Poll shows coming out wouldn't hurt most politicians 72 percent of Americans would vote for gay candidate if they agree on issues

By DYANA BAGBY

A poll released Monday by the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute shows that a majority of Americans would continue to vote for a politician who shares their policy views even if they later found out he or she was gay.


Robin Brand of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund said a recent poll offers an 'extremely positive' message about voters' willingness to support gay elected officials.
Conducted by Zogby International, the Victory Poll surveyed 1,007 people this spring and found that 72 percent of Americans do not believe a politician's sexual orientation is important as long as the candidate has a record of "getting things done for everyone in the community," according to a press release.
These numbers show a decrease in concern about candidates' sexual orientation over the last two decades when compared with poll numbers quoted by openly gay U.S. Sen. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at a Utah Stonewall Democrats fundraiser April 21.
Frank, who came out as gay in 1987 when he was 47, had already served in Congress for three terms. He said a poll conducted at the time that asked if voters "were disappointed that he was gay" showed 42 percent thought his open homosexuality would hinder him and 21 percent said they would stop voting for him, according to an April 22 article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Robin Brand, senior vice president for politics and strategy for the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said Monday she was unfamiliar with Frank's comments, but noted that there is a difference when asking solely about politicians' sexual orientation versus asking about their sexual orientation in conjunction with their political views.
"If you only ask about their sexual orientation, it's different than putting this in context of issues they are fighting for," Brand said. "If you ask that question in a vacuum, answers will be different."
The Leadership Institute, which works to ensure gay inclusion in the electoral process and educate Americans about the contributions of gay elected officials, is a separate non-profit group affiliated with the Victory Fund, which supports openly gay candidates for public office.
Times were also different when Frank came out and people's attitudes toward lesbian and gay politicians are changing, Brand added. And the fact that Frank, who has served in Congress since 1981, continues to be reelected is proof his sexual orientation was not a major factor, she said.
Other findings of the Victory Fund poll:
• 60 percent of Republicans agree that sexual orientation is not important if a gay candidate has a strong record of getting things done for everyone;
• 80 percent of independent voters would "definitely" or "probably" still vote for an elected leader who shares his or her views if the official came out as gay or lesbian; as would 80 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans; and
• 72 percent of voters in small cities and 70 percent of voters in rural areas say they would "definitely" or "probably" still vote for an elected leader who shares his or her views if the official came out as gay or lesbian.
"This poll is extremely positive," Brand said. "It's not surprising, although the numbers were higher than I expected. But these are the kinds of results we are seeing on Election Day — our candidates are well-qualified and working on issues important to voters in their districts."

© 2006 A Unite Media Publication

Candidates Can Down Load Coming OUT Kit Here

The Coming Out Toolkit from The Victory Fund also includes both qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative research conducted by Lake Associates and quantitative research conducted by Zogby America, evaluates the political climate for LGBT officials and offers strategies and information for those ready to serve as openly LGBT leaders.
The Zogby results can be found here

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle reached an agreement on an anti-bullying bill set to be debated today.
BY EVAN S. BENN ebenn@MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE - A controversial anti-bullying bill has been changed to appease opponents who want school districts to include protections for gay students.
State Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, agreed to allow school districts to list categories of frequently targeted bullying victims when the districts draft their policies.
The move comes after pressure from gay-rights groups such as Equality Florida and from state Rep. Ken Gottlieb, a Miramar Democrat, who argued that categories are necessary to protect all victims and punish bullies.
The bill, which House members will vote on today, would require all school districts to create an anti-bullying policy that includes protections for all students.
School districts that fail to create bullying rules would risk losing state money.
''This is a much more comprehensive plan than anyone has had before,'' Bogdanoff said. ``Everyone has kind of put their arms around it.''

`NOT GOING BACKWARD'
Gottlieb has tried for years to pass an anti-bullying bill that banned harassment based on sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity and other factors frequently targeted by bullies. His efforts were struck down by lawmakers hesitant to pass a bill with gay-rights protections.
Bogdanoff's amended bill does not suggest which categories to list, but it allows districts to include categories if they want.
Districts like Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach will be able to keep their current bullying policies with some minor changes.
The bill also outlines ways for students and teachers to report bullying anonymously, and it prohibits using computers or other technology to harass students.
''I'm happy that we're not going backward anymore,'' Gottlieb said. ``We've finally got to the point where people are realizing that bullying is a major problem in our schools.''
A Senate version, sponsored by Carey Baker, a Eustis Republican, passed the Criminal Justice committee on Tuesday.
Sen. Ron Klein, a Delray Beach Democrat, tacked on an amendment that would give school districts a little extra time to write their new bullying policies. The policies would have to be in place by Dec. 1, not Sept. 1. School district representatives said the earlier date would not have given them enough time to prepare solid policies.

