On Tuesday, the New York Times featured a front page article about the Anoka-Hennepin School District and its two-year long struggle to defend policies that limit discussion of LGBT issues in district schools. It’s an issue the Minnesota Independent has covered from the beginning. The following is a full account of the dispute.

In August of 2009, news broke that two teachers were accused of harassing a student they thought was gay, the district paid out a $25,000 settlement. The teachers have maintained their innocence throughout.

The news spurred a demonstration at the August 2009 school board meeting, where students, teachers and staffed raised concerns that this case of harassment was not an isolated incident. From that meeting the Gay Equity Team was born.

In September, the teachers were put on leave by the school district.

A year later, Tammy Aaberg publicly told the story of her son, Justin, who took his own life in July of 2010. There was also controversy over the “sexual orientation policy,” a school board directive that limits discussions of LGBT issues in the classroom, which LGBT advocates say contributes to a hostile environment for students.

The Parents Action League (PAL), a group of conservative Christians, advocated for therapy to turn gay kids straight. The group’s members testified at school board meetings that LGBT kids lead an unhealthy lifestyle and that LGBT issues should be barred from district schools.

The group was at first secretive. When the Minnesota Independent asked who founded the group and if it had any connections to other “pro-family” groups in the state, an unsigned email came back: “We think our website explains very well what we’re about and who founded it—citizens in the Anoka-Hennepin School District.”

When questioned about ways to get more information about the group’s activities, the Independent was told via email, “We do not see your name on our on-line petition. Once you sign the petition, we may be contacting you.” (Emphasis is theirs).

The group also laid out it’s ideology: It wanted the district to “respect traditional family values” and to “provide valid resources for students (and their families) struggling with sexual identity and/or same-sex attraction.” It sought to “ensure that all health curriculum teach healthy sexuality and promote abstinence until marriage.” The group also wanted the district to “promote the Day of Truth” each year, a movement spurred on by conservative Christian activists.

After the Minnesota Independent reported on the PAL, the group shut down their website and removed all anti-LGBT content:

This site is under construction until further notice.

We have never been inundated with so much hate and disdain for a differing viewpoint than that of the pro-gay movement. Our group has NEVER written anything hateful on our site or to any member of the GET [Gay Equity Team] group with whom we strongly disagree. Apparently, tolerance, kindness and decency are only to be extended to the pro-gay viewpoint—talk about your bullying!

In September 2010, LGBT advocates again attended the school board meeting, and the Minnesota Independent asked the district’s spokesperson if the sexual orientation policy covered all sexual orientations or just those that involve gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The district acknowledged that is only targeted at LGBT students.

The Minnesota Family Council accused “homosexual activists” of manipulating Justin Aaberg’s suicide for political gain. The Minnesota Independent reported on those comments—though the Family Council took issue with the characterization. The comments prompted Sen. Al Franken to respond, and Tom Prichard, the group’s president sat down with Anderson Cooper to talk about the Minnesota Family Council’s strong opposition to anti-bullying policies that target LGBT students.

In October 2010, the district announced that it had changed its anti-bullying policy to include sexual orientation. The changes were hailed by parents and staff, but they also added that it did not go far enough in protecting LGBT students.

At a school board meeting that month, Julie Blaha, president of the teachers union told students in the district address: “Your teachers want you to know that we hear you,” Blaha said. “To all our students who are suffering because of bullying and unsupportive schools, your teachers want you to know that we will work to make it better.”

By December’s meeting, heated words were being exchanged between board members and parents during the public comment period. The board had released a statement saying that “based on all the information we’ve been able to gather, none of the suicides were connected to incidents of bullying or harassment.”

The parents continued to contend that that simply wasn’t true.

At the end of December, Barb Anderson, a staffer from the Minnesota Family Council who was also a spokesperson for the Parents Action League appeared on the radio program of Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality, which is listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Anderson said that it was LGBT groups’ fault that kids got bullied.

