Two months after the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland challenged Harford County Public Schools on the issue, students and others thanked district leaders for taking the “positive step.”

“This is a positive step toward inclusiveness in HCPS policy,” says a March 19 letter addressed to Robert Tomback, the district’s superintendent, and Mark Wolkow, who leads the district’s board of education. Several students, parents, teachers and attorneys signed the letter.

“We have brought together a group of concerned HCPS students, parents, teachers and alumnae to continue to brainstorm how we can work with you and to make our school system a safer and more supportive place for our LGBT and allied community members.”

A filter had prevented students from accessing many well-known state and national LGBT groups, including the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, as well as various religious organizations that are supportive of gay rights. The filter did not impede student access to sites that condemn homosexuality.

“One of the problems with Harford’s filtering scheme is that it only allowed students access to information on one side of the public debate on LGBT issues,” said Alli Harper of Baltimore’s Brown, Goldstein & Levy law firm, which cooperated with the ACLU on the issue.

Harper said that one female student was blocked from researching a paper “arguing the ‘pro’ side of the marriage equality issue. She had to get an extension to do the assignment outside of school. Meanwhile, the students making the ‘con’ argument were able to access the information needed via the school computers.”

Steve Pougnet, the gay Democratic mayor of Palm Springs who’s running in California’s 45th congressional district, made the list along with 12 other Democratic candidates running for a seat in Congress.

The DCCC’s “Red to Blue” program highlights Democratic candidates running in competitive congressional races throughout the country where Republican lawmakers currently sit. The distinction gives these Democratic candidates additional opportunities for financial and logistical support.

Becoming part of the “Red to Blue” program could be a boon for Pougnet, who’s seeking to unseat the incumbent Rep. Mary Bono Mack. Pougnet is trying to oust a Republican lawmaker in a district that has consistently elected Republicans to Congress since at least 1982.

In a statement, DCCC Chair Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), said outstanding fundraising efforts from Pougnet and the 12 other candidates earned them a position in the “Red to Blue” program.

“These candidates have come out of the gate strong and the Red to Blue Program will give them the financial and structural edge to be even more competitive in November,” he said. “These candidates are generating excitement back home and are making the case to voters that their commitment to creating jobs and standing up for the middle class is far better than turning back the clock to the failed Bush policies of the past.”

Should Pougnet be elected, he would be the first person in a same-sex marriage and the first openly gay parent to serve in Congress.

Although Pougnet has been commended for his fundraising efforts, he still trails Bono Mack in funding. According to the latest information on the Federal Election Commission web site, Pougnet has raised nearly $564,000, while Bono Mack has nearly $993,000 in her coffers. It’s typical for an incumbent lawmaker to out-raise challengers in an election.

Republicans help stall Pa. marriage amendment

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A bill seeking to constitutionally ban same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania was stalled Tuesday in the state Senate after three Republicans joined five Democrats to vote against it.

The chamber’s Judiciary Committee voted 8-6 to table the measure that would have begun a lengthy process to constitutionally define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Tuesday’s vote is expected to be the only vote the bill will see this session.

Democratic state Sen. Daylin Leach, a proponent of same-sex marriage, said in a statement that he was pleased the proposed ban was tabled.

“I believe that [this bill] is the antithesis of what Pennsylvanians need and want, and I am happy that the majority of my colleagues agree with me,” he said. “To support a bill that so clearly discriminates against an entire group of people is simply unconscionable and irresponsible.”

ACLU enters anti-gay prom scuffle

OXFORD, Miss. — A high school in Mississippi that chose to cancel its prom rather than let a lesbian student bring her female date has drawn a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union.

In papers filed March 11 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, the ACLU asks the court to reinstate the prom for all students at the school and says Itawamba County School District officials are violating Constance McMillen’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

The filing comes after school officials cancelled the April 2 prom. Before the event was canceled, McMillen was told she could not arrive at prom with her girlfriend, also a student at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Miss.

In a video posted to the ACLU web site, McMillen thanks the thousands of people who are supporting her on Facebook and elsewhere.

“I never thought in a thousand, a billion years that there would be that many people that were supporting something that I was doing,” she says. “And I think it’s great that there’s that many people out there that understand what — the difference between wrong and right.”

