Today, the Virginia legislature took two steps toward passing a bill allowing private adoption agencies to refuse adopting to same-sex couples based on "religious or moral beliefs." Sen. Jeffrey McWaters (R) and Del. Todd Gilbert (R) introduced the bill which passed 8 to 7 along party lines in the Senate committee and 71 to 28 in the state House.

If the full senate passes the measure, which is not certain because opponents of the bill would only need to win one Republican vote in the evenly split chamber, and Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) subsequently signs the bill as expected, it could cost the state millions.

According the D.C.-based Children's Defense Fund, in January alone, Virginia had 5,927 children in foster care with only 663 adopted that month.

The 2010 census shows that more than 14,000 same-sex couples live in Virginia. The legislation could effectively disqualify all 14,000 from financially caring for the thousands of children still in Virginia state care.

Depending on their age, each child in foster care costs the state anywhere between $368 and $546 per month; thus, in the month of January alone, unadopted children cost Virginia taxpayers a minimum of $1.9 million to $5 million.

The national adoption advocacy group Childrens Rights estimates that 25 percent of all Virginian orphans end up placed in facilities rather than family foster homes. In addition, unadopted children who age out of state care have higher rates of mental health problems, unemployment and homelessness, potentially costing taxpayers even more money.

One Million Moms, a project of the the American Family Association, called upon JC Penny to fire talk show host and comedian Ellen DeGeneres after she was hired as the company's new spokesperson on Jan. 25 -- a move that led to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance to launch an online campign "standing up" for the out lesbian entertainer and raising awareness about employment discrimination faced by LGBT people.

In a statement released on Feb. 1, the One Million Moms organization wrote:

Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families. More sales will be lost than gained unless they replace their spokesperson quickly.

Michael Francis, president of the department store, however, said of its new spokesperson, "We share the same fundamental values as Ellen .... [W]e couldn't think of a better partner to help us put the fun back into the retail experience."

Of the request to fire DeGeneres because she is gay, GLAAD noted that in the U.S. there are 29 states where it is legal to fire someone for being gay, lesbian or bisexual and 34 states where it is legal to fire someone for being transgender.

GLAAD, though, called upon LGBT equality supporters to "Stand Up for Ellen" by contacting JC Penny and thanking them for making the right choice in hiring DeGeneres.

"While designated hate groups try to start 'culture wars,' it's clear that a vast majority of Americans today support Ellen as well as their LGBT friends and family members," Herndon Graddick, senior director of programs and communications at GLAAD, said. "Selecting an out performer who has inspired and entertained millions, is not only a smart business practice, but a reflection of how LGBT Americans today are an integral and valued part of the fabric of our culture."

More than 20,000 people have signed GLAAD's online petition thanking JC Penny, and many others have taken to Facebook and Twitter to express their support of the decision.

The department store has come full circle since it ceded to similar pressures from the American Family Association back in 1997 when it chose to drop its ad from Ellen's TV sitcom during the notorious "Puppy Episode" in which DeGenere's revealed her sexual orientation on primetime television.

* * *

MEANWHILE: Freedom to Work celebrated the expansion of employment protections at an employer: DynCorp International.

"Earlier today, the staff at the LGBT organization Freedom to Work obtained a copy of DynCorp's newly revised policies that now protect against workplace bias because of sexual orientation or gender identity," the organization noted in a news release today.

The new policies at DynCorp have been sought by activists in recent weeks and are available now in the company's "Code of Ethics and Business Conduct." (A pdf is available at the company's site.) Tico Almeida, the founder of Freedom to Work, noted that a petition he had started on Change.org asking the company to change its policies had received more than 55,000 signatures. He started the petition two weeks ago after, the release states, DynCorp settled a lawsuit with a former employee who claimed that despite significant anti-gay harassment on the job, DynCorp officials did not step in to stop the abuse. DynCorp settled out of court with the employee in January for more than $150,000.

Today, Almeida also referenced Metro Weekly's earlier report from Jan. 31 about a proposed expansion of a current executive order that bans discrimination by federal contractors to include a ban on sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.

Almeida said in today's statement, "Most of the big federal contractors already have good LGBT non-discrimination policies because they have realized that workplace fairness leads to greater efficiency and larger profits. So President Obama's executive order won't require any changes from the best contractors like Boeing and General Dynamics. The order will only affect the retrograde companies like DynCorp, and today's victory shows that even they are willing to change."

- Chris Geidner

Just as a recent Washington Post poll shows for the first time that a majority of Marylanders support marriage equality, LGBT activists and their allies are scrambling to deliver the votes needed to pass the measure through the Maryland General Assembly. 

The Post poll found that 50 percent of Marylanders support marriage equality, while 44 percent are opposed. The poll was conducted by telephone from Jan. 23-26 among a random sample of 1,064 Maryland adults. The results have a margin of error plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

But while the poll might provide some small degree of comfort to some same-sex marriage proponents, particularly if the measure is forced to go to referendum as expected, the biggest hurdle supporters currently face is getting the law passed in the House of Delegates.