“They are creating an environment where these children that are sexually confused suddenly become affirmed as a homosexual or that they are born that way, and then these kids are locked into a lifestyle with their choices limited, and many times this can be disastrous to them as they get into the behavior which leads to disease and death in some cases,” she said. “So, it’s really… They are the ones that are contributing to an atmosphere that can even increase bullying as more kids get into this kind of a lifestyle.”

In January, the school district took heat for attempting to prevent a lesbian couple from participating in the Snow Days coronation. Students had previously walked in as male-female couples, but the school changed the rules to prevent the lesbian couples from walking.

As a result the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed suit on behalf of the couple.

The district relented and the couple was able to participate.

Tempers continued to flare at the March 2011 school board meeting as members of both the Gay Equity Team and the Parent Action League took turns testifying. One woman was even kicked out of the meeting after shouting, “If they are going to hell, I’m going to hell with them!”

By May, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights had threatened to sue the district for its overall policy. “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 said in a letter to district officials.

The school district continued to reject efforts to repeal the sexual orientation policy and it gained support from conservative Christian groups. The Alliance Defense Fund, a religious right legal outfit started by Pat Robertson and James Dobson, sent the district a letter as well in June.

Then, in August, the SPLC and NCLR filed suit against the district on behalf of five students and their parents. The lawsuit detailed horrendous taunting and physical abuse by fellow students and inaction by district staff. At the same time, the Department of Justice acknowledged that it was investigating as well.

Reporting by the Minnesota Independent was used as evidence in the complaint including statements made by district staff and Anderson of PAL and MFC.

Several days after the lawsuit was filed, a sixth student came forward alleging serious bullying and joined the lawsuit with the other five.

The district continued to defend its policies throughout August despite harsh criticism by local papers.

Then, the Parents Action League jumped in with a petition to the school board that warned of the “homosexual agenda” and that LGBT people suffer “life-threatening health risks.”

The August school board meeting was a contentious one. PAL brought its petition to the board and spoke out against the “homosexual agenda,” while supporters of LGBT students noted that PAL had hitched its wagon to the Minnesota Family Council.

In late August, the Minnesota Independent profiled the district’s history in the culture war, where conservative Christian activists sought to ban books, teach creationism and remove a transgender woman from a teaching position.

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating civil rights complaints about harassment of the district’s gay students, although conservatives from the Minnesota Family Council told the New York Times that they were mobilizing to oppose any changes to the district’s policy.

Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is continuing her silence about reports on Monday that her family’s Christian counseling clinic performs “ex-gay” therapy to cure gays and lesbians of their homosexuality. Reporters for ABC and CNN were rebuffed in their efforts to get clarification from Bachmann, and a reporter with Mother Jones unsuccessfully tried an in-person interview with Bachmann.

CNN ran a story on Tuesday about undercover video taken at Bachmann & Associates that showed a counselor providing reparative therapy to an undercover activist posing as a client.

“Both Bachmann and her husband declined to discuss the clinic’s practices. A secretary at the clinic referred all questions to the Bachmann presidential campaign,” CNN wrote. “A sign on the center’s door says ‘no media.’”

ABC News, which was the first media outlet to release the undercover footage on Monday, followed up with Bachmann, but to no avail.

“Rep. Bachmann, her Congressional office, and her campaign staff remained silent on the issue — other than to say the congresswoman is proud of the Christian counseling center that she and her husband have co-owned since 2003,” ABC reported. “The center’s web site was unresponsive Tuesday.”

A reporter with ABC also spotted Bachmann outside the Capitol and attempted to follow up on the story. Bachmann refused.

Here’s a video clip of that encounter:

A reporter with Mother Jones magazine spotted Bachmann in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday and tried to get an interview.

“Today, I encountered Bachmann near MoJo’s bureau in downtown DC,” wrote reporter Tim Murphy. “She was having lunch with an aide in a sandwich shop. After they departed the restaurant, I asked if she would respond to these recent reports. She said nothing—not a word—and would not even look in my direction. She kept walking at a brisk pace. I repeated the question a few times, as her aide tried to prevent me from getting too close to the congresswoman. The aide noted repeatedly that Bachmann was not taking questions. At no time did Bachmann break her stride.”

