Last week Equality Maryland announced that it is currently in the midst of a financial crisis, and that it needs about $25,000 a month to maintain its staff and pay for rent of its Baltimore headquarters.

Today, Monday, May 31, in an e-mail message, Equality Maryland announced the resignation of its board president Charles Butler, board president of Equality Maryland Inc., the lobbying arm of Equality Maryland, while a "new chair person has yet to be named."

"Chuck led Equality Maryland through a very difficult five month period," Patrick Wojahn, board chair of Equality Maryland Foundation, the organization's educational arm, says in the release.  "He gave more hours to this organization than anyone will ever know and we will always be grateful for both his recent leadership and his long-term service to Equality Maryland."

According to Equality Maryland's web site, the remaining board consists of At Large members Darrell Carrington, David Lublin, and Mark Yost, Jr.; treasurer Rosemary Nicolosi; and secretary and vice chair Lisa Polyak. 

Wojahn confirms that those board members remain active. He adds that Polyak will serve as temporary chair and spokesperson of that board until a new chair is brought in.

Regarding the status of interim executive director Lynne Bowman, who came in to the organization in April to help stabilize it, earning about $7,000 per month for her work, the release states that her duties have changed: 

Part of the immediate change includes the development of a new contract with interim executive director, Lynne Bowman.  Effective June 1, Bowman's focus will shift from external outreach and programmatic involvement, to management of internal operations and an increased role directly supporting the board's efforts to revamp the organization.  As part of the new contract, Bowman will work at a reduced fee and spend half of the month in Baltimore and the other half working virtually from Ohio.  She will be contracted on a month-to-month basis.

[UPDATE 8:53 PM: Despite the shift in Bowman's duties, Wojahn tells Metro Weekly Equality Maryland will not be seeking help from an external fundraising expert. Instead the organization will be looking to its board, members and staff for help.]

Equality Maryland's board is slated to meet to develop a short-term strategic plan, according to the release, to help the organization function through the end of the year. The board will publicize that plan when it is ready, according to Wojahn. 

In addition to a renewed focus on fundraising with individual donors, it is expected that the plan will also address ways to increase and diversify the membership of the board of Equality Maryland, enhance community involvement in the direction-setting and decision-making of the organization, and identify ways to tighten internal operations and governance. 

[Photo: Wojahn (Photo by Yusef Najafi.)]

The White House today released President Barack Obama's proclamation commemorating the 2011 Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, presenting his own pride in signing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act in 2010 but -- for the first time in his presidency -- containing no reference to relationship recognition.

The two-page proclamation begins:

The story of America's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union. It is a story about the struggle to realize the great American promise that all people can live with dignity and fairness under the law. Each June, we commemorate the courageous individuals who have fought to achieve this promise for LGBT Americans, and we rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Obama goes on to point out administration accomplishments on LGBT matters, beginning with his signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act in December 2010, noting federal housing program and hospital visitation nondiscrimination measures, international efforts to fight homophobia and enforcement of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, among others.

The proclamation also addresses "the 30th anniversary of the emergence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which has had a profound impact on the LGBT community," noting that in 2010, the White House "announced the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States."

The substantive portion concludes:

Every generation of Americans has brought our Nation closer to fulfilling its promise of equality. While progress has taken time, our achievements in advancing the rights of LGBT Americans remind us that history is on our side, and that the American people will never stop striving toward liberty and justice for all.

There is no mention of relationship recognition, despite the fact that on Feb. 23, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the president had determined that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice subsequently ended its defense of that portion of the law in ongoing court challenges.

By comparison, in the 2010 proclamation, Obama stated, "That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."

In the 2009 proclamation, meanwhile, Obama stated, "Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include ... supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples ...."

Download the 2011 proclamation -- 2011lgbt.prc.rel.pdf -- or read it below the jump.

UPDATE @ 12:45 PM WEDNESDAY: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis says in a statement:

"At SLDN, we commend the President for his recognition of June as LGBT Pride Month, and we join him in promoting equality for all Americans, including our nation's service members. Unfortunately, it's difficult to explain – much less defend – that we are approaching six months since the President signed repeal legislation, and gay and lesbian service members are still without certification, still being investigated under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and still at risk of being discharged. Meanwhile, our opponents continue their attempts to exploit this vacuum as an opportunity to delay and derail repeal, and service members are required to serve in silence. Mr. President, let's get certification done this month."