Last year, the Maryland Senate, long thought to be the more conservative chamber, approved legislation legalizing marriage equality in the Judicial Proceedings Committee and voted 25-21 in favor of the bill when it came before the full body. This year, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has put forward the bill as one of his legislative priorities.

Supporters and even opponents of same-sex marriage, including Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George's counties), have said publicly they believe the bill will pass the upper chamber with 25 votes once again. The senator whose vote was not counted last year, Sen. Joanne Benson (D-Prince George's), has said she opposes marriage equality.

Yet despite the bill's expected success in the Senate, both the breakdown of votes from last year and the Post poll indicate there are significant cultural, racial and geographic divides, even among members of the same political party, on allowing same-sex nuptials.

According to a Metro Weekly analysis of last year's Senate vote, only one of four senators representing Western Maryland voted in favor of the bill and none from conservative-leaning Southern Maryland or the Eastern Shore supported it, even though there are more Democrats than Republicans in the latter two areas.

Almost 60 percent of the votes supporting marriage equality came from Democrats in Montgomery County and Baltimore City, who unanimously supported the measure. But only three senators from the entirely Democratic Prince George's County delegation voted in favor, with four others opposed.

The numbers are even more stark in the House of Delegates, where all but four delegates representing all or parts of Western and Southern Maryland or the Eastern Shore have either come out against marriage equality or have indicated publicly that they are leaning against the measure.

In contrast, 23 of 24 Montgomery County delegates and 14 of 18 delegates from Baltimore City are on record as supporting marriage equality or are thought to be leaning toward supporting it.

According to a Metro Weekly analysis of public statements made by delegates on the issue, when those "leaning" toward a position are included, there are 62 thought to be in favor and 66 thought to be opposed, with 13 thought to be on the fence. In order to pass the bill through the House, short of flipping a few "no" votes, marriage equality supporters must get almost all of those remaining delegates.

[Image: The Washington Post's poll question on marriage.]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that the videotape of the trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8 -- Perry v. Brown -- should not be released, reversing U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.

From the court's unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt:

We resolve the narrow question before us on a narrow basis when we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the unsealing of the recording of the trial notwithstanding the trial judge’s commitment to the parties that the recording would not be publicly broadcast.

. . .

We therefore reverse the order of the district court as an abuse of its discretion and remand with instructions to maintain the recording under seal.

Later, the court discussed the issue of how it viewed Ware as having abused his discretion in finding that the videotape should be unsealed. Reinhardt wrote:

We conclude that there is a compelling reason in this case for overriding the common-law right [to access of trial recordings] and that, in failing to identify that reason on the basis of the record before it, the district court abused its discretion. The reason is that Proponents reasonably relied on Chief Judge Walker's specific assurances—compelled by the Supreme Court's just-issued opinion—that the recording would not be broadcast to the public, at least in the foreseeable future.

The court went on to detail:

Interpreted in their full context, at least two of Chief Judge Walker's statements amount to unequivocal assurances that the video recording at issue would not be accessible to the public. No other inference can plausibly be drawn from the record.

First, following the Supreme Court's issuance of a stay against the public broadcast of the trial, Chief Judge Walker stated in open court that he was going to continue "taking the recording for purposes of use in chambers," but that the recording was "not going to be for purposes of public broadcasting or televising." It would be unreasonable to expect Proponents, upon reading the Supreme Court's opinion and hearing Chief Judge Walker’s statement in response, to foresee that a recording made for such limited purposes might nonetheless be released for viewing by the public, either during or after the trial. ...

Second, Chief Judge Walker stated in his opinion—citing the Supreme Court’s temporary and permanent stays—that "the potential for public broadcast in the case had been eliminated." Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 944 (emphasis added).

The ruling could be appealed by the plaintiffs, who are backed by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Asked whether they plan to appeal the ruling, AFER spokesman Brandon Hersh told Metro Weekly, "We're keeping our options open."

In AFER's statement regarding today's decision, plaintiffs' attorney Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., said, "We think Chief Judge Ware had it right, but we are looking at the big picture and hoping for a ruling soon on the merits affirming the district court's judgment that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Regarding the Proposition 8 proponents, he said, "It speaks volumes that the proponents of Proposition 8 are so insistent about concealing the videotaped record of this historic trial. They know the videotape would expose their baseless campaign of fear and let the public see the powerful evidence we submitted showing that Proposition 8 flatly violates the United States Constitution. That's why they fought so hard to keep the tapes secret."

In its release, AFER notes that "[a] robust coalition of media companies and organizations that includes the Los Angeles Times, CNN, The New York Times, FOX News, NBC News, Dow Jones & Co. and The Associated Press filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs' effort to release the trial tapes."

The Courage Campaign chair, Rick Jacobs, issued a statement, saying, "We are disappointed in the 9th Circuit’s decision to not release the videotapes from the historic Prop 8 hearing. In our minds, it never made sense that transcripts from the hearing could be easily accessed by anyone but not the videotapes. That just proves that our cowardly opponents knew they did a poor job defending their bigotry and homophobia in court."