From staff and news service reports

Martin Gill (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)

A tearful moment interrupted a congressional panel discussion on LGBT adoption Thursday when a gay foster parent described how state officials in Florida were threatening to take away his two children.

Martin Gill of Miami and his partner are seeking to adopt two young brothers — referred to John and James Doe in court papers — for whom they’ve cared for six years. Because a 1977 Florida statute prohibits gays from adopting, Gill has filed a lawsuit against the state in attempt to overturn the law and adopt the two children.

After showing slides of his children decorating a Christmas tree and dressed as Batman for Halloween, Gill recalled how during an intermediary court hearing the state attorney “made it all too clear” that he couldn’t remain the caregiver should the lawsuit fail.

“They answered that if the court allows the ban to stand, the state would immediately get a court order to remove these kids from our home, and they would be made available for adoption,” Gill said.

Holding back tears, Gill said the judge pressed further on whether some other kind of permanent guardianship could be available, but the response from the counsel was, “No, I don’t think it is.”

“To that, there was an audible gasp in the court room,” he said. “I felt my own heart drop.”

The intermediary court considering the case could make its decision public at any time. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed the lawsuit, is expecting the case to continue to the Florida Supreme Court.

Knowing that at age 4 the older child had to care for the younger one because they had no parents, Gill said his biggest fear is that the state would send the two children to separate homes.

“The lives of these two young boys would be completely devastated,” he said. “What is ironic under the current law is that how in the state of Florida, they would fulfill the goal of permanency for these two young children by splitting them up.”

To address the situation and others like it, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) has introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. The bill would restrict federal funds for states — including Florida — if they have laws or practices that discriminate in adoption on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

During the panel discussion intended to highlight the bill, Stark said discrimination shouldn’t take place in states that have statutes prohibiting LGBT people from adopting or where discrimination takes place without guidance from the law.

“Standards in adoption and foster care should only reflect the child’s best interest, nothing else,” Stark said. “Too many children need a loving home and we just should not close any doors.”

On March 8, Stark reintroduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act after having previously introduced the bill last year. The new legislation makes technical changes and is intended to ensure that children won’t face discrimination on the basis of their own sexual orientation and gender identity as they’re placed into homes.

The original legislation has 14 co-sponsors that are expected to carry to the new legislation, H.R. 4806. Proponents are also working on a Senate companion bill that could be introduced before lawmakers break for recess this month.

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, said passing the legislation would enable thousands of children in foster care to find families.

Chrisler said a half million children are living in foster care throughout the U.S. and 120,000 of them are available for adoption. But each year, she noted, around 25,000 children “age out” of the system without finding parents.

“And yet, while there is a shortage of qualified foster and adoptive parents for these children in need, some states categorically exclude thousands of prospective parents simply because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status,” she said.

Florida is the only state that has a statute explicitly prohibiting adoption by gays and lesbians. Other states, including Utah and Arkansas, have laws prohibiting unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.

But Chrisler said the majority of states have no laws to speak to whether LGBT people can adopt, which can leaves children in foster care “vulnerable to the individual biases of agencies, case workers and judges.”

As the Every Child Deserves a Family Act builds support, litigation to rectify the situations in certain states is proceeding. Leslie Cooper, an ACLU senior staff attorney, said in addition to the Florida case, another ACLU lawsuit is pending in Arkansas to overturn the law preventing unmarried cohabitating couples from adopting.

But Cooper said lawsuits aren’t “the way to fully resolve this issue,” noting the cost of cases and the difficulty of litigation in states without specific statutes barring LGBT adoption.

“Litigation can be extremely effective and chip away at this problem, and hopefully in some states, resolve the issue,” she said. “But they aren’t the answer and can’t solve this problem in any stretch. A more global solution like this bill is what we need.”

Two panelists during the discussion presented research showing that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on their children and many LGBT people would consider adoption if it were available to them.

Charlotte Patterson, a lesbian psychology professor at the University of Virginia who specializes in LGBT families, said 36 percent of lesbians are mothers, 16 percent of gay man are fathers and 40 to 50 percent of gays and lesbians say they would consider becoming parents.

“Children really do well in lesbian and gay parented homes as compared to demographically similar homes parented by heterosexual adults,” she said.

Patterson said growing up in LGBT households has no influence on children’s relationships with their parents, siblings and peers, nor does it affect their gender development, such as whether they want to play with traditionally male or female toys.

