All three incumbent members of the Anoka-Hennepin School Board were re-elected on Tuesday night amid controversy surrounding the school district’s controversial policy limiting discussions of LGBT issues in the district’s school.

Marci Anderson and Tom Heidemann, both of whom support the “neutrality policy” won, as did Scott Wenzel, who opposes the policy.

Heidemann won over challenger Darin Rorman, 70 percent to 27 percent. Anderson won with 40 percent of the vote, beating challengers Mary Nelson and Randy Kolb who both got 29 percent. Wenzel ran unopposed and got 95 percent of the vote.

The district’s policy limiting discussions of LGBT issues has become a national controversy after reports of bullying and several suicides among LGBT students. It has sparked protests at the district and at least six lawsuits against the school.

The Minnesota Family Council, which supports the policy and endorses only negative portrayals of LGBT people in public schools, implicitly endorsed Heidemann and Anderson on Tuesday.

The district has been battered by accusations that its “neutrality policy,” which restricts discussion about LGBT issues. The district is currently being sued by six former students and their families for this policy. Conservatives have long been active in the district, pushing to maintain the policy.

The policy, often dubbed the neutrality policy, is at the center of a nationwide discussion about suicide and anti-LGBT bullying and the subject of a lawsuit by six district students and their families.

The family council wrote that this is a “critical election” for the board.

“As you may know, the district has been targeted by national liberal organizations for its neutrality policy on sexual orientation. The neutrality policy states that school officials and teachers will remain neutral on issues involving sexual orientation. The school district believes these issues are better addressed by parents and families than by school officials. For taking this reasonable position, the school district is being sued by national liberal organizations.”

The MFC asked supporters to “vote their values” by supporting Tom Heidemann in District 1 and Marci Anderson in District 2.

At the bottom of the email was a short disclosure: “Prepared and paid for by Minnesota Family Council, in support of Tom Heidemann and Marci Anderson. This is issue advocacy and is not approved by the candidate nor is the candidate responsible for it.”

Tuesday’s election has been higher profile than in recent years due to the controversy over the neutrality policy. Three of the board’s six seats are up for election on Tuesday, and two of the seats–those of Heidemann and Anderson–are being contested.

Anderson’s opponents, Mary Nelson and Randy Kolb, oppose the neutrality policy. Heidemann’s opponent, Darin Rorman, hasn’t stated where he stands on the issue. Current school board member Scott Wenzal opposes the policy, but is running unopposed.

The Minnesota Family Council has been at the heart of the controversy surrounding LGBT issues in the district. In the past, its employees have played a part in forcing a transgender music teacher to quit, backed a policy that said “homosexuality not be taught/addressed as a normal, valid lifestyle and that the district staff and their resources not advocate the homosexual lifestyle” and worked to ban posters with suicide help-lines targeting LGBT students.

The Anoka-Hennepin School District drew national attention after a number of students, some of whom were gay, committed suicide.

Minnesota campaign finance board requires disclosure
In 2010, the Minnesota Legislature unanimously passed, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed into law, legislation that outlined disclosure requirements in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that gave corporations the right to make expenditures in political campaigns, including ballot initiatives. Minnesota had previously banned corporate involvement in elections, and the state needed a new set of requirements.

Earlier this month, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board released guidance for organizations working to gain support or opposition to ballot measures on how to disclose contributions and which donors should be disclosed.

In the Star Tribune on Friday, John Helmberger, chair of Minnesota for Marriage and CEO of the Minnesota Family Council, blasted the campaign finance board rules saying they would chill the free speech of churches.

“Nobody disagrees that voters are entitled to know who contributes to the marriage campaign. But the changes the Campaign Finance Board proposes are not authorized by law and would mislead the public, resulting in the disclosure of people who did not contribute to the campaign,” Helmberger wrote.

Minnesota for Marriage refuses to disclose
Minnesota for Marriage says it will not comply with the board’s requirements in the run-up to the 2012 election.

“Nobody disagrees that voters are entitled to know who contributes to the marriage campaign,” Helmberger wrote in Friday’s opinion piece, but the group was singing a different tune earlier this year.