HONORS DEAD TEEN
The bill is called the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act, named after a Cape Coral teen who hanged himself last June after enduring years of bullying.
''We're preserving the strongest anti-bullying policies in the state, and those can be used as guidelines for other schools throughout the state,'' said Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida. ``This is a step in the right direction for all students in Florida.''


posted at miamihearld.com

Denial Of Marriage amendment picks up four Senate votes over '04
By James Downing
Posted @ The Hill

while this article is posted at the HILL
the links have been provided by POLITALK
please us them to contact the players and organizations involved in this Denial Of Marriage Amendment



A majority of the Senate this year will support the Federal


Marriage Amendment, an outcome that both the left and the right say will energizetheir respective bases in November.In the summer of 2004, the effort to define marriage as between a man and awoman failed in the Senate, on a 48-50 vote. Now that Republicans have increased their majority, the amendment has collected more support.If all senators vote the way they did in 2004 and the freshmen vote asexpected, the bill will attract 52 votes - well short of the 67 needed toamend the Constitution.First-term Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), John Thune(R-S.D.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have all co-sponsored the amendment.These four legislators replaced Democrats who voted against the amendment in2004.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who won the seat vacated by Sen. John Edwards(D-N.C.), has also co-sponsored the new legislation. Sen. John Kerry(D-Mass.) and Edwards, who opted not to return from the campaign trail tovote on the amendment, are opposed to it.Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does not support the amendment. He won the seatof retired Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), who voted for the 2004 amendment.Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) also plans to vote against the measure. Hereplaced Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), one of six Republicans whovoted against it in 2004."I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment," Salazar said in a statement."I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but theregulation of marriage has always been, and should remain, the jurisdictionof the states. We should not enshrine discrimination against any group inour Constitution."The amendment should come before the House in late July. In 2004 the Houserejected it on a 227-186 vote, far short of the two-thirds necessary.Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said he believes that52 senators will vote for the amendment. He added that getting a majority ofthe Senate will show that "momentum is growing" for defining marriage inheterosexual terms."Washington is still catching up to what is happening outside the Beltway,"Daniels said, citing a string of victories for his side at the state level.The 48-50 vote in 2004 was not technically on the amendment itself.Instead, it was on a GOP motion to invoke cloture following a Democratic-ledfilibuster.Jim Backlin, vice president of legislative affairs at the ChristianCoalition, speculated that some Democrats up for reelection in red statesmay reject the filibuster this year, but others said such a change inposition is unlikely.Christopher Labonte, legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, saidthat Republicans are still a long way off from getting the 60 votes neededto invoke cloture.Backlin said a vote would charge the conservative base, which now seesmarriage as its most important issue. Right-wing groups have expressed theirfrustration that the Senate did not vote on more socially conservative billslast year.Many gay-rights advocates share Salazar's view of the amendment as anattempt to codify discrimination in the Constitution."The Constitution was never amended to take away rights from a group ofAmericans," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry.Wolfson called the amendment a ploy for short-term political gain; he saidRepublicans would use the amendment as a distraction and an attack point insome races this fall. He likened the marriage amendment to the Terri Schiavocase, adding that it would drive some voters away from the GOP.Labonte said that a vote could drive more Democrats to the polls this fall,but he was quick to add that Republicans like Sen. John McCain(Ariz.) were also on his side. In addition to McCain and Campbell, the otherRepublicans who voted no in 2004 are Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), SusanCollins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and John Sununu (N.H.).Democrats who voted yes were Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson(Neb.) and former Sen. Zell Miller (Ga.).A vote this year could help the Republican effort to turn out its base, but it will also provide fresh fodder for Steve Laffey, a conservative who ischallenging Chafee in the Sept. 12 GOP primary. Chafee is also expected toattract criticism from the right when the Senate votes on the estate tax.--

