The Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights sent a letter to the Anoka Hennepin School District on Tuesday demanding that the school district abandon its “neutrality policy,” which bars discussion of LGBT issues in district schools, and step up efforts to address bullying and harassment.

The district has been at the center of a firestorm in the last year as a rash of suicides by LGBT students and reports of bullying created a sustained protest by parents in the district on both sides of the issue. In the letter, the SPLC and NCLR state that the district is violating federal law by not creating a safe educational environment and and indicate they’ll file a lawsuit if the situation is not rectified.

“While we appreciate that the District has recently taken some superficial steps to address bullying, our investigation confirms that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (‘LGBT’) students and those perceived as LGBT within the District remain in jeopardy in a hostile and alienating environment,” the groups wrote. “School authorities’ failure to adequately respond to ongoing harassment violates established law and our clients’ constitutional rights.”

The groups referenced three current and former students who suffered relentless bullying and harassment in Anoka-Hennepin schools.

“District authorities failed to properly respond to repeated reports of verbal and physical harassment, in violation of their legal obligations,” the groups wrote. “These incidents and others like them appear to be part of a pervasive pattern of hostility against LGBT students within District schools, which has had dire consequences.”

Over the past year, reports of bullying, harassment and even suicides have put the district in the national spotlight, prompting parents, teachers and students in the district to call for change. Tammy Aaberg, whose gay son attended Anoka High School and took his own life last July, has spoken of the need to rescind the school’s “neutrality policy”.”

At the same time, a group of religious conservatives with ties to the Minnesota Family Council have pushed back, saying that no LGBT content should be included in the district. Barb Anderson, who works for the Family Council and helped found the Parents Action League, recently told an anti-gay radio host that she successfully blocked any changes to make schools safer for LGBT students.

The SPLC called the neutrality policy a “gag rule.”

“The gag policy is anything but neutral,” Sam Wolfe, lead attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement on Tuesday. “It is rooted in homophobia and sustains a hostile environment harmful to all students. The District must repeal this dangerous policy.”

Here’s the letter the SPLC and NCLR sent to the Anoka-Hennepin School District:

ahsd-letter-0511 –

A California judge ruled Thursday that Don't Ask, Don’t Tell "infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers." Photo: Soldiers Media Center, Flickr

The military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy — which bars openly gay men and women from serving in the military — was ruled unconstitutional by a judge in Riverside, Calif., Thursday evening. The suit, brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, argued that the policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the judge agreed, ordering a permanent injunction against the policy. The Department of Justice has seven days to appeal the ruling.

In a 28-page decision (pdf), U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips wrote:

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers in many ways, some described above. The Act denies homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces the right to enjoy “intimate conduct” in their personal relationships. The Act denies them the right to speak about their loved ones while serving their country in uniform; it punishes them with discharge for writing a personal letter, in a foreign language, to a person of the same sex with whom they shared an intimate relationship before entering military service; it discharges them for including information in a personal communication from which an unauthorized reader might discern their homosexuality. In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, Defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the Government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion. Defendants failed to meet that burden. Thus, Plaintiff, on behalf of its members, is entitled to judgment in its favor on the first claim in its First Amended Complaint for violation of the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment.

A range of groups, including some that oppose same-sex marriage, hailed the decision.

“Today’s ruling is not just a victory for the LGBT community, but for our military, our security, and for U.S. taxpayers,” Courage Campaign founder Rick Jacobs said. “Asking soldiers to lie about who they are destroys the trust on which an effective fighting force is reliant, and discrimination of any kind undermines the values that generations of Americans–including LGBT Americans–have fought and died to defend. It is our hope that the Senate will act quickly to repeal this failed policy, so that we can avoid a lengthy and costly appeals process, and get on with the business of ensuring all patriotic Americans are able to serve our country with honor and dignity.”

The Log Cabin Republicans filed the lawsuit in Oct. 2004, and it went to trial in July 2010. Executive director R. Clarke Cooper praised the ruling.

“As an American, a veteran and an Army reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane Don’t Ask Don’t Tell statute violates the Constitution,” he said. “Today, the ruling is not just a win for Log Cabin Republican servicemembers, but all American servicemembers.”