“The consensus here is extraordinarily clear,” she said. “Kids are well adjusted. There’s really no need to justify any kind of discrimination.”

Following the discussion, Patterson told DC Agenda studies often touted by social conservatives claiming that biological parents are better than same-sex couples at raising children are misleading.

“In general, what they’re referring to is research about kids growing up with single heterosexual parents and kids growing up with heterosexual couples,” she said. “In those studies, there are usually no openly gay or lesbian people, but the results of the studies are often used to make inferences about what kids in gay and lesbian parented families would do. That’s a mistake, of course.”

Gary Gates, a research fellow at the Williams Institute, a think-tank on sexual orientation at the University of California, Los Angeles, had similar data on the number of gays and lesbians with children and those wanting to adopt.

A common misconception, Gates said, is that it’s mostly LGBT people who are white that want to raise children, as opposed to LGBT people who belong to racial minority groups.

“All the data that we know about parenting by LGBT people and same-sex couples shows that, in fact, child-rearing is much more common in people of color,” he said. “So particularly African-Americans and Latinos and Latinas, they’re twice as likely as their white counterparts to say that they’ve raised a child.”

Regarding the full population, Gates said about one million LGBT people in the United States are raising around two million children.

The numbers are different when looking just at same-sex couples. Based on U.S. census data, Gates said about 112,000 same-sex couples throughout the United States are raising around 250,000 children.

But Gates also said the data show more same-sex couples raise children in states other than where LGBT people tend to live — often West or East Coast states with more gay friendly laws.

“What that also tells you is that same-sex couples are raising kids in states that have some of the most restrictive and challenging legal environments for gay and lesbian people raising children,” Gates said. “Many of the states with relatively high fractions of same-sex couples raising kids are very both politically and socially conservative.”

Also speaking at the panel was Nakea Paige, an 18-year-old high school student in D.C. who grew up in the foster care system. Although she’s bound this fall for Michigan State University to study biochemical engineering, Paige said her childhood was difficult because she never found a permanent home.

“I’ve been in one group home and three foster homes within three years, and having lived in three different places in three years has been a very scary experience,” she said.

Paige said one foster mother wouldn’t allow her to stay because she wasn’t receiving the full amount of compensation she thought she would receive. The foster mother had given a 30-day notice to leave, but Paige said she didn’t know about the notice until it was time for her to go.

Following the panel discussion, Paige told DC Agenda she wouldn’t have minded living with LGBT parents.

“It wouldn’t have bothered me, basically because it’s a family,” she said. “As long as I have somebody there to love me as a child, and them as a parent, then I’m fine with it.”

Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) promised state agencies would comply with Attorney General Doug Gansler’s finding two weeks ago that Maryland may legally recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

But circuit courts that handle family violence protection orders and divorce cases are not bound by O’Malley’s directive and must consider the opinion on its own merits, according to several legal experts who spoke with DC Agenda.

“It’s certainly their prerogative whether to follow that. I would like to think the courts would accept the opinion, but we don’t know,” said Barbara Babb, director of the University of Baltimore’s Center for Families, Children and the Courts.

“Legislative direction would certainly be a help to the courts, but I don’t think it’s necessary for them to do the right thing.”

Family law contains several rights and administrative advantages reserved for married couples and designed to protect families in the event of divorce. If the courts choose to recognize Gansler’s opinion, same-sex married couples would have access to family breakdown services, child support, alimony and division of marital property.

Other safety-net statutes that are currently available to same-sex families but made easier with legal marriage recognition include child-in-need and civil protection orders in the event of neglect or domestic violence.

But it gets more complex during the creation of a family. Stepchild adoption would be significantly streamlined for married same-sex couples, Babb said, but not all marriage certificates are equal.

“Although Maryland currently authorizes second-parent adoption, it would be very clear — assuming the judges follow the attorney general’s opinion,” she said.

But children who have not been formally adopted by their non-biological parent could be left in legal limbo, Babb said, because presumptive parenting rights have not traditionally been recognized in Maryland courts.

“That would be one of the really interesting questions,” she said. “If the second parent hasn’t adopted the child, [would] the court give legal guardianship or legal authority to the non-biological parent? That’s a remaining question that isn’t as clear under the family law statute.

“I would suspect that in the law in the state where the couple was married, both parents would be seen as the child’s parent. If that’s the case, then Maryland would honor that. But the courts have chosen not to follow the de facto parent doctrine, so there are certainly areas of law that the court has taken pretty strident stand on with regard to same-sex couples raising children already.”

Other areas of law where courts extend benefits to married couples, such as the establishment of trusts, wrongful death suits, presumptive claims on estates, mutual debt responsibility and spousal legal immunities, also are dependent on whether courts accept Gansler’s opinion.

A further set of rights for married couples required of third parties are automatic in theory, but may ultimately have to be decided by courts, such as extending health insurance benefits to a spouse, the right to hospital visitation and making funeral decisions.

Jana Singer, a University of Maryland law school professor, said the attorney general’s opinion was legally sound and would be treated with greater weight than an ordinary “friend of the court” brief.

She said that one case could be all that is required to clarify the issue, or it could take many cases in different areas of law.

“If they decide to be narrower, they could say within this particular statute, Maryland law extends recognition in this context,” Singer said. “It’s more likely that we’ll get a broader opinion where they say recognition applies widely to Maryland law statutes.”

Equality Maryland’s study of state law found 425 statutes that utilize marital status of familial relationship as a basis for granting a right, privilege or restriction. Such restrictions, where a spouse has fewer rights than an individual, include conflict of interest prohibitions on areas like awarding of contracts to family members, corporate directorship limitations and exemptions from first right of purchase.

Dan Friedman, Gansler’s counsel and a former University of Maryland professor of constitutional law, was unable to speak publicly on how the courts should rule, but said that Gansler’s opinion was constitutionally valid and the attorney general could not be removed from office for issuing it.

Friedman wrote to House Speaker Michael Busch this week regarding the powers of attorney general after state Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) threatened impeachment proceedings against Gansler.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland is standing in support of Gansler’s opinion saying the state should recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages due to the doctrine of comity, in which contracts are valid anywhere in the United States if they are valid in the state they were created.

“Unless and until something contrary is said, same-sex families should consider themselves married in the state of Maryland and expect to be treated as such,” said David Rocah, staff attorney for ACLU of Maryland. “But it will take some time for it to be clear what rights are extended to them. All of the things couples did to protect their families, they should continue to do, in addition to expecting to be treated like the married couples they are.”

ACLU, Lambda Legal and Equality Maryland have created an informational sheet on the issue and are publishing it online at www.aclu-md.org.

That’s the assessment of many legal observers as well as supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.

But while agreeing that Judge Vaughn Walker, 65, shouldn’t remove himself from the case solely on grounds of his sexual orientation, advocates on both sides of the gay marriage issue disagree sharply over whether Walker has shown a bias in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, who seek to overturn Proposition 8.

“Whatever Judge Walker’s sexual orientation is, it’s not a reason to take him off the case,” said American Civil Liberties attorney James Esseks, who works for the ACLU’s LGBT rights project.

“Judge Walker’s sexual orientation … doesn’t make him unable to decide the issues before him impartially,” Esseks said in an ACLU blog. “What does matter is how he conducts himself as a judge, and his ability to put his own views and background aside and focus on the law and the constitution.”

Walker serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Northern California, where two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit last year challenging the constitutionality of the ballot proposition. California voters approved the ballot measure in November 2008, which overturned a decision by the state’s highest court legalizing same-sex marriage.

Lawyers and advocates defending Proposition 8 have accused Vaughn of being biased against the measure during a 12-day trial in January, which recessed before news surfaced in the San Francisco Chronicle that Vaughn is gay.

Although some Proposition 8 backers associated with religious groups called for Walker’s removal from the case because of his sexual orientation, most conservative activists defending the ballot measure have said the judge should instead step down because of the alleged bias he has shown.

“I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case,” said Ed Whelan, a conservative commentator, in a National Review essay.

But Whelan added, “From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.”

Whelan pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Walker’s initial plans to allow the Prop 8 trial to be broadcast over the Internet. He also noted that an appeals court consisting mostly of Clinton appointees overturned, in part, a procedural decision by Walker to allow the plaintiffs to obtain internal communications, including e-mail, from organizers of the Prop 8 election campaign.