National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendell said in a statement, "The court's decision to keep the people from seeing this public record of one of the most important trials in American history is extremely disappointing. As those lucky enough to have watched the trial saw, the defenders of Prop 8 were unable to offer a shred of evidence to support it, while the plaintiffs presented a mountain of compelling reasons to strike down this unjust and damaging law. The public deserves the same chance to see the facts for themselves."

Of the underlying question about the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Jacobs said, "We sincerely hope this decision does not herald more bad news regarding the unconstitutionality of Prop 8. Lives are depending on it."

READ the opinion: 1117255.pdf

[NOTE: This post was updated, with the final changes made at 2:03 p.m.]

[NOTE: This post was updated throughout the aftermath of the vote, with the final update at 12:50 a.m. Feb. 2.]

[Photo: The Washington Senate, voting on Feb. 1, 2012, to pass the state's marriage equality bill. (Photo by Joe Mirabella.)]

In Washington state on the evening of Feb. 1, the marriage equality bill passed the state Senate on a 28-21 vote, after defeating an amendment to the legislation, on a 23-26 vote, that would have sent the bill directly to the voters after passage.

In a statement released after the vote, Gregoire said, "This vote was courageous and was only possible with bipartisan support. That support shows Washington’s commitment to equality. Fair-minded and responsible leaders crafted a bill that protects religious freedoms while ensuring equal rights. I commend our state Senators who acknowledged tonight that separate but equal is not equal."

The bill was sent to the state House, where it is expected to pass. Gov. Chris Gregoire (D), who was in the Senate chamber this evening according to change.org's Joe Mirabella, is in support of the bill and will sign it.

Gregoire was urging lawmakers forward, saying, "Tonight our families are better for this vote. Our kids have a brighter future for this bill. And our state is better for this bill. I encourage the House to approve this bill and get it to my desk for my signature."

If and when that happens, the effective date of the bill would be contingent on the deadline to hold a referendum on the law passing without opponents gathering the necessary signatures to put the bill up to a referendum. The bill's sponsor, out gay state Sen. Ed Murray (D), expects a referendum, telling The Stranger's Dan Savage, "The rightwing will put it on the ballot."

Lacey All, Chair of Washington United for Marriage, said in a statement, "We thank Majority Leader Brown, Sen. Murray and the bipartisan coalition of senators who stood with us today in the name of equality.

"The overwhelming support we're seeing from businesses, labor, faith communities and people all across the state is a testament to the momentum of this movement and sensibilities of Washingtonians," she continued. "Volunteers from every part of the state have contributed thousands of hours of their time to make today possible, and we thank them for their commitment to this issue."

As recently as Jan. 23, the bill had only had the announced support of 24 senators. On that day, however, state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D) pledged to support the bill, giving supports the make-or-break 25th vote. Earlier the evening of Feb. 1, state Sen. Brian Hatfield announced he would provide the 26th vote. Among the two unexpected yes votes on Feb. 1 was state Sen. Joe Fain (R), according to Ben Crowther.

Three other Republican senators voted for the bill: Sens. Steve Litzow, Cheryl Pflug and Andy Hill. Twenty-four of the chamber's 27 Democrats voted for the bill, including state Sen. Margarita Prentice (D), who ended the floor speeches -- save for Murray -- by proclaiming, "I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm ready to vote!"

The three Democrats voting no, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, were state Sens. Jim Hargrove, Tim Sheldon and Paull Shinn.

According to Washington United for Marriage, opponents wishing to challenge the new law would have until June to collect 120,557 valid signatures -- the amount required to place a referendum on the November 2012 ballot. The passage of the state's comprehensive domestic partnership law in 2009 led to Referendum 71, in which voters approved the domestic partnership law that year.

The marriage equality bill's passage on Feb. 1 was praised by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund -- as was Murray, who is the only out LGBT lawmaker in the state Senate.

"Tonight's vote is a victory for fairness in Washington, and for Senator Ed Murray, who has worked so hard for so long to make life better for LGBT Washingtonians," Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, said in a statement. "When this bill is finally signed into law, Ed and Michael, his partner of 20 years, will finally have realized the equality under state law Ed has fought for since he was first elected to the legislature in 1995."

For Gregoire's part, she concluded her statement simply: "I look forward to the day when all Washington citizens have equal opportunity to marry the person they love."

[Image: Screen capture of the Washington Senate, following the successful marriage equality bill vote.]

November's chickens have come home to roost for Virginia's LGBT population.

After Democrats lost two seats last year to split the Senate 20-20, and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) cast the tie-breaking vote to shift control of the upper chamber to the Republicans, many LGBT activists publicly worried that they would be fighting an uphill battle, not only to get pro-gay legislation passed, but to reject potentially harmful legislation.

One of the first victims of that power shift was out gay freshman Sen. Adam Ebbin's (D-Arlington) bill, sponsored with Sen. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico), which would have prohibited discrimination in public employment based on a person's sexual orientation and gender identity.

The bill, SB 263, was intended to codify in law protections for LGBT residents that had been enacted under executive orders issued by former Democratic Governors Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. Current Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has refused to sign a similar executive order banning discrimination on sexual orientation.

