Soon, schoolyard bullying targeting gays, minorities, and other vulnerable students could actually become a protected activity in Michigan, thanks to a GOP amendment that may reverse the intent of an anti-bullying bill proposed in February.

Rather than simply opposing common sense efforts to protect kids from bullies (which would have been bad enough), Michigan Republicans actually voted to extend new protections to the bullies, so long as they’re creative enough to invent a “religious belief or moral conviction” to justify terrorizing their classmates.

The original bill is SB 137, but Senate Republicans buried this innocuous-sounding clause within their substitute amendment:

This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.

So according to Michigan Senate Republicans, who voted unanimously for this language, students have a right to terrorize their classmates as long as they got the idea from Fred Phelps. In other words, no one is safe.

All eleven Senate Democrats took to the Senate floor to blast the Republican changes, but no one summarized their collective outrage better than Sen. Glenn Anderson (D-Westland), who read a statement from a parent of the child the original bill was named for:

I am utterly shocked to learn that our so-called leaders have yet again tampered with MI’s anti-bullying bill in the most bizarre ways. Adding language that basically ‘allows bullying’ based on religious beliefs must be the most absurd input I have seen in my almost seven years dealing with this issue. To give people a ‘pass’ because their verbal or physical assault is ‘sanctioned’ by religion is mind boggling and I am at a loss. Are we going back to the days of the Crusades? This passage negates the rest of the bill. If people claim ‘religious grounds’ then there will be no reports, no course corrections and greatly increase the growing tensions in our schools. I have said many times it is the adults who are the problems when we talk about anti-bullying and build a better culture and they have proven me right yet again.

Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) was equally outraged, noting, "In fact, not only does this not protect kids who are bullied, but it further endangers them by legitimizing excuses for tormenting a student. (...) This is worse than doing nothing. It is a Republican license to bully:"

Senate Democrats’ official statement on the Republicans’ outrageous maneuver on SB 137 is available here.

When a Republican presidential debate audience booed an active-duty soldier serving in Iraq for asking a question about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” conservative activists tried to dismiss the incident as just a few bad apples among a crowd of thousands.

That will be much harder, now that a GOP state Representative has come out in favor of booing gay American servicemembers, calling it “great:”

[Think Progress reporter Scott] KEYES: What did you make of that moment in the debate when they had the gay marine asking a question and there were a few in the audience who were booing him?

[GOP State Rep. Al] BALDASARO: I was so disgusted over that gay marine* coming out, because when he came out of the closet. Bob won’t say it because they’re scared to get in trouble, but their brothers and sisters – brothers especially- that are there, they’ll start getting away from him. They’ll start ignoring him. He doesn’t realize it, but when the shit hits the fan, you want your brothers covering your back, not looking at your back.

KEYES: Did you have an issue with the audience reaction?

BALDASARO: Oh no, I thought the audience, when they booed the marine, I thought it was great.

[*Note: the debate question was from a soldier serving in Iraq, not a marine.]

Notice that Baldasaro leaves no room at all for misinterpretation – he believes the audience “booed the Marine” and that “it was great.” He never even tried to dodge the issue, as other Republicans have, by claiming that the crowd’s intent was unclear.

More troubling, though, is that Baldasaro himself served more than two decades in the military. Would he, as his comments suggest, “start ignoring” his fellow Marines in combat if he knew they were gay? Would he really refuse to help a soldier whose life was in danger, just because he or she happens to be gay?

It’s no surprise that the bigotry of a Republican debate crowd is being reflected by Republican officials like Baldasaro. What’s shocking is that a Republican state legislator is saying it’s more important to hate gay Americans than to love those who defend our nation.

If that's really how Baldasaro feels, then he should take the advice of New Hampshire Democrats and veterans' advocates and resign, before he embarrasses his constituents any more more than he already has.

[h/t Think Progress]

In a vote that immediately sent shockwaves across the country, the New York state Legislature has voted to approve marriage equality.

With the fate of equality still in doubt nearly until the literal 11th hour Friday night –this despite near-unanimous support among Democratic legislators - the state Senate finally took up the bill.

Longtime equality supporter and Democratic Senator Thomas Duane gave an impassioned plea for support. And when the final tally was announced, the Senate chamber erupted in cheers and patriotic pride. See below for yourself:

But as moving as that moment was for us, watching live video of the vote, it was even more so for the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers whose chance at being treated equally hung in the balance for weeks. That hope and nervousness instantly turned to euphoria in New York and in rallies and pride celebrations across the country.

But nowhere was the joy and relief more palpable than in New York City:

New York’s Democratic legislators have been leading the fight for marriage equality since 2007, when similar legislation passed the overwhelmingly Democratic New York Assembly for the first time. The historically Republican Senate, where Democrats haven’t held more than a 1-seat majority since 1964, was a consistent roadblock to marriage equality.

But the turning point came this year when Senate Democrats announced that their conference was near-unanimous in favor of equality – offering a publicly united front and 29 of the 32 Senate votes needed for equality.

Congratulations to Senator Duane, Minority Leader Sampson, and Assembly Speaker Silver for lining up the critical Democratic votes for this historic victory.

Virginia GOP Delegate Bob Marshall has found a new reason to loathe the Federal Reserve: he thinks the Richmond Fed is celebrating “behavior” that “adds significantly to illness, increases health costs, promotes venereal diseases, and worsens the population imbalance relating to the number of workers supporting the beneficiaries of America’s Social Security and Medicare programs.” 

At the request of an employee group representing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, the Richmond Federal Reserve is flying a rainbow flag outside of its building to represent LGBT rights during Gay Pride Month. 

Republican Delegate Riley Ingram also shared his opposition to the flag with the bank. But Del. Marshall, who has an extensive history of opposition to gay rights and equality, seems particularly riled. 

“I do not believe that a celebration of ‘gay pride’ has anything to do with the mission of the Federal Reserve under the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress,” Marshall said. “This is a celebration of a behavior that is still a class six felony in Virginia. How can the American people trust the judgement [sic] of the Federal Reserve as an institution when its spokesperson celebrates an attack on public morals?” 

Del. Marshall has preexisting issues with the Federal Reserve. During this past legislative session, he filed legislation that would have resulted in a study of “alternative currencies to that distributed by the Federal Reserve System ‘in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.’” He also wanted the Commonwealth to begin minting its own gold and silver coins as said alternative currency. 

Del. Marshall also has a long and storied history of fighting for continued discrimination against the LGBT community. When the federal government repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he fought to maintain the ban on gays serving in the Virginia National Guard. He also recently lobbied against a proposal that would have allowed unmarried couples – homosexual or heterosexual—to adopt children. 

Since either the Federal Reserve or the LGBT community clearly is enough to upset Del. Marshall on its own, one can only imagine the anxiety caused by both offending him simultaneously.

(h/t Anita Kumar)

In a state whose GOP leaders are still fighting to criminalize homosexuality and flirting with abolishing Medicaid, a leader with a great deal of skill, commitment, and persistence is often the only hope for even remotely progressive legislation.

Texas has such a leader in Democratic state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a DLCC Board of Directors member, who capped off a multi-year fight with two critically important legislative victories this session: a new suicide-prevention law and a law to dramatically increase access to health care in rural areas.

SB 984, the rural health care bill, solves a problem that has been vexing hospitals in rural communities for decades: how to ensure there are enough doctors. Enrique Rangel of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal explains the solution:

Coleman, who is considered one of the leading health care experts in the Legislature, said the legislation he and Duncan worked on is a milestone.

“This is a major shift in state policy,” Coleman said. “Doctors will have the choice between hanging up their own shingle, or, working directly for a hospital.”

Jeff Barnhart, CEO of Ochiltree General Hospital in Perryton, said he is just as happy that after years in the works, Duncan and Coleman finally succeeded.

“In the future, when we need a doctor, this will make it easier for us to recruit and hire the doctor or doctors we need,” Barnhart said.

Dr. Bruce Malone of Austin, who today becomes president of TMA — which in previous sessions opposed similar proposals Duncan and Coleman filed — said the 45,000-member organization supported the bill this year because it recognizes that rural hospitals “have special needs.”

Under current law, doctors shoulder the financial risk themselves if they choose to practice in under-served areas. For younger doctors carrying potentially hundreds of thousands in medical school debt, that risk is often simply too heavy.

Another Coleman victory this session was the passage of Asher’s Law (HB 1386), which will provide new guidance and resources for Texas schools to help prevent suicide among students. This law, and a new anti-bullying law which was passed the same day, will ensure that more Texas youths have someplace (and someone) to turn to when it matters most:

Tonight, the Senate voted 28-3 to pass a suicide prevention bill by Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. This is the bill that was originally called Asher’s Law in honor of Asher Brown, the 13-year gay youth from the Houston area who took his own life last year in response to bullying at school.

Neither bill in its final form contains specific references or protections for LGBT youth. But the fact is that if they did, they wouldn’t have had any chance of passing the Republican-dominated Legislature.

Daniel Williams at Legislative Queery reports on Coleman’s bill:

HB 1386, the teen suicide prevention bill by Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) has passed the Texas Senate on a 28 to 3 vote. The bill instructs the Texas Department of State Health Services to develop resources designed to prevent teen suicide, including mental health counseling, crisis prevention tools and suicide prevention eduction. Schools would then have the option of implementing those programs, but would not be required to do so.

Congratulations to Rep. Coleman on these legislative victories, both of which were years in the making – Rep. Coleman is proving once again that he is a friend to the people of Texas.

In an address reminiscent of our Chairman’s pledge to uphold equality two years ago, Minnesota state Representative Steve Simon delivered a powerful speech to his House colleagues on Monday, explaining why a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is simply wrong.

The bottom line for Rep. Simon? ALL of us are God’s children, a fact that cannot be reconciled with continued discrimination against LGBT couples:

Video of Rep. Simon’s remarks was streamed by The UpTake.

The amendment banning same-sex marriage cannot be brought up for a floor vote until May 9th at the earliest, and passage is far from a sure thing. That means there’s still time to stop this odious legislation in its tracks.

If it fails, either in the legislature or by popular vote in 2012, it would be no great stretch to believe that Rep. Simon’s words made the difference for equality.

What a difference a Democratic majority makes.

Thursday evening, the Delaware House of Representatives passed SB 30, legislation granting same-sex couples the right to form civil unions.

Delmarva Now has the powerful video of what happened in the House gallery after the vote:

The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Dave Sokola and co-sponsored by 26 other legislators, including House Speaker Robert Gilligan, Senate Majority Leader Patricia Blevins, and House Majority Whip Val Longhurst (who also serves on the DLCC Board of Directors).

In the past two years alone, Delaware has made great strides in protecting the equal rights of its citizens. The first state law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation was passed in June 2009, and while anti-equality activists threatened electoral consequences after that vote, the right-wing backlash never materialized.

Delaware Democrats kept their majority in the state House in 2010, and they actually increased their lopsided advantage in the state Senate, paving the way for yesterday’s vote for civil unions.

The News Journal provides much more detail on what this new law will mean for Delaware families:

The vote followed three hours of debate that covered a wide range of concerns -- some fiscal, some related to family relations, some related to equal access to civil unions for opposite-sex couples.

When the vote was announced, the balcony -- filled with supporters of the bill -- erupted into cheers, applause and cries of "Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!"

The bill now goes to Gov. Jack Markell, who has championed gay rights throughout his public service career. Markell celebrated the passage and said he will sign the bill as soon as a suitable time and place are arranged. The bill addresses the needs of children and families throughout Delaware, ensuring their protection under the law, he said.

"This is about kids throughout Delaware who will know that if there is an issue with their parents, there will be stability in their lives," Markell said. "People and their loved ones will be able to protect each other under the law."

Ask any unemployed or underemployed Iowan what their elected officials should be focusing on, and the answer should be obvious: Jobs and the economy. But with each passing day in Iowa’s state legislative session, it’s becoming clearer and clearer which party is making jobs its priority…

Senate Democrats offered new initiatives Wednesday for small businesses to lower employee health insurance costs, provide easier access to credit, cut bureaucratic red tape and provide resources to revitalize run-down business districts.

State Sen. Steve Sodders, D-State Center, estimated the price tag to state government to implement the four-step plan would be about $8.4 million, which he called a "relatively modest" way to help small businesses recover from the economic recession and resume hiring.

"If more Iowa small businesses are working again, more Iowans will be working again," he said during a Statehouse news conference. (…)

Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said job creation is the Senate Democrats' top priority for the 2011 session. They intend to offer two more proposals to assist small businesses, including an effort to improve opportunities for education and job training that will be unveiled next week.

…and which party is wasting its time on divisive social issues:

Republicans were working this evening planning how to “mount a battle for marriage” at 7 a.m. tomorrow in the Iowa Senate, according to an action alert from a conservative group. (…)

Danny Carroll, chairman of the Iowa Family Leader, said tonight that Sen. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, “is preparing his plan as I am writing this email. He intends to file numerous amendments and use any other tactic at his disposal to keep Gronstal from barring debate on marriage.”

The best thing Iowa can do to protect families is to make sure jobs are available and health care is affordable. As usual, Iowa Democrats clearly get it, while the Republicans keep playing games.

One of the most frightening and unexpected results of the Republican wins this November has been a proliferation of legislative assaults on the independence of state judges.

Several weeks ago, a group of Republican state House members in Iowa announced they would spearhead an effort to impeach all four members of the state Supreme Court, simply because of a single ruling the legislators disagreed with for ideological reasons.

The impeachment effort got a boost Wednesday when Speaker-elect Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha) said if he thought Iowans wanted the four justices removed, he would not stand in the way. A few days earlier, state Sen. Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola), who will sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he will also push for impeachment proceedings.

Paulsen was immediately criticized by LGBT-rights group One Iowa, who called his remarks “reckless.” Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) said unless Paulsen has some evidence that the justices committed a “misdemeanor or malfeasance,” the legislature should focus its efforts on job creation, not impeachment.

Iowa House Democrats have pledged to block the GOP assault on judicial independence at all costs, noting that none of the four justices has ever even been accused of any sort of malfeasance.

But if that weren’t enough, late last week the new GOP Speaker of the New Hampshire House told a gathering of conservative activists that the impeachment of judges would be an effective way to produce more conservative court rulings:

Asked what he thinks about "legislation from the bench," (when judges create law rather than interpret existing law) [Speaker William] O'Brien suggested that the Petition for Grievance procedure would perhaps lead to a Bill of Redress or a Bill of Impeachment.

O'Brien surmised that if one judge was removed from his/her position, "it will calm the rest down."

[h/t Blue Hampshire]

O’Brien’s shocking comments were made amid another impeachment controversy in the state House, in which O’Brien and other House Republicans are attempting to expel Democratic Rep. Mike Brunelle for the “crime” of advocating progressive legislation in the state House while also serving as Executive Director of the New Hampshire Democratic Party:

Bettencourt said Brunelle has filed legislation that would serve as a platform for Democrats. Bettencourt gave as an example legislation to raise the minimum wage which he said is a Democratic initiative.

The impeachment of public officials purely because of philosophical differences is not acceptable behavior in the American political system. This is especially true when judges are the targets, because judges have a duty to uphold the constitution no matter which direction public opinion has turned.

To turn the discharge of that duty into an impeachable offense would set a dangerous precedent. But the fact that GOP leaders are now openly advocating this strategy is just further proof of how arrogant and extreme the modern Republican Party has become.

There is ongoing debate about what this November’s results really turned on – was it the economy, or frustration with the slow pace of change, or is it altogether unrealistic to claim that any one single issue is responsible for the results we saw?

What is beyond dispute is that whatever voters’ reasons were for their decisions this year, those decisions will have consequences across a range of issues where Republicans are growing increasingly out of step with the broader American public.

One of those issues is equal rights. The last two years saw incredible progress at the state level on equal rights, and with a few critical exceptions, it seems likely that progress can be protected:

California: Equality supporters scored a symbolic victory in Democrat Richard Pan’s Assembly victory over Proposition 8 author Andy Pugno in a conservative-leaning GOP open seat. The nature of the district and the GOP candidate’s close identification with the anti-equality movement sent a clear signal that even in a Republican year, voters do not want to be governed by right-wing ideologues.

Thanks to Dr. Pan’s win, California Democrats increased their majority in the Assembly by one seat and held their margin in the Senate. With these majorities and the Democrats’ gubernatorial victory, further progress on equality appears likely in the coming years.

Connecticut: Democrats suffered minor losses in both the state Senate and state House, slipping barely below veto-proof majorities in both chambers. But a Democratic gubernatorial win means the returning Democratic majorities are more than sufficient. Connecticut already became a marriage equality state through a 2008 court decision and legislative action in 2009, but progress on other equal rights issues is still possible.

Delaware: This state passed its first anti-discrimination law in 2009, and it was another state where Democrats increased their state House majority, picking up three seats to take a 26-15 majority. They lost a seat in the Senate, dropping to 14-7, but both majorities are now over the 3/5 margin needed to overturn vetoes. Regardless, with a popular Democratic governor elected in 2008, further progress on equal rights seems likely.

Hawaii: Site of the cycle’s last major battle over equal rights – a civil unions bill ultimately vetoed by the Republican Governor, thus breaking her earlier promise – Hawaii Democrats lost only two state House seats and captured one of the GOP’s only two state Senate seats. Both chambers remain the most lopsidedly Democratic in the country, and incoming Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the civil unions bill if passed again.

As an added bonus, Democratic state Rep. Blake Oshiro, the driving force behind last year’s civil unions bill, was re-elected in a landslide, ensuring that equal rights will continue to have a strong champion in the legislature. Further progress on equality appears extremely likely.

Illinois: Democrats retained their majorities in both Illinois legislative chambers, while the gubernatorial election delivered a popular mandate for the state's incumbent Democratic Governor. Following those results, legislators passed the state's first law providing for same-sex civil unions, which will be signed early this year.

Iowa: Despite losing the state House, Iowa Senate Democrats led by DLCC Chairman Mike Gronstal have maintained their majority in the state Senate. As Senate Majority Leader, Gronstal has the sole authority to decide which bills are brought to a vote, and Senator Gronstal has already reiterated his 2009 promise that he will “Never” allow a vote on a constitutional amendment repealing civil marriage equality.

This adds at least another two years to the timeline for any state constitutional amendment in Iowa – even if Republicans re-take the chamber in 2012, the first election after redistricting, the earliest an amendment could reach the ballot would be 2015. With a Republican House and Governor, further progress on equal rights appears unlikely, but thanks to Senator Gronstal, backsliding looks all but impossible.

As an added bonus, openly-gay Senator Matt McCoy was re-elected despite enduring an outrageous smear campaign by his GOP opponent, who labled McCoy the Senate’s “chief sodomite” and accused him of trying to spread HIV through handshakes (which, by the way, is medically impossible). Bigotry may not be gone, but it was certainly dealt a setback with McCoy’s landslide re-election.

Maine: Democrats were dealt major setbacks in Maine, losing control of both the state House, state Senate, and the Governorship. But the state House margin is an extremely narrow 72-78-1, and since Maine voters already narrowly approved a ballot measure repealing the state’s marriage equality law in 2009, it’s unclear how aggressively Republicans will go in seeking to repeal other laws important to the LGBT community, such as the state’s civil unions law, its law permitting joint adoptions, or its hate crimes statute. This is a state of concern.

Maryland: Maryland Democrats actually expanded their majorities in both legislative chambers and re-elected the state's Democratic governor by a wide margin. Because of those results and some internal changes to the legislature's committee membership, equality advocates believe they are in a strong position to push for full civil marriage equality. Further progress here appears extremely likely.

Nevada: After overturning a gubernatorial veto to enact the state’s first civil unions law, Democrats maintained their majorities in both legislative chambers – a narrow 11-10 lead in the state Senate and a wider 26-16 lead in the state Assembly. But without their previous veto-proof Assembly majority and facing a larger, more conservative GOP Senate caucus, further progress will be difficult but not impossible.

New Hampshire: This state formed the tip of the spear for the Democrats’ 2006 rout, delivering major upsets and gains of 6 seats and 84 seats in the state Senate and House, respectively. That was again the case this year, except in the other direction, leaving Republicans with a 5-19 majority in the state Senate and a 102-298 majority in the state House, more than enough seats to overturn vetoes by Democratic Governor John Lynch.

That makes New Hampshire an area of extreme concern for equal rights, because the state’s marriage equality law was only enacted in 2009. And with so many GOP defections needed to sustain a veto, Republicans could potentially target any of the state’s laws that are important to the LGBT community, including adoption laws, hate crimes laws, and anti-discrimination laws. This is a state of concern.

New Jersey: The only competitive legislative election in New Jersey was a state Senate special election in which Democrat Linda Greenstein, a marriage equality supporter and frequent target of social conservative organizations, defeated a GOP appointee who opposes marriage equality. If there was going to be a backlash against the state Senate’s January marriage vote, which unfortunately failed, it would have been felt in this race. And while that bodes well for future votes on equality, the presence of a Republican governor will make further progress difficult.

New York: Republicans won control of the New York Senate by a single seat this year, and Senate Republicans unanimously opposed marriage equality in 2009. Nevertheless, it is believed that the returning Democratic caucus is more cohesive on Equal Rights, and the possibility of a more favorable Senate redistricting plan for 2012 make progress over the intermediate term much more likely.

Rhode Island: Despite losing a relative handful of legislative seats, Democrats retained their commanding majorities in both legislative chambers. And now that the state's GOP governor (who vetoed even a modest bill to grant funeral planning rights to same-sex domestic partners) has been replaced with an Independent governor calling for full civil marriage equality, progress on equal rights seems extremely likely here.

Vermont: One of several states to pass full civil marriage equality in 2009, Vermont re-elected overwhelming Democratic majorities in both state legislative chambers in 2010, as well as electing a new Democratic Governor. Further progress on equal rights appears likely.

Washington: Democrats have retained both of their legislative majorities in Washington, which passed a robust civil unions law in 2009. Equality opponents attempted to overturn the law through a ballot initiative, but the law was narrowly upheld. With Democrats narrowly ahead in both chambers and with a Democratic governor, further progress on equal rights is certainly possible, but after the close result of the civil unions ballot initiative, legislators are likely to give voters time to grow accustomed to civil unions.

Wisconsin: Wisconsin successfully passed a civil unions law in 2009, though previous state laws banning same-sex marriage (and imprisoning for nine months anyone who contracts a same-sex marriage out of state) remain on the books. Democrats lost the governorship and their narrow majorities in both legislative chambers in 2010, putting the civil unions statute and other laws important to the LGBT community at risk.

Overall, despite the Republicans’ strong national showing in 2010, they significantly underperformed in states that were at the forefront of the battle for equal rights in 2009 and 2010. There are at least 8 states where further progress on equal rights is unquestionably more likely because of the 2010 elections, and only three new states that are in legitimate danger of backsliding away from equal rights laws passed in 2009 and 2010. In terms of policy consequences, equal rights advocates at the state level may find that they dodged a major bullet this cycle.