L egislation introduced in the U.S House of Representatives last week would amend the Social Security Act to afford same-sex couples the same benefits, responsibilities, and obligations as others who pay into Social Security. The Equal Access to Social Security Act, H.R. 5152, would add the term "permanent partner" to the Social Security Act in addition to the terms "husband" and "wife," which are already present in the legal code.
"Same-sex couples are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that other taxpayers are entitled to," said Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who authored the bill. "The Equal Access to Social Security Act addresses this inequity. Ultimately, the only way same-sex couples will be treated equally is when they are allowed to marry—but until that can be a reality for the millions of same-sex couples in this country, we should act to make federal law fair to all."
Nadler's bill does not address same-sex marriage but does provide gay and lesbian couples with some of the benefits married couples enjoy under the Social Security system. Under H.R. 5152, children of same-sex couples would be able to collect survivor benefits in the event of a parent's death, just as children of federally recognized married couples may do.
"I've heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don't want to discriminate against the LGBT community," Nadler said. "If they truly don't want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it. Same-sex couples pay the same taxes as married couples, and they deserve the same Social Security benefits as everyone else."
Recognizing that the elderly often face difficulty maintaining their standard of living after a partner dies, the bill would also entitle elderly same-sex couples to the survivor benefits offered by Social Security to heterosexual widows and widowers.
Seventeen members of Congress have cosponsored Nadler's resolution: representatives Tammy Baldwin, Howard Berman, John Conyers, Joseph Crowley, Rahm Emanuel, Sam Farr, Barney Frank, Raúl Grijalva, Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Maloney, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Henry Waxman, and Lynn Woolsey.

(The Advocate)

From the Los Angeles Times




Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.




Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all. The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country." "The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment."What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal. Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians."Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality "a natural part of God's created order."Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.In California, however, the university may have a strong defense in court. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Berkeley was justified in denying subsidies to the Boy Scouts because of that group's exclusionary policies. Eddie L. Washington, the lawyer representing Cal State, argues the same standard should apply to the university."We're certainly not going to fund discrimination," Washington said.As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans "free exercise" of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.In a 2004 case, for instance, an AT&T Broadband employee won the right to express his religious convictions by refusing to sign a pledge to "respect and value the differences among us." As long as the employee wasn't harassing co-workers, the company had to make accommodations for his faith, a federal judge in Colorado ruled.That same year, however, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that Hewlett-Packard Co. was justified in firing an employee who posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality on his cubicle. The verses, clearly visible from the hall, harassed gay employees and made it difficult for the company to meet its goal of attracting a diverse workforce, the judge ruled.In the public schools, an Ohio middle school student last year won the right to wear a T-shirt that proclaimed: "Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!" But a teen-ager in Kentucky lost in federal court when he tried to exempt himself from a school program on gay tolerance on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.In their lawsuit against Georgia Tech, Malhotra and her co-plaintiff, a devout Jewish student named Orit Sklar, request unspecified damages. But they say their main goal is to force the university to be more tolerant of religious viewpoints. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit law firm that focuses on religious liberty cases.Malhotra said she had been reprimanded by college deans several times in the last few years for expressing conservative religious and political views. When she protested a campus production of "The Vagina Monologues" with a display condemning feminism, the administration asked her to paint over part of it. She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality.""If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.The student activist who received the letter, Felix Hu, described it as "rude, unfair, presumptuous" — and disturbing enough that Pride Alliance forwarded it to a college administrator. Soon after, Malhotra said, she was called in to a dean's office. Students can be expelled for intolerant speech, but she said she was only reprimanded.Still, she said, the incident has left her afraid to speak freely. She's even reluctant to aggressively advertise the campus lectures she arranges on living by the Bible. "Whenever I've spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I'm told is 'You're being intolerant, you're being negative, you're creating a hostile campus environment,' " Malhotra said.A Georgia Tech spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuit or on Malhotra's disciplinary record, but she said the university encouraged students to debate freely, "as long as they're not promoting violence or harassing anyone."The open question is what constitutes harassment, what's a sincere expression of faith — and what to do when they overlap."There really is confusion out there," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which is affiliated with Vanderbilt University. "Finding common ground sounds good. But the reality is, a lot of people on all sides have a stake in the fight."


Posted at the LA Times

Bill requires gays' history to be taught

STATE SENATOR WANTS CALIFORNIA TO LEAD WAY
By Aaron C. Davis
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau



SACRAMENTO - The state Senate will consider a bill that would require California schools to teach students about the contributions gay people have made to society -- an effort that supporters say is an attempt to battle discrimination and opponents say is designed to use the classroom to get children to embrace homosexuality.
The bill, which was passed by a Senate committee Tuesday, would require schools to buy textbooks ``accurately'' portraying ``the sexual diversity of our society.'' More controversially, it could require that students hear history lessons on ``the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.''
Though it's a California bill, it could have far-reaching implications, not only by setting a precedent but also because California is the nation's largest textbook buyer and as such often sets the standards for publishers who sell nationwide.
The bill could also bring sex wars roaring back into state politics in an election year in which gay-rights advocates had already purposefully relegated same-sex marriage to the legislative back burner, and as signature-gathering efforts for propositions rolling back gay rights had begun to slow.
``We're totally opposed to inserting sexual orientation into textbooks in our schools. This is more than just accepting it, it's forcing our kids to embrace it, almost celebrate it,'' said Karen England, executive director of the public-policy group Capital Resource Institute, which believes teaching about sexual orientation should be left up to parents.
``This is not about discrimination. California is one of the most friendly gay, lesbian and transgender states in the nation,'' England said. ``This is a bold and out-front attempt to do what I think has always been the goal of a small but very loud group.''
The bill's author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, rejects the criticism. ``We've been working since 1995 to try to improve the climate in schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids, as well as those kids who are just thought to be gay, because there is an enormous amount of harassment and discrimination at stake,'' she said.
As for the need to teach gay history, Kuehl points to research she says concludes that gay students might do better in school and be less at risk for suicide, truancy or drug and alcohol abuse if they saw their own lives more accurately reflected in school textbooks and if the issue were more openly discussed in classrooms.
``Teaching materials mostly contain negative or adverse views of us, and that's when they mention us at all,'' said Kuehl, one of the Legislature's six openly gay lawmakers. A Senate analysis of her bill noted that one of the few times homosexuality is routinely discussed in classrooms is in relationship to pathology. ``In textbooks, it's as if there's no gay people in California at all, so forget about it,'' she said.
The bill expands on the existing state education code that already requires inclusion in the curriculum of the historical role and contributions of members of ethnic and cultural groups.
But central to the coming legislative floor debates will no doubt be questions about how gay issues might be woven into American history. The answer is still up for debate -- as is which historical figures might be outed in the process, and how textbook authors would decide their relevance.
``We're not suddenly going to say, `So and so was gay' when they never said that,'' Kuehl cautioned. ``But if you're teaching Langston Hughes poetry, you get a twofer because he was admittedly gay and he was black. So you could say he was a gay, black poet and talk about that.''
Aejaie Sellers, executive director of the Billy DeFrank LGBT Center in Santa Clara, said she thinks required gay-history lessons for students are a fantastic idea.
``Gays throughout history should be recognized. This is not something new, this goes back to the 18th and 17th and 16th century,'' said Sellers. ``The decriminalization of history could go back hundreds of years. There are certainly people who have made positive contributions to American history but all we ever hear is the tragic stuff.''
``Who knows,'' Sellers asked, ``that the author of `America the Beautiful,' Katharine Lee Bates, was gay?''
England says she doesn't really care, because a person's contribution to history doesn't hinge on sexual orientation.
``I don't care if, or who, whatever historical figure they want to say is gay,'' England said. ``If we're discussing history, who someone had sex with is inappropriate. I don't think most Californians want history and social sciences taught through the lens of who in history slept with whom.''
Sellers said she thinks the need for gay history and other lessons may vary from school to school.
``There are some schools that have gay-straight alliances where students feel heard and where teachers believe gender identity is not optional, that you're born with it. And it seems teachers there support and reflect that in their teaching. There are other schools where that's not the case.''
Whether the bill becomes law and if gay-history lessons become mandatory might quickly become Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's call.
The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 3-1; voting in favor were Sens. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove; Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk; and Kuehl. Voting against it was Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin.
The bill, SB 1437, requires only a majority vote in the Assembly and Senate, meaning that it could pass even if lawmakers -- Republican and Democrat -- voted the same way they did for last fall's gay-marriage bill. That bill passed, but the governor vetoed it.
Contact Aaron C. Davis at acdavis@mercurynews.com or (916) 325-4315.

By Dan Balz

Washington Post Staff Writer


Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a prospective 2008 presidential candidate, said yesterday that he thinks bans on same-sex marriages have no place in the nation's laws.
Feingold said in an interview that he was motivated to state his position on one of the most divisive social issues in the country after being asked at a town hall meeting Sunday about a pending amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.
Feingold called the amendment "a mean-spirited attempt" to single out gay men and lesbians for discrimination and said he would vote against it. But he went further, announcing that he favors legalizing same-sex marriages.
That puts him at odds with many prominent Democratic politicians who support gay rights but not same-sex marriage. Should Feingold decide to run for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, his position would put him to the left of many likely rivals.
"Obviously, it's a very difficult issue and evokes a lot of emotions," Feingold said in a telephone interview yesterday. "I think it's something ultimately that people throughout the country will accept, but it's not an easy issue." He accused the Bush White House and the Republican Party of using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue "to hurt Democrats who are against discrimination."
The Wisconsin senator said he is prepared to work with supporters of same-sex marriage to ensure that it is legal in the future.
"Further steps would be appropriate," he said, noting that his first priorities are to defeat the proposed Wisconsin amendment as well as a federal constitutional amendment that is expected to come to a vote in the Senate later this spring.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
story on line....