At a public hearing by the campaign finance board involving rules regarding ballot initiatives, representatives of NOM and the Minnesota Family Council argued against any disclosures.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” said Tom Prichard of the Family Council. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

He added, “I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”

Minnesota for Marriage sent an email to supporters on Monday claiming that the disclosure rules—which apply to both sides—were an attack on religious people.

The email title read, “Star Tribune Escalates Attack on Churches and Religious People” in reference to a Star Tribune editorial earlier this month in support of the campaign finance rules.

“Clearly, this is a blatant attempt to intimidate churches and other groups that take a stand for marriage and silence discussion of the marriage amendment; a clear violation of religious freedom and free speech,” wrote Helmberger. “Now that the marriage amendment has qualified for the ballot, the board is all of a sudden trying to change the rules of the game despite the fact there has been no change in state disclosure laws.”

Raising the specter of persecution
One of Helmberger’s main arguments is that if it’s required to disclose its donors, members of the LGBT community will attack those donors.

“Regrettably, some gay-marriage activists have seen that intimidation can be an effective campaign tactic, and it has become standard fare in any marriage campaign,” he wrote. “Evidence in various court proceedings document case after case of harassment—phone calls at home and work, calls and e-mails to employers, boycotts of someone’s employer, calls to clients, etc.”

But on Monday, a federal court in Washington found that claims by NOM, a member of Minnesota for Marriage, that it’s donors were harassed to be without merit. In that case, Doe v. Reed, NOM argued it didn’t have to disclose signers of a referendum petition for fear that people who sign the petition would be subject to harassment and violence. The court strongly disagreed:

Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made. This is a quite different situation than the progeny of cases providing an as-applied exemption wherein the government was actually involved in carrying out the harassment, which was historic, pervasive, and documented. To that end, the evidence supplied by Doe purporting to be the best set of experiences of threats, harassment, or reprisals suffered or reasonably likely to be suffered by R-71 signers cannot be characterized as “serious and widespread.”

Setting up for a lawsuit
Transparency groups like Common Cause say that Minnesota for Marriage’s protestations are likely laying the groundwork for a lawsuit challenging the disclosure rules. NOM has filed suit in a half dozen states to try to shield its donors in ballot initiatives, elections, and lobbying efforts. It has yet to succeed.

“This is just another attempt to strike down Minnesota disclosure law,” said Mike Dean. “NOM has a long history of unsuccessfully challenging disclosure laws across the country.”

Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, echoed Dean’s sentiments in his own opinion column in the Star Tribune.

“Given these groups’ actual record of avoiding disclosure and suing to block disclosure laws, the concern expressed by Helmberger about innocent small donors is an obvious smokescreen. The Minnesota rules they challenge already protect small donors, and protect donations made without an earmark for political spending,” Winkler wrote. “Here’s a good rule of thumb: Never trust a well-funded group hiring lawyers to hide information from the public. Especially if their only argument is the need to protect the privacy of donors whose donations are already safely hidden.”

The law Winkler refers to was a campaign finance bill passed by the Minnesota Legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

Dean wondered why groups like Minnesota for Marriage wanted to shield their donors from disclosure.

“Being part of a democracy is about standing up for what you believe in, not cowering in the bushes because you are afraid of what others will think. The real question is, what do these groups have to hide?”

Open government advocates say current regulations inadequate
Contrary to Helmberger’s claims, a churchgoer’s donation would likely never be reported to any government entity as long as her church never asked her to specifically contribute to the church’s efforts to pass the amendment.

For transparency groups like Common Cause Minnesota, that’s a problem.

“The Campaign Finance Board, against Common Cause’s advice, is actually making it easier for groups to avoid disclosure,” Common Cause’s Mike Dean told the Minnesota Independent. “They have said that those groups only need to disclose if they make an explicit request of financial support for the constitutional amendment.”

Dean said the campaign finance board watered down a statute passed in 2010 that called for stringent disclosure rules. In a letter to the board earlier this month, the group argued that the “express” and “implied” request scenarios were confusing and unnecessary and gave groups a loophole to get out of disclosing contributions.

