Universities affiliated with conservative Christianity can be toxic environments for LGBT students, but some, like Wheaton College in Illinois, actually require all community members to sign a “Community Covenant.” Such contracts explicitly prohibit and condemn homosexuality, among other things, and the penalty for violation of the contract can be expulsion.

This past week, though, LGBTQ students at Wheaton College were validated and recognized for perhaps the first time with the creation of OneWheaton, a newly-formed coalition of LGBTQ alumni. In an open letter to Wheaton students, hundreds of alumni — including some who graduated over 50 years ago — urge students to recognize they are not ”tragic” or “broken,” but that their identities should be celebrated and affirmed, not shamed. They also request awareness and compassion from the broader Wheaton community:

Remember that there are students who feel they need to hide. We remember how messages and conversations surrounding the “issue of homosexuality” often exacerbated our feelings of isolation, particularly when talk about “compassion” often felt like pity at best, or at worst intolerance cloaked in language of love. Speak against blatant and passive language and actions that dehumanize and marginalize your brothers and sisters. Ask questions. Encourage dialogue. Most of all, listen. Your friends need your support and love. As awkward as the process may be for you, it is guaranteed to be more deeply and constantly difficult for your friends.

Wheaton is not the only Christian university whose LGBT students are seeing new support. Alumni at Westmont College in Montecito, CA also reached out to LGBT students through an open letter in the campus newsletter in February. The response there was positive; faculty replied seeking forgiveness for how they may have added to the pain. In March, students and alumni at Harding University went a step further, creating what they called the “HU Queer Press,” an online website and print magazine featuring the stories of LGBT students. Shortly after going live, the university blocked the website on campus and the president, Dr. David Burks, condemned it as “offensive and degrading,” not even daring to say the word “queer” out loud.

These courageous efforts are important, because LGBT-unfriendly campus environments impede students’ success. A recent comprehensive study of American universities shows that LGBT students face significantly greater harassment and discrimination than heterosexual men and women, and it can be safely assumed that levels are higher at schools that explicitly condemn homosexuality. This chilly climate impacts student success, retention, and mental health, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

OneWheaton clarifies on its website: “Not affiliated with or condoned by Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. Duh.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) compared same-sex marriage to incest and polygamy during a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder this afternoon, asking why the administration would be willing to apply a higher level of scrutiny to laws that prohibit gay people from marrying as a pose to other kind of marriage arrangements:

GOWDY: And would you agree with me that the rational basis test is the appropriate test to be used with respect to consanguinity, the marrying of family members? That’s the appropriate test, right? Rational basis. You’re not arguing for a heightened level of scrutiny on whether or not cousins can marry each other.

HOLDER: No, I would not argue that. I don’t know if there’s law on that, but again off the top of my head, I’m not sure that you would need heightened scrutiny standard in that regard. [...]

GOWDY: Alright, and we don’t need intermediate or heightened scrutiny with respect to polygamy, right?

HOLDER: Yea, I would think not.

Watch it:

Unlike laws preventing people from marrying their brother, laws which discriminate against gay people meet the Supreme Court’s legal standard for heightened scrutiny because gay men and lesbians have historically been “subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.”

Gowdy went on to note that two court of appeals have ruled that a rational basis test should be applied to sexual orientation laws, while just one agreed with the administration’s view that a higher level of review is applicable and asked why Obama chose to side with the one decision. “Court of appeals make decisions that sometimes the Department of Justice will disagree with to the extent that court of appeals have taken different views of what the appropriate level of scrutiny is,” Holder said. “We think those courts of appeals are wrong. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide I guess this issue.”

Gowdy then admitted, “The Ninth Court of Appeals is presumptively wrong. So we don’t change our course of conduct when the ninth circuit court of appeals comes up with something crazy, we don’t change our course of action.”

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing this afternoon, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) grilled Attorney General Eric Holder over the administration’s decision not to defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, insisting that Congress should repeal the funds that would have been used to argue the case to pay for its own defense of the measure. The House has hired former solicitor general Paul Clement to defend the law and has promised to pay him up to $500,000 for his services.

