Anoka-Hennepin Superintendent Dennis Carlson (Photo Credit: Tom Weber, MPR News)

Administrators at Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District are none too pleased about Rolling Stone’s in-depth look at the school’s anti-gay reputation, the role of conservative Christians in fostering that reputation, and the several student suicides that exemplify it. Superintendent Dennis Carlson denounced the profile as a “brutal and distorted attack” that didn’t recognize any of the “immediate steps” that were part of the school’s response to the suicides. He also claimed that the district did not find any connection between the suicides and bullying, a sentiment also echoed in the official response offered by the district:

The article in Rolling Stone presents a grossly distorted portrayal of the Anoka-Hennepin School District, its schools, and its communities. [...]

When we learned that some teachers were confused over whether or not to intervene when witnessing bullying and harassment, the School Board and superintendent went on record stating that staff are required to intervene in all instances of bullying or harassment, if they do not they face discipline.

The district’s anti-bullying policy specifically protects sexual orientation.

None of the points made in the district’s response address the root of its problem: the “neutrality” curriculum policy that prevents teachers from discussing issues of sexual orientation. Given that most bullying is verbal, the policy makes it quite difficult for teachers and staff to interrupt homophobic harassment without talking about homosexuality, nor can any education take place about why comments like “dyke,” “faggot,” and “that’s so gay” are inappropriate. According to Tammy Aaberg, whose gay son Justin was among the students who committed suicide after experiencing severe bullying, the Rolling Stone article is “accurate,” and many students have reached out to her to echo its legitimacy.

Fortunately, the district will likely soon replace that provision with a new “Respectful Learning Environment” curriculum policy, which the teachers union has endorsed. In the meantime, Anoka-Hennepin serves as a model for how dangerous it can be when policies restrict staff from talking to students about LGBT issues or using education about those issues to help prevent bullying. As Andy Birkey points out at The American Independent, six states (Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) have similar “No Promo Homo” laws that restrict LGBT outreach in schools, and Tennessee’s proposed “Don’t Say Gay” bill, compounded by a bill that would protect religious bullies, represents the possible expansion of harm against LGBT students.

It does not bode well for future LGBT students in Anoka-Hennepin School District that administrators are still not taking responsibility for their harmful policies and are calling exposure of that harm an “attack.”

In the “closed circuit world on the right,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is often the subject of ugly denigrations. Whether it’s being mocked for her sexual orientation, her name, or even her education, right-wingers can’t get enough of slamming her.

During a political discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today, Fox News pundit and conservative columnist Cal Thomas continued the ugliness. After the Heritage’s Genevieve Wood played a quote of Maddow eloquently debunking the conservative argument on contraception, Thomas said:

I’m glad that you played the Rachel Maddow clip because I think she is the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception. I would be all for that. And all of the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.

No one on the panel condemned the comment. Watch it:

Howard Stern took a significant chunk of time on his radio show today to defend Ellen DeGeneres from the conservative group One Million Moms’ boycott of JC Penney. During the impassioned discussion, he admonished Republican presidential candidates for their anti-gay rhetoric and highlighted the portrayal of bullying in Rolling Stone’s article about Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District:

STERN: First of all, I’m proud of JC Penney for not buckling. You know, I am not the world’s biggest Ellen DeGeneres, but I’ll tell you what: I will defend her to the end. If JC Penney fires Ellen DeGeneres, I will call on all my listeners to boycott JC Penney and I will do everything I can for Ellen DeGeneres. I mean, I was so outraged.

This defense of the gay community is a must-listen (language NSFW):

Additionally, DeGeneres thanked Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly today for defending her on his show. Watch it:

(HTs: Joe.My.God. and SheWired.)

Even though this week’s Proposition 8 ruling by the Ninth Circuit focuses on the unconstitutionality of taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry as opposed to addressing whether they should have such a right to begin with, the decision does take time to dissect five key arguments used by opponents of marriage equality. Here is a rundown of the anti-gay arguments brought forth in the case and how the Court rebuffed them:

1. CHILDREN DESERVE TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS: Proponents of Prop 8 argued that “children are better off when raised by two biological parents” and so only potential biological parents should be allowed to marry. The Court ruled this argument irrelevant, because “Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California.” In addition to the fact that California law recognizes that same-sex couples are “fully capable of… responsibly caring for and raising children,” it also favors parental social relationships over biological relationships as it is. So, besides the fact that the argument simply isn’t true, it has nothing to do with the impact of Prop 8 and is entirely inconsistent with California law.