“Instead of requiring organizations to comply with this lengthy and multi-pronged definition, the board could simply require disclosure of contributions made in response to any solicitation that mentions a ballot question—end of story,” Common Cause wrote. “The current definition, with its discussion of ‘express’ and ‘implied’ requests, is unnecessarily confusing and complicated. Moreover, the fact that the board believes it is obligated to include such a distinction suggests that the Board is taking a far more conservative approach to disclosure than is required or warranted.”

Dean said the board’s current rules would “open up an enormous and unnecessary loophole in Minnesota law.”

“Experience under comparable federal rules has shown that sophisticated donors are able to exploit such loopholes to avoid the transparency that is necessary for a well-informed democracy,” Dean said.

The MFC dismissed a press conference held last week by Kriesel (R-Cottage Grove), Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing), former gubernatorial candidate Wheelock Whitney, members of Log Cabin Republicans and former deputy mayor under Norm Coleman, Susan Kimberly. MFC President Tom Prichard said the Republicans’ opposition to the amendment wasn’t newsworthy, and described the anti-amendment Republicans as “social liberals.”

Kriesel responded today on Twitter:

Same-sex marriage is currently illegal under Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If the amendment fails, same-sex marriage would still remain illegal unless legislators move to repeal DOMA and pass a bill legalizing marriage rights for same-sex couples as has been done in four states and the District of Columbia.

Update:

Rep. Kriesel responded to the Minnesota Independent with a statement expanding on his position.

“There will always be people that scream “the government needs to stay out of our lives,” and “we want less government,” until they find something that fits their agenda,” Kriesel wrote. “Then they are more than happy to expand the reach of government. I completely disagree with such a hypocritical philosophy.”

Kriesel said he rejects the notion that same-sex or other unmarried couples threaten his family life.

“I happen to disagree with Tom Pritchard on the marriage amendment issue. The fact that Tom is quick to label me a “social liberal” based on my position on the marriage amendment is just proof of how divisive and closed-minded an individual can be. What happened to doing what’s best for the people—ALL people? I’m not offended by the label, nor I am concerned about the label,” Kriesel said. “I am concerned about people, and doing what is best for the people—of my district and of this state. That is what I was elected to do.”

Kriesel took a stand against the amendment in the House last year.

“This is not an issue I will hide from, nor an issue I will walk away from, regardless of what category I am placed in or what label I am given,” Kriesel said. ”I’m not in this political arena to make friends, I am in this position to make a difference, to better the lives of my constituents and better Minnesota as a state. I believe defeating the amendment will help accomplish those goals.”

A coalition of groups working to convince voters to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage said on Tuesday that it would not follow new rules being proposed by the Minnesota campaign finance board, which watchdog groups say would violate the law.

Minnesota for Marriage is a partnership between the Minnesota Family Council, the Minnesota Catholic Conference and the National Organization for Marriage.

Last week, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board announced it was considering updating its rules to close loopholes in the ballot initiative’s reporting requirements. The board released guidance to outside groups that want to donate to ballot campaigns such as Minnesota for Marriage which supports the amendment or Minnesotans United for All Families which opposes the amendment, and spelled out how those donations would be disclosed.

The guidance would heighten public disclosure around campaign spending and will be debated before the board this week.

On Tuesday, Minnesota for Marriage cried foul and said it would only do what it had planned to in the past, calling the new guidance “illegal.”

“Minnesota for Marriage will disclose all donations we receive, as well as all expenditures that we make, consistent with longstanding Minnesota law,” said John Helmberger, MFM’s chairman. “However, what [campaign finance board] bureaucrats are attempting to do goes well beyond what the law requires, substituting themselves for the Legislature in an illegal attempt to compel disclosure of information not required by law. We oppose such illegal regulations.”

The National Organization for Marriage, which is a part of Minnesota for Marriage, has opposed regulations of its campaign activity in almost every state it has operated in. And in many of those states, the organization has lost its case.

“The CFB cannot illegally force us to report information the law does not require,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

In a letter to the board, NOM accused the board of singling it out for special treatment.