Chad Griffin of the American Foundation for Equal Rights said:

“Today’s court decision declaring Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional is yet another significant and long-overdue step toward full equality for all Americans. Along with the recent federal court decisions on DOMA and Proposition 8, it is clear that our nation is moving toward the day when every American will be treated equally under the law, as is required by our Constitution.”

Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United and a former U.S. Army interrogator, was the only plaintiff named in the case. He was discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

“This is an historic moment and an historic ruling for the gay military community and for the readiness and integrity of our Armed Forces,” he said. “As the only named injured party in this case, I am exceedingly proud to have been able to represent all who have been impacted and had their lives ruined by this blatantly unconstitutional policy. We are finally on our way to vindication.”

Other groups also reacted to the decision. The Human Rights Campaign released this statement:

“Today a federal judge affirmed what the vast majority of the American people know to be true – that it’s time for the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law to be sent to the dustbin of history. With this legal victory in hand, Congress is right now in a perfect position to strengthen our national security by ending a law that has discharged thousands of capable service members. With House passage already secured, the Senate can and should vote in the next few weeks to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and allow every qualified man and woman the chance to serve with honor.”

And the Stonewall Democrats:

“Today’s Federal court decision calling the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy unconstitutional on grounds that it violates gay military members’ rights to free speech, due process and open association is another nail in the coffin of the policy. We’re glad that the Federal court agrees with President Obama’s position: that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell needs to come to an end. Our Senators need to hear from their constituents demanding repeal. We also call on Senate Republicans to rise above the obstructionism they’ve been playing at for months and let a vote happen on what the vast majority of Americans want: repeal of DADT.”

And perhaps surprisingly, the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to relationship rights for same-sex couples, released these tweets:

“#DADT has nothing to do with the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman and everything to do with citizens’ rights.”

And:

“There is no need to prohibit gays and lesbians from openly serving in the Armed Forces. They should have the opportunity to serve.”

Most disturbing for LGBT advocates was a 138 percent increase in crimes against LGBT people under age 18.

There were a number of high-profile instances of anti-LGBT violence and harassment in 2009. In late-January, Kristen Boyne was walking home from her job in Minneapolis’ Uptown neighborhood when two men beat her, leaving her unconscious.

In June, a group of Somali youths threw rocks and harassed a man leaving the Twin Cities Pride Festival near Loring Park.

And in Minneapolis’ Northeast neighborhood, a group of people were attacked by a man shouting anti-gay slurs.

“We are deeply concerned,” said Rebecca Waggoner Kloek who runs OutFront’s anti-violence programming. In a statement, she said the increase in Minnesota, 64 percent, is alarming considering the increase nationwide is 7 percent.

There was a 104 percent “increase in the number of incidents involving multiple offenders” and “a 72 percent increase in assault or attempted assault.” Harassment cases were up 325 percent. According to the report, the most common weapons used were bats, bricks, rocks and knives. There was an 80 percent increase in the use of sexual violence during attacks. And the report showed a 29 percent increase in the number of attacks targeting people who are transgender.

“These findings also show that violence directed at LGBTQ Minnesotans continues to become more brutal and more likely to be perpetrated by groups rather than individual assailants,” Kloek said. “We are still in danger. Anti-violence work is unfortunately as vital as ever before and we must continue to strive to create safe streets, homes and workplaces. We must demand that the larger community and criminal justice systems hold perpetrators accountable for their actions.”

Bradlee Dean

The leaders of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide Intl., Inc., a hard rock ministry that holds Christian assemblies in public schools around the Midwest, said that locking up gays and lesbians in prison is the “right” and “moral” thing to do. A week earlier, the group said that countries instituting the death penalty for homosexuality are “more moral” than Christians in the United States. The group broadcast live from the Heritage Foundation last weekend, offering another example of the group’s close relationship with the conservative movement.

On the group’s radio show, broadcast live from the Heritage Foundation on May 22, co-leader Jake McMillian praised the actions of the African nation of Malawi which has recently arrested a gay couple for getting engaged.

“They are very conservative,” he said. “They sentence people for crimes against nature.”

Frontman Bradlee Dean added, “They are very moral; they uphold the laws.”

McMillian continued, “We have got countries all over the world that are standing for what’s right and what’s wrong. In Rwanda, there’s legislation right now that repeat offenders of homosexuality will spend their life in prison.”

“Yes!” interjected Dean.

“Because they love and value life and they love and value that which God gave,” said McMillian. “And so they enforce laws against that which destroys life which again is crimes against nature”

The group later brought in Bishop Harry Jackson, an anti-gay marriage activist in Washington, D.C., who praised the group’s work. “I believe a great awakening is about to come forth,” said Jackson. “I believe you are a part of it and those that hear the sound of your voice are revolutionaries.”

After sometimes angry and emotional debate Monday, the Moorhead City Council defeated an ordinance that would’ve created a domestic partner registry. Some at the council meeting said the registry of same-sex couples would reflect Moorhead’s inclusive values, while others warned it could lead to the breakdown of traditional marriage. “I don’t like queer relationships,” one man said. “Do you want the city of Moorhead to be known as a queer community?”

The largely symbolic ordinance, drafted by the Moorhead Human Rights Commission, has been in the works for months. The commission voted last November to approve the registry and send the issue to the city council. If passed, Moorhead would join cities like Duluth, Minneapolis and St. Paul, which have passed similar measures.

Many members of the Moorhead community spoke in support of the initiative.

“Speaking as a pastor in your community, there is no one definitive faith perspective on this issue,” said Mark Pettis, of First Congregational United Church of Christ. “The good of all is served when we act to affirm one another rather than continuing patterns that only serve to injure individuals.”

Small-business owner Mark Sinner said the creation of the registry “will shout inclusion and growth, creativity and progress.”

But others invoked Christianity in expressing their opposition.  Sel Nygard, who serves as a member of the Moorhead Human Rights Commission, said, “It’s not something that Christians believe in or should support,” he said.

“I think it’s just the next step to allowing gay marriages,” he added, calling letters to the editor of the Fargo Forum in support of the measure “trash.”

Resident Janine Hanson was concerned about the children. “I believe it’s unfair to married couples and I believe its send the wrong message to our youth.”

But perhaps the most incendiary commentary came from Moorhead resident Ken Lucier. Stepping up to the microphone in a shirt that read “Pray! Vote! Pray!,” he said, “If you want to have a man-man relationship or a woman-woman relationship you can have that. We may not want you living next to us, but you can do what you want. You have the liberty to do that.”

“I’m concerned that these nontraditional relationships, abnormal relationships… Abnormal is queer,” Lucier continued. “I don’t like queer relationships. Do you want the city of Moorhead to be known as a queer community?”

Council members Mark Altenburg and Diane Wray Williams both spoke out in favor of the ordinance. “I think this is a very, very small step, a symbolic step,” said Williams. “I honor their relationships.”

But the boldest words came from Greg Lemke, an openly gay member of the council. The argument that the measure would bring gay marriage to Moorhead is “bullcrap,” he said, adding that the city should remove signs calling Moorhead “welcoming” if the ordinance didn’t pass.

“It’s a pox on the city of Moorhead if we don’t pass this.”

The measure died in a 5 to 3 vote, with council members Luther Stueland, Nancy Otto, Dan Hunt, Brenda Elmer and Mark Hintermeyer voting against.

Franken recounted the case of J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District where a 14-year-old male student was harassed to the point of violence — he was pushed down a flight of stairs and threatened at knife-point because his fellow students thought he was gay. When his parents complained, school officials said, “Boys will be boys.”

“Unfortunately, this case is hardly unique and a similar case came up in my state,” said Franken. He asked Perez, “Do we need an explicit ban against harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity?”

Perez didn’t answer the question directly, but did say, “Today’s bullies are tomorrows’ civil rights defendants,” citing “horrific” school bullying cases he has prosecuted. “The federal government can make a difference,” he said.

Franken ended his questioning by saying he would work to get federal protections in place. “I would like to work with you on this for specific protections for LGBT kids. It’s a very real thing that there is this bullying in schools.”

“As a result, tens of thousands of binational families are either already living separately, face imminent separation, or have left the U.S. entirely in order to remain together,” the letter states. “This is unacceptable, and we believe comprehensive immigration reform legislation must include a strong family reunification component inclusive of LGBT families.”

The Congress members, including Ellison, are offering the Uniting American Families Act for inclusion in immigration reform efforts.

“We urge you to include LGBT binational families in comprehensive immigration reform legislation. No one should be forced to choose between the person they love and the country they call home,” they said. “It is time that our immigration laws kept families together instead of tearing them apart.”

Full text of the letter:

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
102 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schumer, and Chairwoman Lofgren:

As members of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, we are writing to express our strong support for a comprehensive immigration reform bill which would end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) binational families. We urge Congress to include the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 1024/S. 424) in any comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Currently, U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents may sponsor their spouses (and other immediate family members) for immigration purposes. But, same-sex partners committed to spending their lives together are not recognized as “families” under U.S. immigration law and thus do not have this same right. As a result, tens of thousands of binational families are either already living separately, face imminent separation, or have left the U.S. entirely in order to remain together. This is unacceptable, and we believe comprehensive immigration reform legislation must include a strong family reunification component inclusive of LGBT families.

According to 2000 census data compiled by the Williams Institute, an estimated 36,000 LGBT binational families are impacted by the inability to sponsor their partners for residency, and nearly half of those (47 percent) are raising children. Our existing, discriminatory immigration laws hurt not only those individuals, but their extended families, communities, and employers, as well. Not only would an inclusive family reunification provision strengthen American families, it would bolster the competitiveness of businesses in the U.S. by allowing corporations to attract, employ, and retain the very best talent from across the globe. Indeed, the U.S. lags behind 19 countries that already recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany.

In truth, no immigration reform bill can be called “comprehensive” unless it includes all Americans, including those who are LGBT. This is recognized in the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709), which includes LGBT families in addressing the broader immigration problem of family unification.

We urge you to include LGBT binational families in comprehensive immigration reform legislation. No one should be forced to choose between the person they love and the country they call home. It is time that our immigration laws kept families together instead of tearing them apart.

Pastor Dennis Campbell

Granite City Baptist Church raised some eyebrows this weekend when it bought an ad (pdf) in the St. Cloud Times that questioned whether Muslims are a “threat” to America. “How do Moslems seek to take control of a nation?” the ad, which features a photo of Pastor Dennis Campbell, asks. “Moslems seek to influence a nation by immigration, reproduction, education, the government, illegal drugs and by supporting the gay agenda.”

The ad is part of a string of incidents in St. Cloud that troubles human rights advocates. Within the last year, pornographic posters depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammed were put up on St. Cloud telephone polls, and Muslim students in St. Cloud area high schools have reported religious harassment.

Last week, MPR reported on several racist Facebook groups that were created by St. Cloud high school students. “I hate the Somalians at Tech High,” was one such group. Kyle Adams, a former student at St. Cloud Technical High School (he was kicked out for repeatedly using racial slurs) told MPR, “I was raised in believing that this country was founded upon a white Christian nation and the belief of racial separation.”

The Granite City Baptist Church ad seems to mirror some of that anti-Muslim sentiment. “What happens when Moslems take over a nation?” asks Campbell in the ad. “They will destroy the constitution and force the Moslem religion on the society, take freedom of religion away, and they will persecute all other religions.”

(Hat tip, Lower Case.)

Anna Pratt’s Aug. 1 story for MnIndy detailed Delgado-O’Neil’s charge that the Minneapolis City Attorney’s office — in concert with the city’s Human Resources Department — uses an oral exam to promote white attorneys while leaving attorneys belonging to racial and ethnic minorities behind. Pratt cited one question from the exam, complete with a typo (“How do you evaluate the breadth of your knowledge about you [sic] field?”), that Delgado-O’Neil cited as providing an opening for favored staffers to cite job experiences offered only to them.

Pratt also noted that in September 2007 the first of two Civil Rights Department findings of probable cause in the case came within two weeks of Mayor R.T. Rybak’s announcement that he would not reappoint then-City Attorney Jay Heffern at year’s end. The Strib’s assertion that the city has used the oral exam for more than four decades, apparently learned from Heffern’s replacement, Susan Segal, doesn’t jibe with Pratt’s reporting, which credited Heffern with having instituted the exam.