Kathy Potts served as the Republican committee chair for Rick Perry’s presidential campaign in Iowa and identifies as an evangelical Christian, but today she expressed her adamant support for marriage equality:

What I didn’t hear much of this year was support for marriage equality from the Republican front-runners. I support marriage for gay and lesbian couples and have been vocal about my support, even when it hasn’t always been the popular thing to do in my party.

I heard a lot of rhetoric about gay and lesbian Americans that didn’t fit with what I know to be true and what many Republicans believe. As an evangelical Christian Republican, I know many people who hold conservative values like equality and freedom, but those voices were lost this year. However, I believe in my heart that things are changing. If it weren’t for the loud voices of a few in our party, I do believe more Republicans would stand up in support of marriage equality.

Read her full opinion piece in Eastern Iowa’s Gazette.

The Tennessee House Education Committee voted today to again delay consideration of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill to first allow consideration of another bill that implements sweeping abstinence-only education requirements. This legislation (HB 3621) would stipulate a “family life education” curriculum that is rife with factual untruths, such as:

• Sexual health is best “encouraged” through abstinence-only education.
• Social science research supports “the benefits of reserving the expression of human sexual activity for marriage.”
• There is an “interrelationship between teen sexual activity and exposure to other risk behaviors such as smoking, underage drinking, drug use, criminal activity, dating violence, and sexual aggression.”

The bill is intended to reduce teenage pregnancy, but would surely have the opposite effect. Recent studies show that states with abstinence-only education requirements have the highest teen pregnancy rates. Young people who take virginity pledges have sex at the same rates as those who don’t, but are more likely to have unsafe sex when they do.

By limiting all conversations about sexuality to “abstinence until marriage,” this bill could have the same effect as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, condemning gay youth to a life of chastity and invisibility. Proponents may add amendments to incorporate the intended anti-gay censorship into this “family life education” curriculum or may still take up it separately, but either way, the results will reinforce anti-gay school environments. A new report from the Williams Institute examines the “Don’t Say Gay” bill’s harmful impacts:

• Hostile environments created by bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender nonconformity lead to adverse health effects for LGBT youth.
• Anti-gay stigma has been shown to be related to increases in violence against LGBT youth and adults, as well as to lower levels of health.
• Harassment based on sexual orientation and gender nonconformity is widespread with LGBT youth at heightened risk.
• Research shows that states and locales that promote LGBT-inclusive school policies help reduce teen suicide, and enhance the health and well-being of LGBT youth.
• Laws with negative and discriminatory impact on the LGBT community could have a negative economic impact for business and the state economy.

The House Education Subcommittee could begin considering the abstinence-only bill as early as tomorrow.

New Hampshire state Rep. David Bates (R) is continuing his quest to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage lawwith a new amendment that would simply reinstate the civil unions law from 2007. This is different from his previous proposal — now withdrawn — that would have instituted civil unions that anybody could have refused to recognize. Also, the new amendment would allow the 1,900 already-married same-sex couples to stay married.

Here’s how Bates’ new amendment would play out:

• The legislature would vote to repeal marriage equality and implement the civil unions law as it was passed in 2007, a change that would not take effect until March 31, 2013. This would require a super majority, because Gov. John Lynch (D) has promised to veto any bill that takes rights away from same-sex couples.
• In the meantime, voters would have the opportunity to respond to a non-binding question as to whether they agree with the decision. The vote would have no legal impact, but would indicate to lawmakers essentially whether voters like the repeal or not.
• If voters approve the repeal, it proceeds as planned next March. If they reject it — and polls show a strong majority opposes Bates’ bill — then the legislature would have to act again before March to overturn its own repeal, but would be under no obligation to do so.

Besides being convoluted and a direct attack on same-sex couples’ rights, Bates’ plan has a number of other complications. Consider the bill will now offer civil unions that would actually be recognized, Republicans will have to go on record affirming same-sex couples’ rights whether they vote yes or no on the bill, an ultimatum they might not be pleased with. Further, any repeal will surely be challenged in the courts under the same precedent that the Ninth Circuit just ruled California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional — that once a right is granted, it cannot be taken away.

Republican lawmakers have until March 29 to bring the bill to a vote in the House without requiring a suspension of the rules to introduce it.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R)

After being postponed for several weeks, the Tennessee House Education Committee is again set to address the infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill today, which would ban schools from ever discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in grades K-8. Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has reiterated his opposition, calling the bill a distraction and Rep. Joey Hensley’s (R) efforts to advance it a waste of time:

HASLAM: He knows and understands that, as I’ve said before, is not something I think is particularly helpful or needed right now. Again, I think the state already has rules in place about what can be taught.

Hensley, meanwhile, seems convinced that if he continues to tweak the bill, he can make it somehow palatable, though none of the changes made so far have actually altered its function. For example, the big change he made was to remove the section that banned providing “any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality” and replace it with a provision that limits all teaching to “natural human reproduction science.” The obvious inference, as Hensley has clarified, is that this still rules out any instruction on same-sex orientations because only heterosexual couples can reproduce.

Either way, Hensley is trying to erase LGBT youth from Tennessee schools. As long as that is his goal, there’s nothing he can do to polish this bill to make it any less dangerous or offensive.