each other, but to God and/or society to work and sacrifice for their family.

Yet, with all that, the years have brought different experiences into focus….Conservatives have long cited other factors eroding family stability, including permissive divorce laws, perverse behaviors enabled by an impersonal welfare state, men who abandon families, fatherless children, increased sexuality among teens and children, and more. The impact of these trends on families and child welfare is direct and devastating.

Considering these things, I wondered if I was focusing on a mote that might touch heterosexual families, and missing a beam squeezing gay households. Maybe recognizing civil unions could blur the focus on two parent homes raising children. But maybe the impact would be minuscule compared to broader trends ravaging families. And maybe the benefits that same-sex households would feel acutely are simply more important and more valuable to them than any speculative and marginal damage to the climate for heterosexual commitment is to others.

Indeed, during the debate in the House, Rep. Daniel Kagan (D) pointed out that under current law, same-sex partners have no legal obligation to rear children, arguing that extending legal protections through civil unions would actually enhance the kind of “family stability” that conservatives typically promote.

“[Y]ou seem to prefer that there be no obligation toward children on behalf of the parents who are not the legal parents of children under this current status quo but would become legally obligated as a parent,” Kagan said during a debate with Douglas Napier of the Alliance Defense Fund. “I just have tremendous trouble understanding why no protection for children is preferable to you than the protections of children that would be afforded by this bill.” [Listen to the full exchange here]

A bill popularly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill advanced yesterday out of the Tennessee Senate Education Committee. The bill would prohibit teachers from discussing of any sexuality except heterosexuality in grades K-8,” even with students who may be gay or have gay family,” according to Ben Byers of the Tennessee Equality Council (TEP). The committee amended the bill to require the Board of Education to study whether homosexuality is actually being taught in schools, but it will still institute a ban in February of next year.

Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) is passionate about this legislation, which he previously sponsored unsuccessfully in the state House for six years. In 2009, Campfield explained that he’s not homophobic; it’s just that the issue is “complex.” He clarified this past September that he supports promoting tolerance, but not acceptance:

You can talk about TEA and NEA resolutions talking about how they think there should be not just tolerance of the lifestyle, but acceptance of it. That flies completely in the face of a lot of people. A lot of people say, hey, I understand tolerance. I’m all for tolerance. I’ve co-sponsored the anti-bullying bill. But to say we have to go to acceptance, that’s something completely different.

He also thinks teachers don’t have enough time to teach core subjects:

If I can take one thing away and say, hey, you don’t have to teach about homosexuality to your second-graders, you can spend more time on arithmetic.

Film director and producer Del Shores recently challenged Campfield on Facebook to debate his bill. Campfield agreed but demanded a $1,000 retainer. According to Drew Rawlins of the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance, such an honorarium could be found to be an ethics violation if a formal complaint is filed. Though TEP has rejected Shores’ request for assistance in funding the retainer request, Shores seems committed to making the debate happen.

The bill (SB49) now advances for consideration by the full Senate. A similar bill (HB229) has not advanced out of the House Education General Subcommittee.

As Minnesota and Florida’s Orange County look for ways to support same-sex domestic partners, a new coalition forms in New York to push for full marriage equality:

- ARIZONA: Gov. Brewer (R) signed a bill that would give “primary consideration” to married (read: heterosexual) couples in all the state’s adoption and foster care services, which could essentially end same-sex couples’ access to those services.

- DELAWARE: As reported last week, the General Assembly approved civil unions and Gov. Jack Markell (D) has confirmed he will sign the bill.

- FLORIDA: Domestic partner benefits will now be available in Orange County thanks to a unanimous vote by the county’s commissioners, including medical, dental, vision, life insurance, COBRA, bereavement leave, domestic violence leave, and counseling and referral services.

- HAWAII: The House agreed to an amended Senate bill offering transgender employment protections and it now awaits Gov. Abercrombie’s (D) signature.

- MAINE: A new documentary, Question 1, about the campaign to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law, reveals that the chair of the “Yes on 1″ campaign deeply regrets having worked against marriage equality.

- MINNESOTA: Despite an impending constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, legislators have introduced a bill that would offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners in state employment contracts. Meanwhile, Gov. Mark Dayton (D) made history by being the first sitting governor to speak at LGBT Lobby Day and offer his support of marriage equality.

- NEVADA: The House has passed a transgender employment protections bill, and supporters are optimistic it will pass in the Senate as well. Other bills being considered would end transgender discrimination in public accommodations and housing while another would make transgender hate crime sentences harsher.

- NEW YORK: Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has allied with a new coalition of marriage equality groups called New Yorkers United for Marriage to develop a $1 million media campaign, with a goal of same-sex marriages taking place by early summer.

- OKLAHOMA: Two bills passed today altering how civil rights claims are handled in Oklahoma, limiting the window for filing them and the objectivity with which they will be handled.

- TENNESSEE: Today the Senate Education Committee was scheduled to consider the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would prohibit discussion of any aspect of human sexuality other than heterosexuality in grades K-8.

- TEXAS: A bill on today’s Senate intent calendar would prohibit transgender Texans from entering opposite-gender marriages by not allowing applicants for marriage licenses to use a “court order of sex change” as an identifying document.

Keep track of how LGBT issues are advancing in the states at our State LGBT Watch.

Nate Silver has this new chart tracking the growing public support for same-sex marriage. “If support for gay marriage were to continue accelerating as fast as it has in the past two years, supporters would outnumber opponents roughly 56-40 in the general population by November 2012,” he concludes:

“But this does put Republicans in a tricky position. Their traditional position on gay marriage is becoming less popular. But to the extent they disengage from the issue, they may lose even more ground,” Silver writes. Growing support for marriage may explain why Boehner did not kick the House’ defense of DOMA news into higher gear and hasn’t committed to holding votes on marriage bills, like the measure that would eliminate same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.

Matt Yglesias rightfully suggests that this kind of data should also push President Obama to “evolve” in his support for same-sex marriage. Not only is that the right position, but it would also mainstream the issue in the Democratic party and likely push public support for marriage way past the 50 percent mark. At that point, “Justice Kennedy and the four other liberals and moderates favor marriage equality on the merits, they can now rest assured that a pro-equality ruling would be politically sustainable.”