Here’s video of that encounter:

During an Iowa campaign stop Bachmann likewise refused to answer a local reporter’s questions about the “reparative therapy” the clinic does, and interview requests from the Today Show and ABC News were also dodged on Monday.

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s tea party response to President Obama’s State of the Union address last week became fodder for Saturday Night Live when SNL’s Kristen Wiig lampooned Bachmann in the opening scene. She played with the fact that Bachmann used a number of charts during her response, and that she appeared not to face the camera during CNN’s live broadcast. During her Tuesday night speech, Bachmann was looking directly at a camera run by the Tea Party Express, but to the majority of Americans, who saw her on CNN instead, she appeared to be looking away from her audience. While Bachmann has been the subject of an SNL Thursday sketch in 2009, the show-opening lampoon Saturday night certainly means that Bachmann has arrived on the national scene.

A study last year by the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota found that Rep. Michele Bachmann appeared on cable news programs every nine days on average. Last week, she shattered those expectations by appearing on a cable news program at least once a day from Tuesday through Saturday making 14 national television or radio appearances.

Last week, Bachmann hired communications director Doug Sachtleben, a former spokesperson for the U.S. Senate campaign of Christine (“I am not a witch”) O’Donnell. That brings Bachmann’s communications staff to three people. Among what must have kept that staff busy last week: Six Fox News appearances. For comparison, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is preparing to promote his memoirs in anticipation of a presidential bid, did four national media interviews last week.

On Monday, Dec. 6, Bachmann appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show to denounce any extension of unemployment benefits.

“When you overspend you lose options,” she said. “We’re at a crucial tipping point and we can’t add an additional year of unemployment benefits because we need to put our economy on a footing where we can see real job creation.”

Tuesday brought Bachmann’s call for the defunding of Planned Parenthood to CNS News.

The same day, Bachmann was on Fox’s America Live with Megyn Kelly. “Extending the unemployment benefits for 13 months has a cost of about $54 billion dollars… It doesn’t appear that that is paid for,” she said. “That will add to the deficit going forward.”

Also on Tuesday, the 6th District Republican was on the Mark Levin radio show where she said President Obama lied in his press conference about the tax cut plan earlier that day.

“And he said that Republicans oppose various credits for the middle class. Those are flat out lies! And then he said that it is our ‘holy grail’ to be able to stand for tax cuts for the wealthy. So he is continually setting up ‘Marxist economics.’”

On Wednesday, as a guest on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Bachmann again criticized President Obama’s press conference, calling him “angry and bitter.”

“He made one false statement after another in this press conference,” she said. “He’s making thee wild unbased statements. He’s such a promoter of class warfare. I don’t think he did himself any favors with that press conference yesterday.”

On tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class, she said, “No one is getting a tax cut. This is preventing tax increases.”

Also on Wednesday, Bachmann was on Fox Business’ Bulls and Bears to again talk about the president’s tax cut plan.

She said she opposes the part of the plan to cut employees portion of the payroll tax saying it will cost Social Security $140 billion: “We are going to blow open in the Social Security trust fund.”

On whether she would vote for the tax-cut plan: “I haven’t made a final decision.”

Host Liz Claman pressed Bachmann on the GOP’s apparent about-face on tax cuts. “It’s stunning to see that Republicans who had pushed so hard for this now say, ‘Okay, maybe not,’” she said. “Do you guys even know what you want?”

Bachmann replied, “Our position has been we don’t want the massive tax increases that President Obama has been advocating.”

Bachmann departed a bit from talking tax cuts on Thursday, when she appeared on Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network to promote her new classes on the Constitution, which will include controversial guest lecturers like David Barton.

“The Judeo-Christian heritage isn’t a belief,” she said. “It’s a fact of our nation’s history. It’s a fact…One thing we know from the Book of Isaiah is that Isaiah tells us that the government is on His shoulders. We can trust a holy, almighty God with our future and nothing is too big for Him.”

