Last week, the Atlantic explored the troubling connection between GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and Peter E. Waldron, a campaign staffer “responsible for her faith-based organizing both in Iowa and South Carolina.” Waldron was “arrest in Uganda in 2006 on charges of running illegal guns and ammunition” and is linked to proponents of the country’s infamous “kill gays” bill and radical Christian theology. The Bachmann campaign responded to the initial reports by insisting that it stood by Waldron, “Michele’s faith is an important part of her life and Peter did a tremendous job with our faith outreach in Iowa,” a spokeswoman told Politico. “We are fortunate to have him on our team and look forward to having him expanding his efforts in several states.”

But now, Warren Throckmorton notices that all online traces of Waldron are disappearing:

His Facebook page is now private, and all that is left of his personal (peterewaldron.com) and movie promo (theultimatepricemovie.com) websites is the phrase, “under construction.” (See screen caps at the end of the post)

Once three video interviews were available on YouTube. Hosted by Hermann and Sharron Bailey, the interviews focused on his time in the Ugandan prison on weapons charges. These are now marked private (e.g, Part two)

YouTube hosts two videos promoting the film about Waldron (The Ultimate Price). Now one of them (the 4 minute version) is marked private, while the two-minute version carries the disclaimer that the video is “unlisted.” For now, the embedding feature allows it to be shown, but it does not appear in YouTube search results.

[H/T: David Badash]

University applications have long asked students various questions about their identities like sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and religion — figures that schools then publish in diversity reports and use to inform the allocation of campus services. There has never, however, been an assessment of students’ sexual orientation or gender identity, and even the Common Application (which over 414 colleges utilize) rejected adding the questions this past January, citing “evolving cultural norms.” One school is taking initiative: Elmhurst College in Illinois will now invite prospective students to disclose their LGBT identities. Elmhurst’s associate director of Admission, Christine Grenier, thinks it’s the right decision:

GRENIER: In words and action, Elmhurst College stands by our commitment to welcome and affirm all persons with respect to race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, faith perspective, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression into the full life of the college. Being able to reach out to LGBT students intentionally will allow us to connect to students earlier, help ease the transition to college and provide valuable resources on campus.

It’s surprising that schools have not taken this step before now. More than 170 universities offer resources for offices and staff support for LGBT students. All of these resources were developed without a census of LGBT students on those campuses; in other words, all those universities agreed to fund support in spite of not knowing how many actual students might ultimately benefit from them. This was, of course, the right thing to do, as the campus climate is known to be chilly for the queer community, with consequences for retention and academic success.

A  count of these students will provide useful information about how best to deliver resources and could help those resources reach students who might not otherwise seek out support on campus. In addition, students who may identify outside heterosexuality or the gender binary will know as early as the application process that the school they are applying to intends to affirm their identity, whatever it turns out to be. Elmhurst should be applauded for this decision, and hopefully other universities see the value in collecting this information and follow suit.

This morning, during an appearance on WTOP, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D) predicted that most state residents are “past” civil unions and are now in support of full marriage equality. O’Malley also reiterated his plan to sponsor a same-sex marriage bill in the upcoming legislative session, but refused to gauge the chances of success, saying only, “I think it should pass, I hope it passes”:

O’MALLEY: “I think with every day that goes by I think people become more comfortable with the notion, you know, that laws need to be protected equally in a pluralistic society. And we need to find a way to protect religious freedom. […] And sacraments should be left to churches and religious faiths, but a government of law needs to enforce rights and protect rights equally among all people.”

Listen:

Earlier this summer, a handful of LGBT organizations launched a new effort to bring marriage equality to Maryland modeled after New York’s successful coalition. The new campaign for same-sex marriage includes Equality Maryland, Progressive Maryland, the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Service Employees International Union, among others.

A Washington Post poll from May found that “46 percent overall favor legal same-sex marriage, 44 percent oppose it, and 10 percent have no opinion. Among registered voters, 48 percent are in favor and 43 percent are opposed.” [HT: Towleroad]

Jon Huntsman reiterated his standard talking points on same-sex marriage during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan last night, stressing that while he only believes in so-called traditional marriage, he would support civil unions and extending more rights to gays and lesbians:

MORGAN: The problem with running for president is that people want to see a fully rounded picture of the character of the man or woman that’s going to be in the White House. For argument sake, a hot issue of this show, which was when I asked Christine O’Donnell about her view of gay marriage. And she simply walks out. Michele Bachmann has pretty strong views on that. What is your view?

HUNTSMAN: On gay marriage?

MORGAN: Yeah.

HUNTSMAN: I believe in civil unions. I think we can do a better job in this country as it relates to equality and basic reciprocal beneficiary rights. I’m in favor of traditional marriage. I don’t think you can redefine it without getting in trouble.

But I think along with that, we can have civil unions. I think this country has arrived at a point in time where we can show a little more equality and respect. Leave it to the states, I think it’s a state issue that ought to be driven by discussions in various states. And you’ve got the Defense of Marriage Act that basically is a safeguard that allows that to happen.

Huntsman has given this answer for months and it usually gets an “okay” and move on from political journalists who understand that Obama’s former ambassador to China is hoping to appeal to the moderate middle and possibly lay the groundwork for a successful run for the nomination in 2016. But that doesn’t mean that the policy makes any sense. If anything Huntsman’s reply is as nonsensical as when the Democrats deployed it back in 2007.

First, one can’t both support extending benefits to same-sex couples and maintaining DOMA. Section 3 of that Act actually denies federal marriage benefits to gay couples, forcing them to jump through hoops when filing their tax returns or trying to find affordable health insurance coverage. Secondly, the federal government doesn’t recognize civil unions and Huntsman has yet to lay out a plan by which to formalize his “belief” into any sort of actual benefit. As Kerry Eleveld explained in a recent Washington Post op-ed criticizing Obama’s very similar position, “advocates of civil unions, Obama included, are suggesting for lesbian and gay couples a status for which the federal government has no definition and no frame of reference within its codes, and one that provides no path to legal recognition.” And so Huntsman has adopted a position that won’t even meet his own standard of offering just “a little more equality and respect” to gays and lesbians. If anything, it sounds like a nicer way to describe the status quo.