Amid the increased fervor over the slew of suicides reportedly motivated by anti-gay bullying in a Minnesota school district, one voice remains “uncharacteristically silent” — that of the district’s congresswomen, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Her office did not respond to Mother Jones’ request for a comment on the nine student deaths or the schools’ alleged anti-gay environment.

Bachmann’s silence on the subject of the Anoka-Hennepin’s neutrality policy, which the National Center for Lesbian Rights blames for enabling the anti-gay culture by “stigmatizing LGBT students,” is certainly unusual. Here are five reasons why:

1. Bachmann got her political start in Minnesota’s public schools.

In the early 1990s, Bachmann took her first public roll as one of the founders of a charter school, but ended up resigning after accusations that she and other board members had been pushing a Christian agenda. She has spoken on education policies in numerous venues, including EdWatch’s 2004 conference, and included education reform as one of her priority issues when campaigning for the U.S. House in 2006.

2. She publicly came out against a bill that would mandate anti-bullying school policies in 2006.

While at a hearing over a bill that would mandate anti-bullying policies in Minnesota’s schools, then Sen. Bachmann dismissed bullying as simply a practical reality. “I just don’t know how we’re ever going to get to point of zero tolerance and what does it mean?” she asked. “Will we be expecting boys to be girls? What is it exactly that we’re asking for?”

3. Bachmann voted against hate crimes legislation that would protect LGBT Americans.

She cast her vote against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which amended the federal definition of hate crime to also include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” Two years later, she opposed the Hate Crimes Expansion Act of 2009, which provided federal assistance to states dealing with hate crimes.

4. Her political associates actively support Anoka-Hennepin’s neutrality policy.

As ThinkProgress reported last week, Bachmann counts as one of her top campaign donors Barbara Anderson, the education researcher at the Minnesota Family Council and the head of the Parents Action League. According to Anderson, PAL was instrumental in writing the “outstanding” neutrality policy in the first place; Tom Pritchard, the director of the Minnesota Family Council, echoed Anderson, saying the real issue facing the Anoka-Hennepin schools was not anti-gay bullying, but “homosexual indoctrination.”

5. And most tellingly, Bachmann has spoken aggressively about the need to fight against a “homosexual curriculum” in public schools.

After describing homosexuality as “sexual disfunction” and a “sexual identity disorder” while speaking at EdWatch’s 2004 conference, she warned the audience that the recent Massachusetts’ decision to legalize gay marriage would lead to a mandate forcing schools to teach homosexuality. And then — echoing the anti-gay advocates of Anoka-Hennepin’s neutrality policy — she listed the two dangerous implications to “putting the whole gay curriculum into the schools”: “It’s a radical transformation of our entire society…[and] it leads to the personal enslavement of individuals.” Listen to here.

So far, Bachmann has remained quiet about her position on gay marriage and homosexuality during her presidential campaign. With a federal investigation and a lawsuit associated with her district’s largest school system, we’ll see how long she can make that silence last before she must choose between breaking with her record on the issue or condoning anti-gay bullying.

–Sarah Bufkin

On Friday, President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen certified the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, setting the stage for elimination of the policy on September 20, 2011 upon the conclusion of a statutorily mandated 60-day Congressional review period. But House Republicans, and some conservative advocates, are still trying to undermine the process and are now calling on the Pentagon to release all assessments related to the decision to certify repeal:

– REP. BUCK MCKEON (R-CA): “The President’s certification culminates a flawed repeal assessment and adoption process and as such the House Armed Services Committee will continue to conduct vigorous oversight,” Rep. McKeon said. “To aid this effort, I am calling on the administration to immediately release to Congress each of the assessments performed by the services on the impact of repeal on their forces and all the regulations and policy documents that demonstrate the questions about implementation have been resolved.” [WSJ, 7/22/2011]

– REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA): “It’s a decision that stems from a campaign promise, not strategic thinking,” Hunter spokesperson Joe Kasper said. “There’s 60 days from the point of certification, so there’s still time to evaluate concerns with the change and do whatever is possible to ensure the highest level of efficiency. Mr. Hunter and others will keep a close eye on things to determine what, if any, options exist going forward.” [NC Times, 7/22/2011]

– ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND: “The reports of the chiefs of the services and combat commanders that supposedly justify this move should be released in full, allowing service members, the public, and Congress to evaluate the situation themselves. This administration cannot expect America to accept its ‘certification’ at face value.” [Christian Post, 7/23/2011]

During a press conference on Friday afternoon, Pentagon officials stressed that “there have been no distractions from unit cohesion that have been reported” as a result of the coming change in policy. They added that there was “unanimous support” from the service chiefs to certify repeal, but said the request to release documentation was “under consideration.”

Earlier in the year, Republican House members — led by Hunter — added an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would have required the service chiefs to sign off on the certification.

The Iowa Independent’s Meghan Malloy reports that the Iowa Coalition of PFLAG — Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays — has launched a petition against the Wells family’s Blue Bunny ice cream brand following ThinkProgress’ post uncovering the connections between the company’s president and the FAMiLY LEADER’s Bob Vander Plaats. Mike Wells, the president and CEO of the company, was a member of Vander Plaats’ council of advisers during his gubernatorial campaign and Wells family members have contributed at least $456,000 to Vander Plaats and his affiliated organizations and campaigns.

Iowa Coaltion PFLAG President Dean Genth is asking for a boycott of Blue Bunny ice cream has “written an open letter to Vander Plaats, seeking an apology from the conservative activist for laughing at an off-color joke made by an attendee” at a FAMiLY LEADER event:

Mr. Vanderplaats,

Your outrageous and derogatory comments have no place in the public debate about moving forward with equality for our LGBT citizens. I respectfully ask you to consider the harm you are causing legions of family members and allies of the LGBT citizenry throughout the state of Iowa and around the country. Your words have been inflammatory and hurtful.

As President of the Iowa Coalition of PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), I am calling upon you to issue an apology to our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Iowans for your hurtful comments and actions.

This vulgarity must cease.

We await your sincere apology,

Dean A. Genth, President
Iowa Coalition of PFLAG Chapters

Vander Plaats has yet to respond to PFLAG or a similar effort from One Iowa — the state’s LGBT advocacy organization — demanding an apology for his anti-gay remarks. Blue Bunny, meanwhile, has issued a statement distancing itself from Vander Plaats and stressing that the company itself has not contributed to his efforts.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R) lashed out against Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for suggesting that he was “fine” with New York’s decision to legalize same-sex message, asking Perry — who is said to be considering his own run for the White House — if he would similarly endorse polygamy or laws against “heterosexual marriage“:

Santorum made headlines in 2003 for comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality and is now using same-sex marriage and so-called “traditional family values” as center pieces for his presidential campaign.

On the campaign trail, he has repeatedly argued that marriage equality would “destabilize” society, called for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and claimed that gay people don’t deserve the “privilege” of parenthood. Allowing gay people to marry is “going to have a devastating impact on our children, it’s going to have a devastating impact on families, and it’s going to have a profound impact on religious liberties,” he said during a campaign stop last month.