LGBT activists backing the plaintiffs’ case against Prop 8 have disputed allegations that Walker is biased, saying the ballot measure’s defenders are angry at the judge because of his rulings against them on a number of legal issues. Supporters of the plaintiffs, including their attorneys, say Walker’s rulings during the trial were based on legal principals and decisions of past cases, not on bias.

Walker is currently reviewing the evidence presented by a series of witnesses during the trial and is expected to resume the case to hear closing arguments in March.

“Every judge has a sexual orientation,” said American University law professor Nancy Polikoff, in commenting on critics who say Walker should step down from the case because he’s gay.

“If a judge were straight, would a gay plaintiff have a ground to recuse the judge because he was straight? No, that’s ridiculous,” she said. “And the same thing is true with any assertion that being gay makes him unable to hear the case. It’s not evidence of having any kind of prejudice that would stop a judge from being able to decide a case on the law.”

Walker was first nominated for his judicial position by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, but Democrats in Congress initially blocked the nomination on grounds that Walker’s record as a lawyer in private practice showed insensitivity toward civil rights, including gay rights.

President George H.W. Bush renewed Walker’s nomination in 1989, and the Senate later approved it after receiving assurances that he would rule impartially and fairly.

In a Feb. 9 editorial, the San Francisco Chronicle said Walker’s record of more than 20 years on the bench has shown he has fulfilled his promise.

“Walker did not think his private life was relevant to his ability to preside with fairness in the Prop 8 trial,” says the editorial. “There is nothing in his long and laudable career to suggest otherwise.”

Burns claimed that he doesn’t support discrimination, but was tired of same-sex marriage supporters raising the Loving v. Virginia ruling that struck down interracial marriage bans. He said the current ban on same-sex marriage is not the same.

“It is not discriminatory,” he said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 31 in Annapolis. “I cannot hide my color. I don’t want to. I’m proud to be who I am. But those who are of a different sexual orientation could.”

His exchange with fellow Democratic committee members grew testy as they quoted NAACP Chair Julian Bond and U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) as saying the LGBT and black civil rights struggles were shared. Burns dismissed the comments, saying he didn’t recognize their leadership.

Burns said the state faces a crisis with the neighboring District of Columbia poised to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses, a development that could put Maryland’s same-sex marriage ban at risk.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler has given no timeframe for when he will release a long-expected opinion on the issue of recognizing same-sex marriage licenses issued in D.C. and elsewhere, but some sources speculated that he will wait until the legislative session ends in April to take that step. Burns said he feared Gansler’s opinion could legislate same-sex marriage “through the back door.”

“Our back door is wide open,” Burns said. “Our law does not speak to marriages performed in other jurisdictions.”

Committee member Michael Smigiel Sr. (R-Caroline, Cecil, Kent and Queen Anne’s counties) added that he believes Gansler has a political agenda and would act only after the current session had ended.

Gansler’s spokesperson denied the claim this week, saying the attorney general was still investigating the issue.

Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, testified in support of Burns’ bill during the hearing, saying the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages would undermine the right of the General Assembly and the people of Maryland to decide the issue.

“The legalization of same-sex marriage in a small number of other states, and the prospect of its legalization in our neighboring jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, provides no legitimate legal cause for granting recognition in Maryland to those marriages,” Russell said. “House Bill 90 provides an added measure of assurance to the people of Maryland that the decisions of out-of-state courts or legislatures cannot, and should not, provide grounds for usurping the legitimate democratic process in our state for deciding this issue.”

She added that the Catholic Church supports the state’s current marriage definition in recognition that “only a man and a woman are capable of bringing children, our society’s next generation, into the world” and that voters have repeatedly agreed, even in liberal states.

Committee Chair Joseph Vallario Jr. (D-Calvert and Prince George’s counties) asked if gay Marylanders could meet, go to D.C., conduct a “drive through” wedding, return to Maryland and expect that marriage to be recognized “without even leaving their car.”

Lawyers for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union testified that Maryland’s 1973 law defining marriage as one man and one woman would not be undermined if the attorney general upheld the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates recognition of other states’ marriage licenses.

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County) testified against the bill, citing her own California-issued marriage certificate to her spouse Deborah.

“This bill is about me, and it’s about my family, and it’s about thousands of families across the state,” Mizeur said. “In Pasadena, Calif. — 3,000 miles from here — we’re treated as a married couple. In Pasadena, Md. — less than 30 minutes from here — we’re not. In Cambridge, Mass., our marriage would protect us were life to deal us a bad hand. In Cambridge, Md., we’re two unrelated women with some very expensive legal documents and a lot of uncertainty.”