On Friday, Bachmann spoke with Fox News Live about the tax cut plan: “It’s interesting when people are allowed to keep their money that’s considered a deficit to government, because it’s less money for government. But it’s people keeping their own money which gets circulated in the economy. We want people to keep more of their own money.”

CNN’s American Morning also hosted Bachmann on Friday to talk about tax cuts. CNN host John Roberts challenged Bachmann about her opposition to unemployment benefits because they increase the deficit and her support for the Bush tax cuts which would have the same effect.

“Part of the reason it increases the deficit is because you are maintaining those marginal tax rates for all income levels,” Roberts said. Bachmann replied that she wants a change to the definition of “deficit.”

“Remember the definition… it’s a deficit to government but it’s not a deficit to people who get to keep their money,” she said. “So it’s how you frame it.”

She said, “I don’t think letting people keep their own money should be a deficit. You are right about that John it is to the government but think about what else we could do right now: cut spending.”

Meredith Viera of the Today Show was even more direct in her criticism of Bachmann’s shifting definitions on Friday, and Bachmann’s opposition to unemployment benefits; that conversation got tense.

VIEIRA: But how, how do you justify adding more money to the deficit? That much more?

BACHMANN: Well remember that money is, is, when people are allowed to keep their own money, that’s considered a deficit. I don’t, I don’t agree with that definition. When people keep their own money, that’s considered a deficit to government, but it’s not a deficit to your pocket or mine. And so I think it’s important that people can keep their money.

VIEIRA: Let me ask you about people who might be sitting there, watching this interview and they’re frustrated because they feel while the Republican-

BACHMANN: I don’t blame them.

VIEIRA: Well wait a minute! They feel the Republicans, they’re all for these tax cuts, even for multimillionaires but opposed to extending the unemployment benefits that are helping the people who are hurting the most. To them, this is mean spirited. Why are they wrong?

BACHMANN: But we’re not talking about millionaires sitting in leather chairs lighting their cigars with $100 bills. We’re talking about a carpet layer in Sheboygan, Wisconsin who employs his brother-in-law and his son. And they have $250,000 in gross sales. That’s what we’re talking about. Real people who aren’t living large.

VIEIRA: Well you’re talking about everybody. That and also people who are living large.

BACHMANN: But we’re talking about everyone and what, and remember those people who are the job providers, those are the people that won’t be able to provide more jobs. That’s what people want right now. They want jobs, they want paychecks. That’s the focus.

VIEIRA: But they also want their unemployment benefits Congresswoman. They also want that and you’re opposed to that.

BACHMANN: People want a paycheck, they want paychecks more than they want unemployment benefits. Right now unemployment is-

VIEIRA: If they don’t have a job they want unemployment benefits.

BACHMANN: That’s, that’s right and that’s what we want. We want people to have jobs. Right now it’s historic. People have unemployment benefits for two years. It isn’t just unemployment. It’s also food stamps it’s also housing assistance. It’s also all the other programs that go along with it. So the best thing we can do is grow the economy and to do that we need to keep rates low enough so that employers can hire more people.

On Friday, Bachmann also hit up the studio of Lou Dobbs for an impromptu interview about her Constitution classes.

“We are going to do what the NFL does and what the baseball teams do we are going to practice every week, if you will, our craft,” she said. “Justice Scalia has graciously agreed to kick off our class.”

In yet another interview on Friday, Bachmann appeared on Fox Business’ Freedom Watch to talk about the president’s tax cut plan. She said the Democrats will reject Obama’s plan because it does not increase taxes enough.

“They think that the tax compromise bill did not tax people enough,” she said. “That’s the bottom line. They want people taxed more than what Barack Obama has in this bill.”

In still another interview on Friday, Bachmann joined Gretchen Carlson for Fox’s Klimeade and Friends radio show, and on Saturday she was a guest on Fox’s Geraldo At Large.

