The first letter/article I can find on this is this editorial that attacks the opponents of the policy. It seems opponents came forward at the last minute, because they didn't like how a comprehensive anti-bullying policy would protect "gay students or students who are perceived to be gay."
There was a response that seems to draw a lot of inferences of the original editorial. I'm not sure how Ms. Stockton thinks the editorial "authors declared that it was unfair for opponents of the Montana Board of Public Education’s consideration of an enhanced Bullying Bill to testify." The authors do state that they're "offended and outraged by this opposition" but this seems to be a very different sentiment that what Ms. Stockton suggests.
The last letter is by Kim Abbot, an organizer with the MHRN, and a friend of mine (who's also from Ohio and has served as a VISTA). I really enjoy having conversations with Kim, and part of it is that she uses a relatively advanced vocabulary and she's passionate, emotionally so, about the issues she believes in - all evident in her letter.
Last night, I was curious as to why a LGBT awareness raising video would be shown in response to opponents of an anti-bullying policy. Note the policy doesn't have any protected classes specifically. Apparently someone, somewhere along the line decided that the policy threatened their view of what was moral. It seems to me to be quite a jump to go from anti-bullying, to pro-LGBT.
It's disturbing to be that a policy that is meant to encourage tolerance as a whole, has become the target of close-mindedness. Even if you don't agree with an LGBT lifestyle, that doesn't mean you have the right to harass/bully/condemn those who live that lifestyle. Of course, one might argue that they're on the same level as criminals, contributing to the fraying of the moral fabric of our society, but find me some scientific proof of that . . .