SB 263 was heard on Jan. 30 in the Senate's General Laws and Technology Committee, where it failed on an 8-7 partisan vote. Opponents argued there was no evidence to support that LGBT people experienced employment discrimination.

"It's troubling that there’s not a strong recognition of the need to protect all people from job discrimination," Ebbin told Metro Weekly in an interview after the bill failed to pass. "It's clear to me that the Republicans are as much out of touch on this issue as a variety of other vital issues."

Gay rights group Equality Virginia issued a press release condemning the vote, blasting Republican lawmakers for defeating the bill. 

"Virginia's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people learned, again, that they continue to be considered second-class citizens by the Virginia legislature," Equality Virginia Executive Director James Parrish said in the statement. "SB 263 is a simple bill ... that expresses a state policy with which 90 percent of Virginians agree -- that no state or local employee should be subject to discrimination on the job, including discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

"Passage of SB 263 would have been a small step forward in ensuring that Virginia is truly an inclusive Commonwealth of opportunity. The failure of the Senate to endorse this concept, as it has the past two years, is a major step backward."

Despite his disappointment, Ebbin said he was moving forward. He suggested he could reintroduce a similar bill during another legislative session. 

"It's clear we've got our work cut out for us, and we have to move forward," he said of the LGBT community. "It's not something I'm going to give up on. We can't give up on this."

[Photo: Ebbin (Photo by Todd Franson.)]

On Tuesday, the pink-ribboned breast cancer charity known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure stopped issuing grant money to Planned Parenthood, a nationwide, nonprofit provider of reproductive, maternal and child health services which also include breast and cervical cancer screenings.

Susan G. Komen says its decision comes from a new rule forbidding funding to any organizations under government investigation; in September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) began investigating whether Planned Parenthood uses federal money to provide abortions, making the organization ineligible.

But Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said that Komen "succumbed to political pressure" by anti-abortion advocates to end its relationship with the nation's largest abortion provider.

While several anti-abortion and anti-LGBT groups -- such as the Family Research Council -- have lauded Komen's decision to cut funding, anti-abortion site LifeNews credited Komen's senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, for the cuts.

During her 2010 Republican bid for Georgia governor, Handel supported defunding Planned Parenthood as well as outlawing gay adoption and criminalizing same-sex marriage statewide. In an interview with 11alive, an NBC affiliate, she was interviewed about her view on same-sex relationships:

Q:  You have said that you are -- you're against gay marriage, right?

A:  Mm hm.  Absolutely.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  And I've been very very clear about that.  And the record is clear about any of the other issues like domestic partner benefits or anything like that.  In fact in Fulton, I voted no on domestic partner benefits.

Q:  Are you against civil unions for gays?

A:  Yes.  I think that's not an issue that has come forward in Georgia.  We have the constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and I don't want to see any taxpayer funding going toward benefits etcetera for a couple that is not married.  In our state and for me, marriage is for one man and one woman.

Planned Parenthood says that last year Komen granted the organization and at least 19 of its affiliates roughly $680,000 for breast-cancer screening and breast-health services. Since the organizations began their partnership in 2005, Komen has helped finance nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals aided by Planned Parenthood.

Cancer screenings and preventions account for sixteen percent of Planned Parenthood patient care services while abortions account for only three percent. Overwhelmingly Planned Parenthood provides contraceptives along with STD testing and treatment more than any other service it provides.

Citing research from the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Insittute, Jorge Rivas of Colorlines.com says that the people that will be most affected by Komen's cut in funding will be poorer women of color:

"African-American women are more likely than all other women to die from breast cancer. Women of color in general are more likely to be diagnosed late and die from breast cancer, due in large part to poor access to early screening and treatment—which is precisely the type of programs Komen used to fund at Planned Parenthood."

Patrick Hurd, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Virginia, said, "It sounds almost trite, but cancer doesn't care if you're pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative. Victims of cancer could care less about people's politics."

UPDATE @ 7:45PM - In a newly released statement, National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell said:

"How sad, destructive and unconscionable for Susan G. Komen for the Cure to turn its back on the very women it pretends to help. When self-interest and wealth accumulation become your primary goals, the first casualties are integrity and values. The only action Komen can take to restore some shred of dignity is to reverse this tragic decision."

An appeals court ruling on whether the public should be able to watch video of the trial challenging Proposition 8 is expected on Thursday, Feb. 2 -- but it's unclear, regardless of the court's decision, that the tape will not be released to the public immediately. [See update.]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's public information office has announced that it "anticipates" issuing its decision on Thursday as to whether the videotape recordings of the trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8 should be released to the public.

The trial judge in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case (now Perry v. Brown), the now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, had allowed for the taping of the trial and had intended to allow it to be publicized, but the Supreme Court stepped in at the last minute to stop the broadcast of the trial to other courthouses within the Ninth Circuit (as well as to one courthouse in New York City). Walker did, though, tape the trial for his own use, and it is the public release of those tapes that is now in question in this related case.