2. MARRIAGE PROMOTES “RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION”: Proponents also argued that marriage has the specific purpose of encouraging “responsible procreation” that needs only be offered to opposite-sex couples — in essence, that because same-sex couples cannot accidentally have children, they do not need (read: deserve) the privilege of marriage. Like the first, this claim is completely irrelevant, because Proposition 8 was a question of rescinding a right, not extending one. For this argument to carry any weight, proponents would have had to prove that same-sex marriage would make opposite-sex couples “more likely to procreate accidentally or irresponsibly.” Given the absurdity of the notion, the Court found that this argument, “to put it mildly, does not help Proponents’ cause.” In addition, “it is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman.”

3. CALIFORNIA SHOULD “PROCEED WITH CAUTION” WHEN REDEFINING MARRIAGE: Opponents of equality regularly argue that the “consequences” of same-sex marriage have not yet been realized, but Prop 8 had little to do with “caution.” As the Court points out, “the purpose and effect of Proposition 8 was ‘to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California’ — not to ‘suspend’ or ‘study’ that right.” Proposition 8 was an unabashed permanent ban on same-sex marriages and cannot be construed as anything less.

4. PROPOSITION 8 HELPED PROTECT “RELIGIOUS LIBERTY”: The Court quickly dismisses the claim that banning same-sex marriage has anything to do with preserving so-called “religious liberty,” given Prop 8 did not change any of California’s antidiscrimination laws that protect sexual orientation. Any equality opponent wishing to use religion as a means to refuse services to same-sex couples gains nothing from Prop 8.

5. CHILDREN WOULD BE TAUGHT THAT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ARE THE SAME: Conservatives have stoked fears that LGBT equality threatens children for decades, and did not hesitate to do the same regarding Prop 8. The Court found little weight in this argument, pointing out that California law empowers schools with control over the content of their sexual health education curricula. Similarly, schools are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation — Prop 8 or no Prop 8. Perhaps most poignantly, the Court pointed out that schools are supposed to teach reality:

Schools teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons change. A shift in the State’s marriage law may therefore affect the content of classroom instruction just as would the election of a new governor, the discover of a new chemical element, or the adoption of a new law permitting no-fault divorce: students learn about these as empirical facts of the world around them. But to protest the teaching of these facts is little different from protesting their very existence; it is like opposing the election of a particular governor on the ground that students would learn about his holding office, or opposing the legitimation of no-fault divorce because a teacher might allude to that fact if a course in societal structure were taught to graduating seniors. The prospect of children learning about the laws of the State and society’s assessment of the legal rights of its members does not provide an independent reason for stripping members of a disfavored group of those rights they presently enjoy.

More than anything, this decision demonstrates that most of the arguments against same-sex marriage have little to do with the institution of marriage itself. Just as Judge Vaughn Walker found in his original opinion, the only compelling explanation for banning same-sex marriage is animus against the gay community.

JC Penney CEO Ron Johnson spoke out this morning in defense of the company’s new partnership with Ellen DeGeneres. The conservative group One Million Moms has called for a boycott against the store for “jumping on the pro-gay bandwagon,” but both JC Penney and DeGeneres have defended the partnership. Johnson told CBS News that he sees no controversy because “Ellen represents the values of our company”:

JOHNSON: We stand squarely behind Ellen as our spokesperson and that’s a great thing, because she shares the same values that we do in our company. Our company was founded 110 years ago on The Golden Rule, which is about treating people fair and square, just like if you treated yourself. And we think Ellen represents the values of our company and the values that we share. [...]

As we thought about all the people in America today, we thought Ellen would be the perfect [spokes]person, because we all kind of trust her. She’s a very honest, straight-forward person with extraordinary values… It’s been unbelievably wonderful to work with someone who is so kind, so gracious, so funny, who just I think captures what America is about.

Watch the interview:

(HT: Towleroad.)

Lambda Legal has filed suit on behalf of a married lesbian couple in Iowa who received an inaccurate death certificate after their son died in utero this past October. The fetal death certificate form only included boxes marked “mother” and “father,” and when Jessica Aiken and Jenny Buntemeyer received the official certificate, Buntemeyer’s name and information had been erased, leaving only Aiken’s name as the mother. Buntemeyer explains the impact of this insult:

BUNTEMEYER: After the loss of our son, Jenny and I were just trying to process our grief and get through it together. To erase Jenny’s name from the death certificate was like trying to erase all the love, commitment and work we had both put into planning a family. We were in complete shock.

Last month, an Iowa judge ruled that a married same-sex couple deserves to have both names on a child’s birth certificate. Gov. Terry Branstad’s administration has appealed that decision, seeking clarification for the different ways a same-sex couple might conceive a child.

Rick Santorum continued to rail against President Obama’s so-called war against religion during a town hall in Plano, Texas Wednesday night. The former Pennsylvania senator — who has spent the last several days criticizing the government’s requirement that insurers provide contraception coverage and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision striking down Proposition 8 — accused the administration of “crushing” religion and setting the United States on the path towards executing religious people by decapitation:

SANTORUM: They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.

Watch it: