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.