Although the Ninth Circuit could decide in its ruling, which follows arguments on the matter held by the court on Dec. 8, 2011, to affirm a trial court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware allowing for the public release of the tape, the Ninth Circuit also could give the proponents time to appeal its decision to the Supreme Court before the decision would go into effect.

Additionally, today's "advance notice" gives the proponents of Proposition 8, who oppose the release of the trial tapes, the opportunity to file a request for an emergency stay pending the decision with the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court or both today. (The proponents took similar preemptive action regarding the Aug. 4, 2010, decision in the constitutional challenge.) If they do so, they likely will claim that the immediate release of the tapes cannot be undone and, thus, they will suffer "irreparable harm" if a preemptive stay is not granted.

Finally, the public information office notes in its brief release that the decision "is not the main appeal regarding the constitutionality question."

That note itself is interesting, for the Ninth Circuit panel that is hearing the appeal of Perry v. Brown is considering the standing question, whether Walker needed to recuse himself because of his relationship with a same-sex partner and the constitutionality question. Although the office could have simply been using shorthand to reference the Perry v. Brown case, it is noteworthy that, if the court found the proponents to lack standing, the court would not need to reach "the constitutionality question."

[NOTE: This post was expanded, with the final edits made at 3:50 p.m.]

UPDATE @ 10P: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where the trial was held, has issued its own statement. It says, in relevant part:

This District Court is the custodian of the recordings. Should the Ninth Circuit authorize release of the recordings, this Court will make prompt arrangements to comply with the order. This Court will not, however, have the recording available immediately or within the current calendar week.

So, regardless of the Ninth Circuit or the proponents, the Proposition 8 trial tapes won't be showing up on newscasts Thursday night.

[Image: The Florida primary field. (Illustration by Aram Vartian.)]

At the close of the polls in Florida at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Fox News was able to call the Republican primary race immediately for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

At the close of the polls in the Central Time Zone panhandle of the state, Talking Points Memo reports that Romney was leading with 47 percent of the vote, with 92 percent of the precincts reporting. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had 32 percent of the vote, followed by former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 13 percent, and, finally, Texas Rep. Ron Paul was garnering 7 percent.

The victory was a needed turn-around for the once "inevitable" front-runner, Romney, who lost the South Carolina primary to Gingrich in Jan. 21.

GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia said in a statement, "Tonight, Governor Mitt Romney has won in convincing fashion.  This big win for Governor Romney makes it all but certain that he will emerge as the nominee of the Republican Party.

"Governor Romney’s win tonight is particularly pivotal given the size of the state and the importance Florida will have in electing the next President. Governor Romney's message of economic hope and renewal has clearly resonated with the voters of Florida," he said. "Other candidates in the field have made it clear that they intend to continue on. The question that Republicans, and conservatives in particular, must begin to ask themselves is whether continuing this process is in the best interest of our movement, the party and – most importantly – our country."

Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper echoed LaSalvia, saying, "With a strong showing in Florida, including a win at the Florida Log Cabin Republicans straw poll on Saturday, Romney proves he can build a coalition of conservative voters. Our local chapter leaders report that, like Florida voters overall, Log Cabin members in the Sunshine State were drawn to Romney's business sense and clear plan to return America to prosperity through a strong private sector."

Unlike GOProud, however, Cooper went on to question Romney's actions taken in his effort to win the GOP nod in the Sunshine State, saying, "[T]here remain serious reservations about recent statements by Romney to so-called 'pro-family' groups."

During a Jan. 25 conference call with Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, according to Think Progress, Romney said, "I think he is very aggressively trying to pave the path to same-sex marriage. I would unlike this president defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Of President Obama, LaSalvia said, "President Obama has made it clear that he plans on doubling down on his failed policies. Obama and the left are fanning the flames of class warfare in an attempt to distract Americans from the real issues and to avoid taking responsibility.  The truth that Barack Obama nor his friends in the liberal media want to discuss, is that most Americans, gay or straight, are not better off than they were in 2008 and that is a product of Obama’s failed big government policies.

National Stonewall Democrats executive director Jerame Davis, unsurprisingly, strongly disagreed, saying in a statement, "Mitt Romney's win tonight only proves that he can out spend and throw more mud than all of his opponents combined. It's a pyrrhic victory for a hollow candidate. When you have to buy your way to the top of the polls, it doesn't mean voters like you -- it just means you have more money to tar and feather your competition. The GOP now has a very unpopular front runner, but the not-Romney wing of the Party is still the majority."

LaSalvia, however, said, "To defeat Obama we will need unity in the conservative movement and in the Republican Party and that unity must come soon."

On that note, Cooper was more specific of how his organization believes Romney can achieve that unity, saying, "Republicans of all stripes are strongly committed to replacing President Obama, there is no need or excuse for engaging in antigay pandering or divisive social politics. Log Cabin Republicans are looking for a candidate who can rebuild the big tent, unite our party and claim a mandate to restore liberty and fiscal responsibility to the United States. Whether that candidate is Romney remains to be seen."

Moderator Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, noted that more than 80 countries around the world still have laws targeting sexual and gender identity at the plenary panel on "International LGBT Issues and Organizing" this weekend at Creating Change.

