The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) today released their framework for immigration reform. One Nation: Principles on Immigration Reform and Our Commitment to the American Dream addresses a number of key principles and constituencies. Section 2 explicitly covers bi-national, same-sex couples, stating that the CHC will:

Protec[t] the unity and sanctity of the family, including the families of bi-national, same-sex couples, by reducing the family backlogs and keeping spouses, parents, and children together.

CHC has made a crucial commitment to ending discrimination against bi-national, same-sex couples who currently face an untenable immigration situation because the federal government fails to fully recognize their families. “One Nation” and legislation in Congress known as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) serve as meaningful steps toward keeping these families together. UAFA allows same-sex “permanent partners” to be united legally through the US immigration process, making them eligible for green cards and immigrant visas. To protect against abuse, UAFA imposes the same penalties for immigration fraud as those currently imposed on married heterosexual couples – and in some cases sets the bar higher for same-sex couples.

PFAW enthusiastically supports the “One Nation” commitment to LGBT equality.

To no one's surprise, the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Mitt Romney. The endorsement is as pitiful as it is predictable.

Romney supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying. Romney opposed the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell. He signed the National Organization for Marriage's pledge to defend DOMA, put Washington DC's marriage equality law up to a popular vote, and establish a presidential commission to "investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters." Romney has promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the two major gay rights decisions of the past 20 years. And his main advisor on judicial nominations is the infamous Robert Bork, who has compared gay rights to child molestation.

But it's not just LGBT people who should be worried about the prospect of a Romney Court.

The Supreme Court justices Romney promises to nominate would ensure that our nation's highest court continues to routinely bend the law and twist logic in order to favor corporate interests. They would block environmental laws that restrain large corporations from poisoning our air and water. They would severely weaken and in some cases eliminate consumers' right to sue manufacturers of dangerous products. They would make it increasingly difficult for victims of illegal employment discrimination to have their day in court. And, of course, they would continue to game our nation's electoral system to make sure that corporate interests drown out the speech of ordinary Americans, while upholding obstacles designed to prevent those same ordinary Americans from being able to exercise their right to vote.

That's an agenda that's devastating for all Americans, not just gays and lesbians.

On May 22, a coalition led by the American Jewish Committee and the Religious Freedom Project/First Amendment Center released Harassment, Bullying, and Free Expression: Guidelines for Free and Safe Public Schools. While we welcome the opportunity to keep the anti-bullying conversation going, this particular entrée has a problem.

It concludes:

Prevention of harassment and bullying is essential for healthy, effective public schools.

Agreed.

But that effort must not lead to excessive limitations on the constitutional right of students to freedom of expression.

Agreed.

School officials have an obligation to seek the right balance between upholding free speech and maintain a safe learning environment for all students.

Agreed.

So what’s the problem?

With a clear primacy for speech rights, it tilts the balance too far in one direction.

To understand why let’s start with PFAW’s approach to the issue.

Following the increased media attention paid to bullying-related suicides in 2010, PFAW took a strong stand on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students and those who are perceived to be LGBT.

We supported the Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA) and comprehensive anti-bullying policies that enumerate specific categories of victims, including students targeted based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as SSIA’s provisions for data collection, public education, and grievance procedures.

We supported the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), which protects students from school-based sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, much like Title IX does for gender discrimination, and much like other areas of law do for various protected classes. SNDA recognizes bullying and harassment as discrimination, and it provides both for remedies against discrimination and incentives for schools to prevent it from happening in the first place.

We didn’t support either at the expense of the Frist Amendment or freedom of speech.

SSIA states:

Nothing in this part shall be construed to alter legal standards regarding, or affect the rights (including remedies and procedures) available to individuals under, other Federal laws that establish protections for freedom of speech or expression.

SNDA states:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter legal standards regarding, or affect the rights available to individuals or groups under, other Federal laws that establish protections for freedom of speech and expression, such as legal standards and rights available to religious and other student groups under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and the Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.).

Yet the May 22 guidelines say nothing of either bill, very little about the anti-bullying laws and policies already in place in 49 states and DC, and very little about the Department of Education’s October 2010 guidance. In other words, they take anti-bullying policies out of the anti-bullying context altogether and place them in the free speech context.

As the Anti-Defamation League put it in letters to Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez:

While we agree that students’ free speech and religious expression rights are important, we strongly disagree with the guidelines’ direct implication that such rights have been given short shrift in current federal and state law and policy and need greater protection.

We completely agree that the free speech rights of students should be defended.

We have every interest in fostering learning environments safe not only for free speech but also for freedom from bullying and harassment.

We hope that we can unite around a common goal of stopping abhorrent behavior that prevents victimized students from accessing a quality education. What should be havens for learning have instead become, for LGBT students and those who are perceived to be LGBT, sites of abject torment. All of our children deserve far better than that.

Click here for PFAW’s comments on bullying ahead of the new school year.

As a freshman in high school I approached my principal to request a space to perform one of the five mandatory Muslim prayers that happened to start and end during school hours. I had been praying for years in school and thought nothing of it, until she said no.  As unfortunate as her response was, I was lucky for two reasons. The first was that there were laws in place that protected me from facing this type of discrimination, and I was eventually allowed to pray in school thanks to the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. The second reason is that experience was transformative and opened my eyes not only to the struggles of other Muslim Americans, but to all groups who face discrimination. As lucky as I was with my specific situation, I soon realized that not every group had legal recourse in situations arising from discrimination.

Yesterday, over nine years after my high school experience, I went to the office of US Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) to lobby for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). I, along with two other constituents from the Lone Star State, met with a staffer to discuss our desire for the senator to support this legislation that would protect the millions of Americans who identify as LGBTQ. We explained that current legislation does not extend to LGBTQ individuals in the workforce who face discrimination and action must be taken to protect the rights of these millions of Americans. We each told her why this issue matters to us individually – I told her about my experience seeking time to pray in high school. She explained a number of factors that might keep the senator from supporting ENDA, including states’ rights concerns and the timing around the election. She also reminded us how long the process has been for previous groups trying to secure equal rights in America.

But why does this group of Americans needs to wait any longer to enjoy equal rights? We need our senators and representatives to be leaders. The rights of minority groups may not always be popular with the majority, but leadership on a federal level is required to protect those rights, just as it was and remains necessary with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LGBTQ individuals should be able to walk into their places of employment or prospective employment and not fear that who they are is going to result in discrimination – and they should be able to do so today. I call on Sen. John Cornyn and every other member of Congress to get one small step closer to ending discrimination by passing ENDA. It’s the American thing to do.