“[I]t is apparent that NOM is a singular target of the Board’s proposed new reporting and disclosure regime,” NOM wrote. “The deliberate targeting by the government of a particular citizens organization such as NOM is a violation of NOM’s First Amendment rights protecting it from such government assault.”

NOM is demanding all documentation related to NOM at the campaign finance board.

Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council, another member of Minnesota for Marriage, recently told the campaign finance board that he thinks Minnesota for Marriage should not have to disclose any of the contributions it takes in or the people or entities that donate.

Common Cause Minnesota saw Minnesota for Marriage’s announcement as the prelude to a lawsuit. NOM has filed lawsuit in a half dozen states including Iowa, Maine and California where judges have upheld those states’ campaign disclosure laws.

“Minnesota has become ground zero for a national fight over whether the public should know who is behind political spending,” said Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota. “Last year, the legislature and governor required that all political spending by independent expenditure groups and groups supporting constitutional amendments be disclosed.”

He said that Minnesota for Marriage “announced their intention to violate this very provision of Minnesota’s disclosure law.”

“The Supreme Court has made it clear that the public has a right to know who is behind political spending during an election,” said Dean. “This attack on Minnesota’s disclosure law is [an] attack on Minnesota’s desire for fair and open elections.”

The Minnesota Family Council (MFC) may have spent the last eight years pushing for the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that Minnesotans will vote on in November, but since its founding, the group has fought to uphold antiquated laws against homosexuality and sodomy that were often used against LGBT people.

Formed as Coalition of Concerned Christians
The Minnesota Family Council got its start in 1982 as a group of conservative Christians concerned that laws criminalizing gays and lesbians would be overturned.

“I believe we need to be true to our roots and let who we are grow out of that. The Berean League, as we were known, was founded locally by four people in 1982 as a ‘Coalition of Concerned Christians,’ former Chief Operating Officer of the Minnesota Family Council, Mike Christenson, told that organization’s newspaper, the Pro-Family News in 2001. ”This was in response to the very narrow defeat at the legislature of an attempt to repeal the Minnesota sodomy law.”

The effort to repeal the criminalization of homosexuality was supported by the Minnesota Council of Churches in 1982 . Amidst the perceived liberalism of mainstream Christianity in Minnesota, the Coalition of Concerned Christians was formed, which then blossomed into the Berean League.

Wendell and Roberta Brown were among the early founders and they joined the Rev. Morris Vaagenes of North Heights Lutheran Church in Roseville and former legislator Wayne Oloft to found the League. The foursome set out to block the planned repeal of sodomy laws and were successful; the repeal was narrowly defeated in the Minnesota Legislature in 1983.

Berean League’s literature painted gay people as diseased
The Berean League set up shop in St. Paul, where it published Roger J. Magnuson’s “Are Gay Rights Right?” a work that has been a staple of religious right groups for decades and has been discredited by civil rights groups.

The book, first published in 1985 and revamped in 1990 with a “special AIDs supplement,” contains chapters such as “What do homosexuals do?,” “Where do homosexuals do it?,” and “With whom does the homosexual do it?” The book collected the most extreme examples of sexual activity from pornography, police reports and research articles from before psychological organizations had rejected homosexuality as a mental illness, to paint gay men as diseased and psychologically deviant.

The book took advantage of the HIV epidemic in gay men to spur fears that “innocent” Americans may become infected.

Magnuson and his book played key roles in the 1992 Colorado ballot initiative that barred laws preventing discrimination against LGBT people. That initiative passed by the voters but was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

In 1990, Dr. Ralph Blair of Evangelicals Concerned, reviewed Magnuson’s book, which argued that gay people weren’t discriminated against. Blair knocked down “outrageous statements” by Magnuson, such as that “one-fifth of all homosexuals admitted to having sexual contact, or at least masturbating, with animals.”

Blair condemned the false information in Magnuson’s book: ” These statements may remind one of segregationists’ warnings against racial “mongrelization,” appeals to Bible verses to support slavery, and papal decrees against sex with Jews and Protestants. How can a Christian write such a book? How can Christians buy into such a book?”