Holder reiterated that the administration’s view that the history of discrimination against gay people, Congress’ repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the Supreme Court’s ruling that criminalizing homosexual contact is unconstitutional, led President Obama to apply a heightened level of scrutiny to DOMA in two new cases filed in circuits that had not previously determined which legal test should apply to laws dealing with discrimination against sexual orientation. “Given the nature of the way gay people have been treated in this country, given the reason for the passage of the statute, it was our feeling that a heightened scrutiny test had to be applied. Applying the heighten scrutiny test, we did not think that the statute would pass Constitutional muster,” Holder explained. Sensenbrenner, however argued that the executive branch was usurping the power of Congress and insisted that everyone deserved a lawyer, regardless of the administration’s belief that it could not make reasonable arguments in favor of the law:

SENSENBRENNER: My concern on this, Mr. Attorney General and it’s deeply troubling, is that the President has decided to usurp the function of Congress in making laws which a former president has signed and also to usurp the function of the courts by saying that this law is unconstitutional when that’s not his job. I guess what I can say is, I would certainly support an effort to have the cost of Congress’ defending this provision that the President and you have refused to do so, come out of the Justice’s appropriation. [...]

HOLDER: Several lower courts have ruled that DOMA itself is unconstitutional and the notion that this is somehow something that as you said, ought to be taken off the backs of the Department of Justice in a financial way, I think is inappropriate. The lawyers in the Department of Justice who would have worked on that case, believe me, have more than a full time job and they will have to use the time that might have been used in the DOMA defense they will use it in other areas.

Watch it:

Holder agreed that “good lawyers ought to be involved in this matter” but said that Congress “has the ability to pass an appropriation to pay Mr. Clement for the great defense that I’m sure he would render.”

Sensenbrenner’s argument that “everyone deserves a lawyer” may be noble, but it is also hypocritical. Republicans have recently stripped nearly $16 million from the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which defends tenants against slum lords, helps women obtain court orders against abusive husbands, protects consumers against exploitative lenders, or to otherwise provides legal representation to Americans who can’t afford it. As Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) quipped, “I’m delighted to hear the observation of the gentleman from Wisconsin — that everyone is entitled to a lawyer — and I look forward to his support of greatly increased appropriations for legal services and legal aid so that people who need lawyers in this country can get it.”

ThinkProgress filed this report from Iowa City, Iowa.

During a lecture series sponsored by Bob Vander Plaats’ the FAMiLY Leader on Monday, likely presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) didn’t agree that homosexuality represented a public health crisis, making him the third potential GOP nominee (along with Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann) to publicly break with Iowa ‘king maker.’ Vander Plaats — who is hosting a presidential series with all of the likely GOP contenders — stood next to Santorum during the questioning by ThinkProgress:

VOLSKY: Senator, some groups have called homosexuality a public health hazard, compared it to second hand smoking, do you agree with that?

SANTORUM: Uh, no. I didn’t call it a public health hazard.

Watch it:

Both the Leader and Vander Plaats, a three-time gubernatorial candidate, have argued that homosexuality is a public health hazard akin to second hand smoke and have directed their members to literature promoting discredited ex-gay therapies. In fact, during an interview with ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes, Vander Plaats said, “If we’re teaching the kids, ‘don’t smoke, because that’s a risky health style,’ the same can be true of the homosexual lifestyle. That’s why I think we need to speak the truth once in a while.”

During her appearance before the group in April, Bachmann didn’t “have an answer” when pressed on the “public hazard” argument and Pawlenty also later distanced himself from the notion, telling ThinkProgress, “Well, we have some evidence to indicate that if you engage in unprotected sex you might increase the chance of getting the HIV/AIDS. But you know, that’s also true, can be true in heterosexual community as well.”

ThinkProgress filed this report from Iowa City, Iowa.

During an appearance before the FAMiLY Leader yesterday morning, potential presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) argued that children who are raised in a household with two heterosexual parents were typically better off than those raised in single households or by gay people. “Sure single parenthood will get you there most of the time,” he admitted, “but it just isn’t as good. It just isn’t as good as having a mom and a dad.” Santorum said that parenting was a “privilege” that some people — especially gay people — were not entitled to:

SANTORUM: Can you have good stock, solid family with a single parent? Yes you can…if you were getting on an airplane and you had a choice between two of them and one airplane would get you there 95 percent of the time and the other plane would get you there 85 percent of the time. What plane would you take?

[...]

A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.

Watch it:

Despite Santorum’s assertions, research suggests that two loving gay parents are actually better for children than a single parent. “Scholars, at USC and New York University, looked at a range of existing studies, including research on gay and lesbian parents, finding that it’s ideal if a child is raised by two parents who are ‘responsible, committed, stable,’ but that the gender doesn’t cause radical differences.” As sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences points out:

Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents. The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well.

During a press availability following the speech, Santorum grew agitated when pressed by the Iowa Independent’s Lynda Waddington on why he was so hard on single parents. “The data says society and children are better when we have stable families and stable marriages,” he said. He did not extend the same logic to gay couples, however, saying, “I think children need mothers and fathers.” Watch that exchange here.