Mizeur said Maryland’s current legal recognition of same-sex couples grants her 12 statutory rights of the 425 rights bestowed upon married couples.

Mizeur said she didn’t know how Gansler would decide the issue, but said that Maryland has a long tradition of upholding the full faith and credit clause and Maryland would eventually change its law, anyway.

“But either way, this bill is wrong,” she said. “It’s a step backwards for a state that presses forward.”

The hearing drew a standing-room-only crowd of mostly same-sex marriage supporters, including high school students, who frequently reacted to Burns’ colorful explanations of why LGBT bans were not discrimination.

Burns’ bill is not believed to have the necessary votes to make it out of the House Judiciary Committee. However, the as-yet-unscheduled vote will not be an indicator of support for legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland.

Mizeur told DC Agenda that she doubts a marriage equality bill would be introduced in the state House this year. While confident there are enough votes in the House Judiciary Committee to pass such a bill, Mizeur said same-sex marriage supporters are still shy of their goal in the companion Senate committee.

“We have supporters [in the House] who we don’t want to put at risk when there isn’t the support in the Senate,” she told DC Agenda, alluding to possible electoral fallout.

Equality Maryland is holding its annual lobby day Feb. 8.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a gay lawmaker, told DC Agenda last week he’s planning to push for inclusion of his legislation as a component of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act authorization bill this year or early next year.

“I think that we will look to get it included in the ESEA reauthorization, which is the main education bill,” he said. “I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to include some protections for gay and lesbian students in the bill.”

A member of the House Education & Labor Committee, Polis said the panel could take up discussion on his legislation this year when hearings begin on the ESEA reauthorization.

Polis introduced last week standalone legislation known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act, or H.R. 4530. The bill would bar discrimination against LGBT students in elementary and secondary schools. Additionally, the legislation would bar discrimination against students for associating with an LGBT person.

The new measure is based on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in education programs or activities receiving federal funds.

Polis said the legislation would give schools across the country tools to fight against discrimination that includes “everything from exclusion from prom, to banning clubs, to lack of actions addressing bullying situations.”

“Gays and lesbians across the country face discrimination and frequently institutionalized discrimination in many school districts, and giving them a federal remedy, just as girls do and minorities, will help address this,” he said.

Even though the bill was recently introduced, it has support among lawmakers. The legislation had 60 original co-sponsors, including gay Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Civil rights and education organizations also are supporting the bill, including the Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of School Psychologists and National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Also supporting the legislation is the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. Shawn Gaylord, director of public policy, said his organization has been working closely with Polis’ office in developing the legislation and trying to push it through Congress.

“Now that it’s been introduced, we plan to work alongside the office to help attract additional co-sponsors,” he said. “We have a lobbying day coming up later in the spring. It’s possible that we’ll be lobbying on this bill along with other legislation that we’re interested in.”

Gaylord said the legislation is necessary because discrimination against LGBT students in schools “is pervasive.”

The National Climate School Survey that GLSEN releases every two years, Gaylord said, shows that nearly nine out of 10 LGBT students say they’ve experienced harassment at school because of their sexual orientation.

“And we know that almost a third of students missed a day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe, which is more than five times higher than a national sample of all students feelings of not feeling safe at school,” he said.

Gaylord said he’s “optimistic” about the passage of the Student Non-Discrimination Act because the bill already enjoys support among lawmakers.

“We know from our discussion on the Hill that this is an issue that legislators care about, and so we’re going to be optimistic that we can continue to build support for it, and I think it can make it all the way through,” he said.

The White House also expressed support for the legislation in response to a query from DC Agenda.

“The president believes that every child should learn in a safe and secure school environment,” said Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson.

Drew Hammill, spokesperson for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said the speaker’s office is “reviewing the legislation.”

(DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)

A gay U.S. House member on Wednesday introduced legislation that would provide added protection for LGBT students in schools throughout the country.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), is known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act. The legislation would provide remedies for actual or perceived discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in both elementary and secondary schools.

Polis’ bill, H.R. 4530, is based on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in education programs or activities receiving federal funds. The new legislation has 60 original co-sponsors, according to a statement from Polis’ office.