What's more, he said, other countries are creating new laws or worsening the penalties of their pre-existing ones. Even when such laws do not exist on the books, Johnson said, LGBT people still face arrest, abuse, and imprisonment for such crimes as loitering, immorality, and (his personal favorite) "vagabonding."

Referring to anti-LGBT Christian evangelical "shame peddlers" like Scott Liveley, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge, he said they have roused anti-LGBT politics in Africa, noting, "[They] are taking their failed show on the road to places where their money can buy power."

Johnson then noted that nearly one in every four gay African males faces blackmail at some point during his life and that even European countries thought of as progressive such as Sweden and the Netherlands still require transgender people to undergo forced sterilization before changing genders on their government ID.

Johnson then added: "Violence against LGBTs is not cultural, it is criminal."

Johnson recognized four panelists who stepped forward to tell their stories.

While transitioning from male to female at age 21, Nisha Ayub -- program manager of the Transgender Programme of the Pink Triangle Foundation of Malaysia -- was arrested under a Sharia law forbidding men from impersonating women. Religious police forces put her in a camp where she faced regular torture and sexual abuse in a jail cell; at one point, the officers stripped her naked and forced her to walk around while the officers insulted and spat on her.

Malaysia allowed sex changes to occur in the country before the 1980s, but current religious laws have made it so that transgender Malaysians cannot change the their name or sex on any government identification.

Also, because trans people can be arrested and fired from their jobs at any moment, she said she and many other trans people have resorted to sex work because they cannot find safe and secure, paid jobs otherwise.

Ayub has protested against the rise of boot camps in her country set up to "correct" effeminate boys. Malaysian LGBT people who choose to enter same-sex unions in other countries can never return home, Ayub said, mentioning Ariff Alfian Rosli, a Malyasian man who could face 20 years in prison for marrying a man in Ireland if he ever returns to his home country.

Though the Malaysian government refuses to fund trans organizations, Ayub contends that all twenty of the country's states have trans communities and that organizations like Justice for Sisters have begun fundraising on their behalf in hopes of raising awareness about their plight.

Val Kalende with Sexual Minorities Uganda said that although most of the LGBT stories coming out of Uganda focuses on bad news -- like the murder of her peer David Kato more than a year ago and the "Kill the Gays" bill that she has spent much time working against -- the media ignores mention of progress and what the country's LGBT community actually needs.

Originally, she said the country's LGBT movement was limited to only about four or five individuals. But now she sees larger groups of students and other young people working as activists because they have been influenced by her work and the international attention placed on Uganda's LGBT issues.

She has also seen a rise in the number of non-government organizations stressing the need to oppose violence and homophobia.

In her conclusion, Kalende noted that is is time to speak up against homophobia globally and that any conversation about the global LGBT movement must include African voices.

Today, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that his organization is "troubled" that a new program directive released recently failed to provide protection to same-sex partners. Referencing a request made by the organization in the run-up to the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that it end discrimination against same-sex couples, where possible under law, in military programs, Sarvis wrote today to the secretary today that the new program "continues this same sort of discrimination."

In the Aug. 11, 2011, letter, Sarvis had written to Panetta that "you have the ability, within the confines of that law, to make same-sex married couples and their families eligible to take part in some of the same programs that are available to straight married couples and their families." The organization laid out specific examples of where and how the Pentagon could do so in the course of repealing DADT.

The Jan. 23 Department of Defense directive (pdf) about the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program criticized by SLDN, though, uses a restrictive definition when determining the applicability of the program for "victims of sexual assault perpetrated by someone other than a spouse or intimate partner."

The SAPR program's eligibility is limited to those "military dependents" who are "eligible for treatment in the military healthcare system," which a lawyer with SLDN says is limited to federally recognized spouses, parents, siblings or children of the servicemember or parents, siblings or children of the a servicemember's federally recognized spouse.

Another program referenced in the SAPR Program directive — the Family Advocacy Program, which applies to sexual assault perpetrated by spouses or intimate partners — uses a broad definition for program eligibility, however, that includes spouses, former spouses, a person with whom the servicemember has a child or an intimate partner with whom the servicemember has shared a domicile. This, according to the SLDN lawyer, allows for coverage of same-sex spouses.

Asked about the SAPR Program directive's non-inclusion of same-sex partners, Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith did not have an immediate answer but told Metro Weekly that one would be coming "within the next couple of days." As to SLDN's letter specifically, Smith wrote, "The Secretary will respond to the letter as appropriate."

The restrictive language in the SAPR program's eligibility appears, according to the SLDN attorney, to be linked to eligibility to a military identification card. As Sarvis noted in the August 2011 letter, however, "A Military ID is required for on-base activities, and there is no statute preventing issuance of IDs to same-sex spouses. An ID would also allow the same-sex spouse to bring dependent children on base without being accompanied by the service member."

In today's letter, Sarvis references the fact that the Defense Department has not made this requested change, writing, "There is much that you can do today that would be meaningful to service members and their families (and that would not burden the Department or the armed services). You can permit identification cards to be issued to same-sex spouses of service members."