Rep. Michele Bachmann lashed out at media outlets that have suggested she wants to backtrack on the GOP’s earmark ban. “There is no daylight between my position and Speaker-designate John Boehner on earmarks. Period,” she said on Friday afternoon. In several instances Bachmann has indicated she wants a change in the definition of earmarks to allow House members to earmark dollars for transportation and Army Corps of Engineers projects.

On Thursday, Bachmann expressed discomfort with the definition of earmarks in an interview with Politico, and last month she told the Star Tribune that the definition should be changed. “Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” she said.

In a statement on Friday, she said that “some media outlets are trying to show divisions within the Republican Conference at every opportunity.”

Here’s her full statement:

There is no daylight between my position and Speaker-designate John Boehner on earmarks. Period.

I have repeatedly said that I agree with, applaud, and wholeheartedly support Speaker-designate John Boehner’s position on earmarks. I am opposed to earmarks. I recently made that point to a reporter from a Capitol Hill newspaper, but it was left out of their story on the GOP and earmarks.

Some media outlets are trying to show divisions within the Republican Conference at every opportunity. Like a family, differences of opinions may exist from time to time, but in the end, Republicans are committed to standing together for the American people. Our desire is to support the will of our constituents who called for limited government and adherence to the Constitution as demonstrated in early November.

Last March, I enthusiastically endorsed my party’s decision to swear off earmarks. Earmarks are a root contributor to Washington’s spending addiction. Now more than ever, as our nation approaches $14 trillion in debt, we need to tighten our belt and earmarks are a great place to dry up funding.

I do, however, believe increased transparency needs to be brought to funding requests. I believe some transparency has been brought to the process since the earmark moratorium took effect, but we must continue to strive to do better.

Before the appropriations process was corrupted by earmark-style spending, an orderly and Constitutional process for funding requests existed. Committee hearings laid out requests through the legislative process as intended by our Founding Fathers. These hearings took place in the light-of-day and were recorded for the American people.

Recently, porking has gotten way out of control. The stimulus bill is an obvious example of lawmakers’ unrestrained spending which was put together behind closed-doors, away from the eyes of the American people (and the minority party for that matter).

Our nation is a democratic republic for a reason: Congress is not meant to cede spending authority to the Executive Branch. Nor should transportation spending be left to a select few at the Department of Transportation and the committee staff for Transportation and Infrastructure. Requests for funding transportation projects should go through an open and transparent process in Congress, without sway by political affiliation.

I am a Constitutional Conservative through-and-through and I will continue to stand by the earmark moratorium and that stand goes hand-in-hand with my desire to see Congress return to an orderly, Constitutional and transparent process. As we enter the 112th Congress, it’s time to revisit the funding process and remember how it was truly designed in our founding document, the Constitution.

“The Target line on this is that Target supports pro-business candidates,” she said. “…They say they’re getting dragged down into a social issue because the candidate they’re backing, with this very friendly ad that… doesn’t mention any social issues, is anti–gay marriage.”

Target, of course, is facing outrage and boycotts from LGBT and progressive groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, OutFront Minnesota and MoveOn.org.

MnIndy got a quick mention about GOP-endorsed candidate Emmer’s legislative record on LGBT issues. Not getting any love from Olbermann was the local video journalism outfit The UpTake. Jason Barnett, its executive director, tweeted that the network used its footage of Randi Reitan’s protest at an area Target store without permission. He tweeted: “So, NBC used our Target story video last night, but didn’t cite us, or license the video. Really not cool.”

Watch the segment:

“The funnyman turned freshman senator has quietly made himself a force to be reckoned with in Washington,” wrote Newsweek. The magazine gave him props for getting key amendments added to major legislation, namely the health care reform and financial reform bills.

“The senator from Minnesota turned out to be more under-the-radar than in-your-face,” the AP reported, echoing the sentiment. “He quickly blended in to the clubby institution, bonding with a conservative Republican over country music and shepherding amendments to bills as they slogged through the process.”