Bullying bills battle it out for passage
Two bills aim to protect kids from bullying, but sexual orientation language in one may have doomed its chances.

BY EVAN S. BENN
ebenn@MiamiHerald.com

On the Web Rep. Ken Gottlieb's bill

On the Web Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff's bill



The teenage students walk into the Capitol with body piercings and spiked hair.




They stand in front of legislators and talk about being afraid when the school bell rings and about being the butt of vicious jokes in homeroom.
Some are gay, some are Muslim, some are black, and some are shy.
All have been victims of bullying.
''I'm a senior who has to eat lunch in the student-government office because when I go in the cafeteria, I get food thrown at me,'' Michael Freincle said at a recent House committee hearing.
'I get called names like `queer,' 'homo' and 'faggot' every day I walk through the cafeteria.''
Bullying is a phenomenon as old as school itself.
But after the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 and the recent rise of taunting through websites and text messages, lawmakers across the country have begun to pass laws designed to identify and punish bullies.
LOCAL POLICIES
Twenty-nine school districts in Florida currently have written policies against bullying and harassment, including Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Two Broward lawmakers are fighting to enact a statewide policy that would protect students in all 67 counties.
But the proposals from state Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, and Rep. Ken Gottlieb, a Hollywood Democrat, are different in a major way: One has a chance of becoming a law, the other does not.
Gottlieb has tried for the past six years to pass a bill that would ban harassment of students based on sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity and other factors frequently targeted by bullies, and it would require training for teachers to identify such bullying.
Last year was the first time the bill even got to a committee vote -- and it was promptly struck down.
Gottlieb doesn't see his bill going anywhere this year, either. The reason: Many legislators are reluctant to rally behind bills that protect gay rights.
''There are certain categories that people don't want to have,'' Gottlieb said. ``You have people who are up here, who are elected and in the political process, and they have difficulties discussing it. I think that shows you just how much we do need a policy.''
Bogdanoff cast one of the votes against Gottlieb's bill last year in committee.
Bogdanoff then decided to take up the bullying issue herself.
Her bill, which prohibits schools from including specific categories of targeted students in their anti-bullying policies, has been approved by two committees and has two more hearings before going to a full House vote.
Bogdanoff's bill is being touted as model anti-bullying legislation by a group called Bully Police USA.
The group's website, bullypolice.org, grades each state based on its anti-bullying laws. Florida is one of 27 rated as ''failing'' for its lack of a statewide policy.
`GAY-RIGHTS BILLS'
Brenda High, the group's founder and executive director, said she chose to support Bogdanoff's bill because it has a better chance of becoming a law than Gottlieb's.
''I've monitored these bills around the country for years, and the ones with victim definitions really struggle to get passed,'' High said last week from her home in Pasco, Wash. ``To be starkly honest, people see them as gay-rights bills, and that scares them away.''
Several students and equal-rights groups have come to Tallahassee in recent weeks to talk to legislators about the need for an anti-bullying law.
Those who support Bogdanoff's bill praise its inclusion of cyberbullying -- picking on other students through text messages or websites such as myspace.com -- and how it would take away state money from local school districts that do not adopt its requirements.
But its opponents say having categories of targeted students is necessary to protect victims and to help train adults to identify harassment.
Also, they worry that Bogdanoff's bill would invalidate the categorized anti-bullying policies in place within some school districts.
''It is essential and vital to identify specific categories that are the most prevalent ways of bullying,'' said Deborah Perez, a junior at Booker T. Washington Senior High in Miami and vice president of Miami-Dade Public Schools' student-government association. ``You can't prevent something unless you talk about it. Identifying specific students who are commonly known to be victims of bullying can be beneficial to students, faculty and staff when it comes to training.''
TIME RUNNING OUT
Odalys Acosta, faculty advisor for a peer-counseling group at Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High in Hialeah, supports Gottlieb's bill, not Bogdanoff's, but acknowledged that ``any law is better than no law.''
Like High and others, Acosta said she hoped the two lawmakers would come to a compromise that includes the best parts of both bills.
But with about half of the 60-day legislative session already finished, that seems unlikely.
''The problem is that some adults have no idea what the average teenager goes through in a single day,'' Acosta said. ``I don't think most grown-ups would make it to lunchtime in the shoes of a teenager.''