Referring to the lead plaintiff in SLDN's lawsuit challenging the denial of equal benefits by the Armed Forces for servicemembers with same-sex spouses, Sarvis notes of the ID change request, "This would, for example, allow the wife of Maj[or] Shannon McLaughlin to take their one-year-old twins to base medical services and the base daycare. It would also permit Casey McLaughlin and other same-sex spouses to take part in family support programs when their service member spouse is deployed."

READ today's SLDN letter: Sarvis to Panetta - 013012.pdf

[Photos: Above right: Panetta; below left: Sarvis, left, and Pelosi.]

The Department of Housing and Urban Development today released the final text of the department's new nondiscrimination rule, which will prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in several of the agency's programs, including Title VIII-based public housing and Federal Housing Administration-backed loans.

The rule, according to a HUD news release, will be published in the Federal Register "next week." The rule will take effect 30 days after that publication.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan announced today's news at this weekend's Creating Change conference, which is hosted by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and took place in Baltimore, Md.

According to HUD, the final rule:

• Requires owners and operators of HUD-assisted housing, or housing whose financing is insured by HUD, to make housing available without regard to the sexual orientation or gender identity of an applicant for, or occupant of, the dwelling, whether renter- or owner-occupied.  HUD will institute this policy in its rental assistance and homeownership programs, which include the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance programs, community development programs, and public and assisted housing programs.
• Prohibits lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a basis to determine a borrower’s eligibility for FHA-insured mortgage financing.  FHA’s current regulations provide that a mortgage lender’s determination of the adequacy of a borrower’s income “shall be made in a uniform manner without regard to” specified prohibited grounds.  The rule will add actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited grounds to ensure FHA-approved lenders do not deny or otherwise alter the terms of mortgages on the basis of irrelevant criteria.
• Clarifies that all otherwise eligible families, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, will have the opportunity to participate in HUD programs. In the majority of HUD’s rental and homeownership programs the term “family” already has a broad scope, and includes a single person and families with or without children.  HUD’s rule clarifies that otherwise eligible families may not be excluded because one or more members of the family may be an LGBT individual, have an LGBT relationship, or be perceived to be such an individual or in such relationship. 
• Prohibits owners and operators of HUD-assisted housing or housing insured by HUD from asking about an applicant or occupant’s sexual orientation and gender identity for the purpose of determining eligibility or otherwise making housing available. In response to comments on the proposed rule, HUD has clarified this final rule to state that this provision does not prohibit voluntary and anonymous reporting of sexual orientation or gender identity pursuant to state, local, or federal data collection requirements.

READ the final rule: hud-finalrule.pdf

[Photo: Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) addresses the 2012 Creating Change conference on Jan. 29, 2012. (Photo by Michael Maldonado.)]

At the closing brunch of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 2012 Creating Change conference, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) spoke of his newly introduced civil marriage bill, the state's gender identity bill, the country's other recent advances in LGBT rights and -- possibly -- referenced his wife's recently having called anti-marriage legislators "cowards."

O'Malley began by talking about the state's history of addressing human rights and dignity. He said that during the Revolutionary War, 60 percent of Marylanders fighting against the British were Native Americans and one in five were black -- some free, most slaves. Since Maryland joined the union as a refuge for religious liberty and individual conscience, he said, the state's history compels it to continue forging into its laws the inalienable rights and dignity of every individual.

After recounting the recent extensions of hospital visitation and end of life decision-making to same-sex couples, he reaffirmed the necessity for LGBT people to be able to own property and work without penalization for their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Specifically referencing the gender identity nondiscrimination bill's protections, he spoke about human dignity, saying that "discrimination based on gender identity is wrong" and adding that "passing a law to protect transgender Marylanders from employment, credit and housing discrimination is the right thing to do."

He went on to say that part of human dignity was "[t]he dignity of a free and diverse people who at the end of the day, all want the same thing for their children: to live in a loving and caring and stable home that is protected equally under the law.

O'Malley then mentioned his civil marriage bill -- which could make Maryland the seventh marriage equality state in the U.S. -- while underscoring the bill's religious freedom protections and recognition of individual rights.

In what was perhaps an oblique reference to his wife's having called the state's anti-marriage legislators "cowards," O'Malley said, "When we use words of hurt and fear instead of love, understanding and compassion… when this occasionally happens, we must have the humility to apologize. We must choose words and laws of understanding, compassion and justice."

Maryland First Lady Catherine Curran O'Malley apologized for her comment late last week.

Pledging his conviction to help legalize marriage equality in Maryland this year, O'Malley then thanked the conference and departed.

[Photo: HUD Sec. Shaun Donovan speaking at Creating Change. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan today told those LGBT advocates gathered for the Creating Change conference taking place in Baltimore, Md., "HUD has been a leader in the fight ... for equality." As part of that, he announced that the federal housing program anti-discrimination regulation announced in January 2011 has been finalized and will be published in the Federal Register on this coming week and go into effect 30 days later.