The book is currently out of print, but the publishing rights are still held by the Berean League and, by extension, the Minnesota Family Council.

The Minnesota Family Council took heat earlier this year when it reprinted much of Magnuson’s work on its website. After defending the information that accused gays and lesbians of engaging in bestiality, incest and other criminal practices, the group took that part of their web page down.

The Berean League also put together a report titled, Some Things You May Not Know About Homosexuality, which remained on the Minnesota Family Council website at least through 2003. It was used extensively in Oregon’s 1992 Abnormal Behavior Initiative also known as measure 9.

Measure 9 set “a standard for Oregon’s youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.” The citizens of Oregon defeated the measure.

Source: Flickr, Fibonacci Blue

Criminalizing gays and lesbians
A former legislator, Wayne Oloft was the founder and executive director of the Berean League. Following on the organization’s 1983 success in maintaining criminalization laws, the group continued to push for the laws’ enforcement.

He told the Minnesota Daily in 1985 that “unnatural sex is a prolific disease spreader,” and added criminalization laws should be looked at and perhaps sex within heterosexual marriage should be exempted.

Oloft told the Washington Post in 1987 that sodomy “often involves promiscuity and that means increasing the risk of venereal disease or AIDS.”

“Repealing the law would subtly validate homosexual behavior, and deal a strike against the heterosexual family which is the prime vehicle for passing on moral values in our society,” Oloft said.

Minnesota at the time carried a 1-year maximum sentence on conviction on a sodomy charge and a $3,000 fine. The law technically applied to anyone not engaged in any penis-vagina sex, but was used selectively against gay men and lesbians.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the law was used to raid gays bars, deny child custody to gays and lesbians, terminate the employment of gays and lesbians and justify legal discrimination against gay people.

Legislators attempted unsuccessfully to repeal the anti-gay laws again in the 1990s and met with stiff opposition from the Berean League, which changed its name to the Minnesota Family Council in order to align itself more closely with James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.

“I think the laws set a purpose of setting community standards,” Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council told the Associated Press in 1999. “It’s ridiculous to eliminate social standards.”

During the 1999 legislative session, there was movement to abolish “silly” and outdated laws, including the sodomy law.

“We think the sodomy and fornication laws should stay in statute, and there are legitimate reasons why,” Prichard told the Star Tribune at the time. “All kinds of consensual behavior—drugs, prostitution, incest—has sanctions against it because of negative social consequences.”

In 2000, the ACLU of Minnesota sued to overturn the sodomy law. Prichard and the Family Council opposed the lawsuit and its newly formed Northstar Legal Center filed documents defending the law.

“We oppose the effort and believe what they couldn’t accomplish through the legislative process, now they’re trying the legal angle,” Prichard told the Star Tribune in 2000. He predicted that the lawsuit would fail saying, “We think this law is clearly constitutional.”

But, the ACLU won its case. A district judge struck down the law and Attorney General Mike Hatch and the Ventura administration did not appeal.

“Laws are a reflection of where society’s at,” Prichard told the Minnesota Daily. “It defies logic to think that our founders would create a law that the state Constitution would be in violation against.”

Jordan Lorence, an attorney for the Family Councils’ Northstar Legal Center, added in an editorial in the Pioneer Press: “[T]he framers of the Minnesota Constitution wrote into the text that the right of conscience should never be construed by courts to protect acts of ‘licentiousness.’ The framers of the Minnesota Constitution would have understood ‘licentiousness’ to include sodomy. Therefore, it is basically impossible to argue that the intent of the framers of the Minnesota Constitution was to protect sodomy and remove the state legislature’s power to criminalize it.”

Minnesota Family Council shifting gears
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws across the country in 2003, Prichard predicted dire consequences.

“It’s an unbelievably bad decision,” Prichard told the Pioneer Press. “It’s a breathtaking leap in judicial activism. I think it has enormous implications beyond just the sodomy law. If they’re going to protect private consensual sex between adults, what does that say about adult incest, polygamy, bigamy, or ultimately, even prostitution?”

