The Anoka-Hennepin school district in Minnesota is at the center of a major lawsuit and federal investigation over its so-called “neutrality policy,” which prohibits staff from teaching about homosexuality and fosters an anti-gay culture of harassment and bullying. Eight students have committed suicide over the last two years, and the situation in Annoka-Hennepin is so bad that state public health officials have labeled the area a “suicide contagion area” because of the unusually high death rate.

Yet today, the Minnesota Independent reports that the school district is failing teachers who refuse to endorse the neutrality policy, taking a stand against the dangerously antiquated idea that less discussion about LGBT issues somehow makes “students feel safe”:

Some teachers at Anoka-Hennepin School District have failed a teachers test because they refused to affirm that the district’s policy limiting discussions of LGBT issues in the district’s schools is intended to make “students feel safe.”

The district’s policy is at the heart of a culture war in the district and is the subject of a lawsuit by six students and their parents who say the district has not taken appropriate steps to prevent bullying against students who are, or are perceived to be, LGBT.

City Pages reported on Wednesday that a training test required by all teachers contains the question: “One of the goals of the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy is to ensure all of our students feel safe and respected in our classrooms and/or while participating in school activities: true or false?”

City Pages notes that several teachers in the district are refusing to answer “true,” which causes them to fail the training test.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), whose congressional district includes the Anoka-Hennepin schools, faced criticism for remaining silent on epidemic of gay bullying and suicides for months. When the presidential candidate finally weighed in this month, all she had to say about the bullying contagion claiming so many lives in her district was, “not a federal issue.”

Mother Jones notes that groups like the Bachmann-supported Minnesota Family Council have been blamed for contributing to the tragic deaths with their vocal statements that gay teens who commit suicide bring it upon themselves “because they’ve embraced an unhealthy sexual identity and lifestyle.”

In more than half the states across the country, it is legal to fire someone solely based on the employee’s sexual orientation. As Congress continues to waffle on whether to provide such a basic protection against discrimination, the state of Ohio is trying to become the 16th state to do so. Yesterday, state lawmakers introduced House Bill 335, a measure that would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the list of people protected from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.” The bill does include an exemption for religious institutions.

Though regularly denounced by many conservatives, the Ohio measure is receiving support from an unexpected corner: religious groups and the GOP. Reformed Catholic Rev. Michael Brown in Ohio conveyed his dismay that such basic rights continue to be withheld, stating, “I thought this was settled in the ’60s when poor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died”:

The Rev. Michael Brown of the Holy Cross Reformed Catholic Church in Bowling Green was on hand yesterday for the bill’s introduction.

“They aren’t asking for special rights, just the same rights as everyone else,” Brown said. “I thought this was settled in the ’60s when poor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died.”[...]

Rep. Ross McGregor, R-Springfield, remains hopeful that this could be the year.

“I have faith in my legislative colleagues,” McGregor said. “We’d like to see it on the governor’s desk.”

Religious support for such fundamental civil rights is certainly not unprecedented. Thirty-six religious organizations of various faiths urged the Senate to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in 2009, a federal bill prohibiting discrimination against LGBT employees. The bill has been introduced in every Congress, except the 109th, since 1994. In testifying before Congress in 2009, Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform Jewish Movement stated on behalf of the 900 congresgations of the Union for Reform Judaism, “We oppose discrimination against all individuals, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender men and women, for the stamp of the Divine is imprinted on the souls of each and every one of us.”

This is the Ohio House’s second attempt to prohibit such discrimination, after passing a similar bill last year. The state Senate never acted on it. Though Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) promised to extend protections to the LGBT community via executive order, he excluded protection for “gender identity” — breaking his campaign pledge. He has not offered a position on this bill and it remains to be seen whether McGregor’s “faith” is well-placed.

President Obama reiterated his opposition to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act during an “Open for Questions” roundtable at the White House this morning, but said he does not know if the courts will strike down the measure. Responding to a query about the struggles faced by binational gay and lesbian couples, Obama stressed that his administration is no longer defending the law and predicted that the courts will decide the fate of the policy “fairly soon.” “Administratively, we can’t ignore the law,” he explained, but “even if we enforce it, we don’t support it, we think it’s unconstitutional”:

OBAMA: Once that law is struck down — and I don’t know what the ruling will be — then addressing these binational issues could flow from that decision potentially. I can’t comment on where the case is going to go. I can only say what I believe and that is that DOMA doesn’t make sense, it’s unfair. I don’t think that it meets the demands of our Constitution… I’ve also said that I’m also supportive of Congress repealing DOMA on its own and not waiting for the courts. The likelihood of us being able to get the House of representatives for DOMA repeal are very low at this point. So truthfully, the recourse to the courts is probably going to be the best approach.

Watch it:

DOMA — which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — denies gays and lesbians many federal rights and protections and prohibits couples who are legally married in one of the six states (and DC) from petitioning the government for the same immigration benefits that are afforded to separate-sex relationships.

Obama announced that he would no longer defend the law in February, leaving House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to argue that the law is constitutional in court. The legal team that Boehner and the Republicans hired has since come under harsh criticism for arguing that homosexuality is a choice, misrepresenting research, and relying on such experts as ex-gay advocate George Rekers and the National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher. On Monday, six House Democrats renewed their request with Boehner “for a briefing on his defense of the anti-gay law in court.”

Meanwhile, the legislative effort to repeal DOMA attracted its first Republican co-sponsor in the House last week and now has 125 supporters in the House and 29 in the Senate.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan tried to strike a moderate tone during Monday’s marriage forum in Poughkeepsie, New York, insisting that the Catholic Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage does not translate into animus for gay and lesbian people. When an audience member asked the full panel of religious leaders if they would support extending legal protections and recognition to gay couples, Dolan burst out in mock laughter as the question was referred to him, saying, “Oh thanks, he’s so generous!” He then suggested that the Catholic community would help gay couples who “have legitimate rights that are being hurt” and that they could receive some of the benefits of marriage without “redefining marriage.” “I remember hearing on the radio, in fact, that his partner — or whatever you call it — was being deported because they couldn’t be married and I tried to get in touch with him to say, we Bishops too have been on the vanguard of a just immigration policy, perhaps we could help,” Dolan offered. “I’m hoping that kind of outreach…might be helpful and at least give them the impression that we’re not out to get them.”

But when another questioner pressed Dolan on his commitment, asking if the Catholic bishops would support ending discrimination against binational gay couples, Dolan demurred. “The major thing is not to listen to one another, but to listen to God and he’s told us what marriage is about, so I don’t know,” he said. Watch both exchanges:

Gay and lesbian couples, however, face discrimination in the immigration process because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and prohibits couples who are legally married in one of the six states (and DC) from petitioning the federal government for the same immigration benefits that are afforded to separate-sex relationships. And that’s precisely the with Dolan’s “benefits without marriage” approach. The federal government “has no definition and no frame of reference within its codes” for providing legal protections to civil unions or any other kind of relationship outside of marriage, so Dolan is left trying to convince gay people “we’re not out to get them” while denying them all of the benefits that are extended to similarly situation straight couples.