"Today, I am proud to announce a new equal access to housing rule that says clearly and unequivocally that LGBT indivduals and couples have the right to live where they choose," he told the audience, which rose to its feet with applause.

Donovan detailed that the rule, saying that it includes a new equal access provision that prohibits discrimination in HUD-backed housing programs. It also, he said, guarantees that LGBT individuals are eligible for HUD's public housing programs and states that discrimination is prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in all Federal Housing Administration-backed loans -- which Donovan said constituted 40 percent of all loans for Americans who bought a home last year.

Calling housing a "critical link," the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director, Rea Carey, introduced Donovan at the Task Force's Creating Change today.

Of his news that the rule had been finalized and would take effect soon, she said in a statement, "This policy announced today by Secretary Donovan will literally save lives. LGBT people and their families all across the country depend on HUD programs to have a roof over their head. Unfortunately, there are landlords out there who would choose to discriminate, putting families in peril."

She added, "These housing protections will reduce homelessness and increase economic security for LGBT people, which helps break the cycle of poverty that many families experience due to discrimination."

In beginning his remarks, Donovan noted, "The progress we've made together reminds me" of the emphasis that President Obama has placed on LGBT people, focusing first on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the fact that an active duty colonel, who is an out lesbian, attended the State of the Union this past week as a guest of First Lady Michelle Obama.

He also described other accomplishments of the administration at large, as well as specific advancements mad by HUD. In addition to the final rule publication, Donovan cited, among other accomplishments, the HUD study -- the first of its kind -- assessing LGBT discrimination in housing across the country.

Of the news, the National Center for Lesbian Rights's federal policy director, Maya Rupert, said in a statement, "This rule is truly historic for the LGBT community and the impact it will have on all of our lives cannot be overstated. Thanks to the remarkable efforts of the Obama administration, and especially HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and Assistant Secretary John Trasviña and their staffs, LGBT people and their families will now enjoy critical protections from housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

She added: "This will improve the lives of countless families and individuals across the country who no longer have to fear being denied housing  because of who they are. We applaud HUD for its leadership and commitment to fairness and justice."

UPDATE @ 3:30P: National Center for Transgender Equality policy counsel Harper Jean Tobin said in a statement, "This is a major and urgently needed advancement in basic protections for transgender people. NCTE is calling on other federal departments to follow HUD's common-sense approach and use existing legal authority to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people in the programs they fund and administer. We applaud Secretary Donovan and the Obama Administration for this much needed relief for transgender people."

In a statement issued by the Human Rights Campaign, president Joe Solmonese said, "The new regulations from HUD will help protect LGBT people and our families in one of the most fundamental aspects of life - finding and keeping a home. This common sense action will help some of the most vulnerable people in our community in trying to make homes for themselves and their families."

READ Sec. Donovan's full speech here.

Maryland's First Lady Catherine Curran O'Malley has apologized after a statement she made on Jan. 26 during her opening remarks at Creating Change, the 24th National Conference on LGBT Equality.

During the speech, she referenced the failed 2011 marriage equality bill saying, "We didn't expect things that happened to the House of Delegates to occur," O'Malley said, "but sadly they did, and there were some cowards that prevented it from passing."

Her comment came a day after Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) introduced a marriage equality bill with religious exemptions to the state Senate; a House version of the bill has not yet been introduced.

In her apology O'Malley said, "I let my feelings get the better of me. I deeply respect that there are strongly held and differing views on marriage equality in Maryland, but hope that our state's elected officials will come together to fairly address this important issue for our families and children."

Maryland, however, is only one of eight states currently considering marriage equality laws. Below are the most current developments in each:

California: An organization called Love Honor Cherish has begun collecting the 807,615 signatures needed by May 14th to get a Proposition 8 repeal on the 2012 ballot. They have stated, however, that they will not submit the signatures if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholds District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Maine: Voters will decide on a measure put forth by marriage equality supporters to legalize marriage equality on the November 2012 ballot. Current citizen support in favor of the measure stands at 54 percent.

Minnesota: This week, Senator Al Franken (D) made a video for the HRC's Americans for Marriage Equality campaign stating, "I think everybody should be able to marry the person they love. And I think our government should help people make those life-long commitments." The state will vote in November on a constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality.

New Hampshire: This month, Republican House leaders delayed a vote on a bill to repeal the state's marriage equality statutes. The vote is projected to occur in February.

New Jersey: On Jan. 24, the state Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a marriage equality bill that Governor Chris Christie (R) promised to veto. African-American legislators from the state denounced Christie for preferring a voter referendum on a civil rights issue.

New Mexico: This Wednesday, state Rep. David Chavez (R) introduced a constitutional amendment to ban recognition of any same-sex marriages that occur within or outside of the state.

North Carolina: The organization, Protect All North Carolina Families has pledged to hold 1 million conversations with the state's 6,262,566 registered voters. Residents will vote on a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality this May.

Washington: Though the state's governor, senators and representatives have pledged to help legalize marriage equality in the legislature, opponents of the bill could still attempt to repeal the law with a 2012 ballot measure this November.

[Photo: Maryland First Lady Catherine Curran O'Malley.]