Prichard even went to the defense of then-Sen. Rick Santorum in 2003 whose statements about gays and lesbians riled many. Santorum equated the right to consensual gay sex with the right to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.

“Senator Santorum is correct,” Prichard said in a statement. “There are negative consequences to society endorsing homosexual behavior. It has implications not only for the health of individuals but the well being of society.”

Prichard continued, ”This attack on Santorum is merely another attempt by gay advocates to deflect attention from the underlying issue. The truth is that homosexual behavior undermines a healthy and stable society just as bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery do.”

The Minnesota Family Council’s push to criminalize consensual sex hasn’t been limited to gays and lesbians. In 2009, there was a legislative push to repeal adultery laws that are still on the books, which many deemed sexist. The Family Council, however, supported it.

“We think they’re important. They send a message,” Prichard said of adultery laws. “When you are dealing with a marriage, it’s not just a private activity or a private institution. It’s a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society.”

The Minnesota Family Council has shifted gears over the past 8 years and has taken the lead in pushing for a constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples.

The group’s CEO John Helmberger and Communications Director Chuck Darrell have taken positions as chair and spokesperson for the Minnesota for Marriage coalition.

That coalition, along with the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Catholic Conference is expected to spend millions in support of the amendment which will be on the ballot in November 2012.

Source: Zroberts, Flickr

Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition working to convince Minnesotans to vote for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, has hit the media saying that their group are “underdogs” in the marriage amendment battle and that they will be greatly outspent.

But according to public records, members of the pro-amendment coalition, including the Minnesota Family Council and the Minnesota Catholic Conference, have greatly outspent LGBT groups in the five years of lobbying for the amendment.

Minnesota for Marriage claims fundraising disadvantage
Each member of the coalition supporting the amendment has claimed underdog status in recent months.

Chuck Darrell, communications director for Minnesota for Marriage, told the St. Cloud Times earlier this month that coalition members “expect to be outspent.”

Darrell elaborated in an August interview with Pastor Brad Brandon on KKMS.

“One of the problems we see is that the other side through Hollywood connections and everything else under the sun are going to raise a ton of money. I don’t think we can outraise them,” Darrell said. ”It’s absolutely important that people get involved because the only way to counter the money that is going to be spent on the other side.”

John Helmberger, CEO of the Minnesota Family Council and chair of Minnesota for Marriage sent an email to supporters several weeks ago warning that “Hollywood” and “centers of popular culture” would be outspending the pro-amendment campaign.

The Minnesota Catholic Conference (MCC), another member of the Minnesota for Marriage coalition, also warned that they would be outspent.

“Will the campaign be easy? No. We will be vastly outspent and there will be many cultural forces working against us,” the group wrote on its blog. ”They will try to make us think that we are swimming against the tide of history. They will call us names for defending the important institution of marriage. But, we must stand together.”

Amendment supporters spent three times as much through PACs
In the previous five years, groups pushing for the marriage amendment spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect sympathetic legislators. 

According to documents filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, Minnesota for Marriage spent $341,928 from its political action committee (PAC) promoting the ballot measure in Minnesota since 2005.

OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization, spent $95,574 from its PAC on LGBT issues, including opposition to the amendment since 2005. Project 515, which has lobbied to change the 515 Minnesota laws that discriminate against same-sex couples spent $17,850 from its PAC since they were founded in 2008.

The pro-LGBT groups together spent just $115,424, or about one-third of what Minnesota for Marriage spent.

Minnesota for Marriage groups spent $1.12 million on lobbying
All sides of the debate have spent big money lobbying the legislature as well. While the campaign finance board’s lobbying summaries don’t list the amounts of money spent on specific issues, they do provide annual estimates of lobbying expenditures.

Outfront spent $496,658 since 2005 on a range of issues including anti-bullying laws and domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, but also in opposition to the amendment. In addition, Project 515 lobbied for bills that would equalize Minnesota laws for same-sex couples including end of life matters and hospital visitation. Together the two group spent a sizable amount of money: $616,658.