“Every day innocent students fall victim to relentless harassment and discrimination from teachers, staff and fellow students based on their sexual orientation,” Polis said in the statement. “These actions not only hurt out students but, left unchecked, can also lead to life-threatening violence.”

Polis’ introduction of the legislation is consistent with his past work in public schools in his home state of Colorado. The lawmaker is a former chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education and has founded and served as the superintendent of charter schools serving at-risk student populations, according to a statement from his office.

ACLU has endorsed the bill. In a statement Wednesday, Christopher Anders, ACLU’s senior legislative counsel, called the legislation “long overdue.”

“Many LGBT students face harassment, discrimination and sometimes violence in our schools,” he said. “Our public schools should not be places of exclusion, but places where students feel safe and free from discrimination. The Student Non-Discrimination Act will go a long way toward protecting LGBT students and will help promote a better learning environment.”

Check back on DC Agenda’s website later for a more detailed look at the legislation. Download a copy of the Student Non-Discrimination Act here.

Miller’s former partner, Janet Jenkins, came forward Monday with a plea to help find her 7-year-old daughter, Isabella, after Miller failed to return her by a Jan. 1 deadline set by Rutland Family Court in Vermont.

“I am so worried about Isabella. I do not know where she is or whether she is OK,” Jenkins said in a statement.

Jenkins said she and Miller were involved throughout Isabella’s conception, birth and early years. But Miller, who claimed she was no longer a lesbian and became an “ex-gay” advocate after the couple separated, denied this during court proceedings to dissolve their civil union and arrange custody of Isabella.

“My goal has never been to separate Isabella from Lisa,” Jenkins said. “I just want Isabella to know and love both of her parents. I just want to be with her, like any parent.”

Her lawyers in Vermont, including Sarah Star and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said they were disappointed the transfer of custody did not occur as ordered.

“We’ve petitioned the court to issue a bench warrant because of Lisa’s continued refusal to comply with the custody order,” Jennifer Levi, a GLAD senior attorney, told DC Agenda. “The Rutland Family Court has been very responsive to this contempt [of court] concern that Janet has raised and could order pretty quickly.”

Judge William Cohen, who has handled the case from the beginning, was to rule on the bench warrant. No decision was announced before Agenda deadline.

Liberty Council, which represents Miller, filed an appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court, but it was not known if that appeal would continue if Miller’s whereabouts continued to be unknown.

Miller’s lawyers in Virginia, including Liberty University Dean of Law Mathew Staver, did not return the Agenda’s calls or e-mails this week.

Miller previously told Newsweek: “I do not feel safe leaving my daughter with [Jenkins], and I believe I have a God-given and constitutional right to raise my child as I see fit. There is a homosexual agenda at work here, and Isabella is a pawn in their game.”

The court had awarded Jenkins full custody last year after Miller failed to comply with an earlier custody order giving Jenkins access to their daughter.

Police in Virginia’s Fairfax County this week declined Jenkins’ requests to help find Isabella. Missing persons police reports were filed in Fairfax and Bedford counties, where Isabella lived and went to school.

The Virginia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Jenkins in that state’s Supreme Court case over jurisdiction of the Vermont court orders, said the issue has been settled and that Virginia law enforcement should respect the Rutland Family Court’s custody ruling.

Rebecca Glenberg, the ACLU Virginia branch’s legal director, said Miller had shown herself to have no respect for the rule of law and the matter was no longer about non-biological parenting.

Lambda Legal, which also has supported Jenkins throughout the case, said their main concern is the safety of Isabella.

“Our client has done everything she can as a loving parent to work within the system to protect her child,” said Greg Nevins, a Lambda Legal senior attorney. “Lisa Miller has repeatedly defied court orders and her behavior has been outrageous and harmful.”

Conservative and “ex-gay” groups rallied to defend Miller after the case became public in 2004, launching the Protect Isabella Coalition. Concerned Women of America and the National Organization for Marriage have, in the past, criticized the Vermont judge.

But this week, Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage president, said it was a tragedy all around and didn’t blame either party.

“I have sympathy for the pre-eminent claims of natural parents versus legal parents, when the natural mother is a fit parent (which nobody has denied in this case). But we have to be a nation ruled by laws, even when those laws may be unjust,” Gallagher said in an e-mail to the Catholic News Agency.