Franken said he’s kept his head down on purpose.

“What I’ve tried to do is be effective,” Franken told the AP. “I think that going in when you have a certain level of celebrity, it’s even more important to demonstrate to your constituents and to your colleagues that you’re there to do the work.”

But former foe Norm Coleman isn’t buying it.

“Avoiding controversy and keeping your head down is a good thing perhaps in a campaign, but ultimately being a senator is more than that,” he told the AP. “I don’t see much of him. I can’t say that he stood out for staking a position on a major issue or anything.”

GOP chair Tony Sutton said that some of Franken’s statements have justified the “angry liberal” label the party has tried to attach to him.

“His true personality is coming out,” Sutton told Newsweek. “He’s a good fundraising tool for us.” He said Franken “turned out to be the knee-jerk liberal everyone thought he would be.”

“Right now he’s part-time official and part-time campaign for Bachmann’s office alone. He has not been hired by King’s office yet. Ideally it will work out where his time is divided between both offices,” Bachmann’s communications director Dave Dziok told the Hill.

The Hill also noted that some on the Hill are calling the arrangement unprecedented.

Bluestem Prairie has more on Gor.

Bachmann said recently that, “Now for the first time in the history of the United States, all Americans will be forced to have to pay for federal funding of abortion,” and “We do have and will have federal funding of abortion for the first time, which means we’ll have 30 percent more abortions than we’ve had in the past.”

The Times ran those statements past academic experts who said those statement have little grounding in reality.

Over the last three weeks, Bachmann has said the new health care act will unleash a wave of new federal funding for abortion and increase the number of abortions performed in the U.S. by 30 percent.

Yet contrary to Bachmann’s claims, the law doesn’t fundamentally change federal policy on abortion funding, says a group of nonpartisan health care policy experts surveyed by the Times.

And a Bachmann spokesman has backed off her prediction last month that the act will boost abortions in the U.S. by 30 percent.

Mattera has been looking to make a name by conducting conservative ambush interviews akin to those of James O’Keefe. (He’s also known for a CPAC speech last month that was filled with homophobic and racial allusions).  He is associated with Andrew Breitbart and Young America’s Foundation, two institutions that supported the four conservative activists in New Orleans who tampered with a U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu’s phone.

Media Matters fact-checked the recent video interview of Franken and found it to be very misleading. Here’s a transcript of the exchange and the relevant bill language:

Mattera falsely claims health care bill contained “$7 billion to fund jungle gyms”

Mattera: “Why is that the job of the federal government to create an army of monkey bars?” In a March 29 blog post on BigGovernment.com, Mattera posted a video in which he confronted Sen. Al Franken and asked him about the health care bill. From the video:

MATTERA: Which portions of the health care bill lower costs? Is it the provision giving $7 billion to fund jungle gyms or the provision mandating that employers provide time off for breastfeeding?

FRANKEN: Uh, Give me –

MATTERA: You should know.

FRANKEN: Give me the jungle gyms.

MATTERA: Right here, the jungle gyms –

FRANKEN: yeah

MATTERA: — is on 1184.

FRANKEN: Yeah, show it to me right now.

MATTERA: Okay, 1184, to provide physical activity opportunities to promote healthy lifestyles. So why is that the job of the federal government?

FRANKEN: Okay, now. Let me –

MATTERA: Why is that the job of the federal government –

FRAKEN: If you won’t let me answer –

MATTERA: — to create an army of monkey bars? Go ahead, answer it.

In fact, there is no provision “giving $7 billion to fund jungle gyms”

The provision Mattera himself reads refers to giving grants to “provide physical activity opportunities” in order to reduce chronic disease. After falsely claiming that the bill contains a provision “giving $7 billion to fund jungle gyms,” Mattera reads the provision he’s referring to, which contains no mentions of “jungle gyms.” In the “Creating Healthier Communities” portion of the Senate version of the bill, under the section “Community Transformation Grants,” entities receiving grants may use them toward activities such as “creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases.”