Since 2005, the Minnesota Family Council has spent $194,000 on lobbying. The group has lobbied heavily in favor of the amendment but also has lobbied in opposition to anti-bullying laws, gambling, medical marijuana, Sunday alcohol sales and abortion rights.

Minnesota for Marriage, an organization exclusively dedicated to the marriage amendment, spent $296,411. Focus on the Family came to Minnesota to lobby for the amendment as well and spent $32,538.

Between the three groups, spending was $522,949. When you add in the lobbying of the Minnesota Catholic Conference ($600,000 since 2005), that number rises to $1,122,949.

Catholic Church and National Organization for Marriage flexed ad muscle
In the advertising game, Minnesota for Marriage and the Catholic church blew LGBT groups out of the water.

During the 2010 elections, the D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage in conjunction with the Minnesota Family Council spent $709,000 on ads urging Minnesotans to support gubernatorial candidates that support the amendment banning same-sex marriage. And the Catholic Church in Minnesota spent $1.6 million on a DVD campaign just before the 2010 election that urged Catholic voters to support candidates that oppose same-sex marriage.

That 2010 ad total, $2.3 million, out-paced LGBT equality groups who spent $0 on ad campaigns during the 2010 election.

All told, the pro-amendment forces have spent $3.7 million over the last 5 years according to publicly available records. Those forces that oppose the amendment spent $740,000.

Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition working to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, said Republican Bob Turner’s win in the special election for former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s seat was due to his opposition to same-sex marriage. The group also pointed to movement on same-sex marriage bans in New Hampshire and North Carolina as evidence of momentum for their state agenda.

“This has been a momentous week for marriage,” said John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage, in a statement Friday. Helmberger is also the CEO of the Minnesota Family Council which is part of the Minnesota for Marriage coalition along with the Minnesota Catholic Conference and the D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage.

The groups are working hard to convince voters to pass a Constitutional amendment that would would ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Minnesota law already bans same-sex marriage.

“Clearly, these pro-marriage wins in New York, North Carolina and New Hampshire demonstrate what we have been saying all along—marriage matters to voters—and politicians who vote to redefine marriage will be held accountable by the electorate,” he said.

In North Carolina, legislators voted to approve a May ballot measure banning relationship rights for same-sex couples in that state, and in New Hampshire, a House committee passed a bill that repeal that state’s marriage equality law.

“We are seeing the same momentum here in Minnesota,” Helmberger added. “In fact, last week thousands of people signed up to volunteer for our campaign. People across Minnesota can’t wait for the opportunity to help preserve marriage and vote in favor of this important constitutional amendment.”

Minnesota for Marriage said it views the win by Turner in New York over Democrat David Weprin as a major victory for its agenda.

“Turner benefitted from a significant Independent Expenditure effort by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which also supports the Minnesota Marriage Amendment,” the statement read. “Virtually every media analyst has credited Weprin’s support for same-sex ‘marriage’ as a decisive issue in the race.”

But Turner himself disagreed.

“We worked hard not to make it an issue in the race,” William O’Reilly, spokesman for Turner, told the New York Times. “David Weprin’s position on gay marriage probably won him as many votes as it lost him, so in the end it was likely a push.”

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.

The Minnesota Catholic Conference, the policy wing of Minnesota’s Catholic bishops, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) have registered political action funds (PACs) with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. The two funds join the Minnesota Family Council Marriage Protection Fund in hopes of raising money to convince voters to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The PACs will allow the groups to raise money for political activity surrounding the 2012 ballot initiative. NOM’s PAC is registered in Washington, D.C., under the name of the group’s president Brian Brown. The Minnesota Catholic Conference was registered by that group’s head, Jason Adkins.

In addition to NOM, MCC and MFC, the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign has registered a fund to defeat the amendment.

Other groups have registered ballot initiative campaigns, including It’s Personal to Me Campaign, a north Minneapolis group; Minnesota For Marriage, a coalition of MCC, MFC and NOM; Minnesotans United for All Families, the main coalition in opposition to the amendment; OutFront Minnesota Marriage Equality, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization; and Republicans Against the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.