Today, the White House announced John Bryson as the president's pick to succeed Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, recently named as Obama's next ambassador to China.

In a news release that preceded the 1:15 p.m. announcement, the White House stated that "Bryson will play a key role as a member of the President's economic team, bringing decades of knowledge and experience in the public and private sectors, and will provide valuable ideas and initiatives to strengthen America's competiveness around the world."

Earlier, Politico's Ben White had reported that Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg was a "top candidate" for the job. Hochberg is one of the most senior out gay people in an administration that many advocates had hoped would include the first out gay cabinet secretary.

In today's release, President Barack Obama said, "I am pleased to nominate John Bryson to be our nation's Secretary of Commerce, as he understands what it takes for America to succeed in a 21st century global economy. John will be an important part of my economic team, working with the business community, fostering growth, and helping open up new markets abroad to promote jobs and opportunities here at home."

More on Bryson, from the release:

Previously, John Bryson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison and Edison Mission Group, from 1990 to 2008.

He is a director of The Boeing Company, The Walt Disney Company and Coda Automotive, Inc., and is a senior advisor to KKR.  He is chairman of the board of BrightSource Energy, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), and the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California (USC) Board of Overseers.  He also serves as co-chairman of the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP).

Mr. Bryson is a trustee of the California Institute of Technology and a director of The California Endowment and the W. M. Keck Foundation.  He serves on the Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank Americas.

This afternoon, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, John Berry, issued a brief memorandum to all executive department and agency heads, announcing new guidance for treatment of transgender employees of the federal government -- guidance that notes that it is "the policy of the Federal Government to treat all of its employees with dignity and respect and to provide a workplace that is free from discrimination," including based on gender identity. 

Berry writes: "Over the last several years a number of agencies have requested that OPM provide them with information and advice concerning issues that may arise in connection with the employment of transgender individuals in the workplace. In response, OPM is issuing the 'Guidance Regarding the Employment of Transgender Individuals in the Federal Workplace.'"

The attached guidance details several important issues, first addressing "core concepts" -- defining gender identity, transgender and transition -- and then providing guidance for employers regarding individuals who "transition while employed" in the federal government. The guidance notes that its purpose "is not to address legal rights and remedies, but instead to provide guidance to address some of the common questions that agencies have raised with OPM regarding the employment of transgender individuals in the federal workplace."

Mara Keisling, the director of the National Center for Transgender Equality says of the guidance, "I'm really excited about it. It shows the commitment to hiring the best people and keeping the best people."

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese added in a statement, "Today's guidance will help to ensure that all federal workers -- whether fighting fires in our national forests, prosecuting federal crimes in court, conducting groundbreaking cancer research or making sure this week's paycheck gets to your mailbox -- will be treated with the fairness and dignity they deserve."

Keisling talked with Metro Weekly about the guidance, saying, "Once [OPM] said that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 covered gender identity, they started getting calls from various agencies saying, 'What does that mean, and how do we do this and how do we do that?'"

The guidance, she said, is OPM's attempt to answer: "Here's what we mean, and here's a little bit about it, and here's who to check with if you need more information."

Among the topics addressed in the guidance -- first noted earlier today at the blog for The Network for LGBT Health Equity at the Fenway Institute -- are "confidentiality and privacy," "dress and appearance," "names and pronouns," "sanitary and related facilities," "recordkeeping" and "insurance benefits."

As to the recordkeeping provision, OPM has provided detailed guidance on "How to Reconstruct a Personnel Folder" for when an "employee has begun working full-time in the gender role consistent with the employee's gender identity."

Additionally, OPM issued a "carrier letter," which Keisling says "is a letter to all the insurance companies [who participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan]. The letter says that if an employee has changed their gender from male to female, you should reflect that in their health insurance policy."

Additionally, she adds that the letter explains that such a change "doesn't preclude sex-specific care, in one direction or another. Someone like me may need a prostate exam and a mammogram, and [the letter tells the] insurance carrier that's reasonable."

As to the actual impact of the policy change, Keisling says it's limited, noting it is applicable only to federal employees.

But, she adds, "It's obviously a good thing, and I'm interested in it and I think all trans people -- all LGBT people -- should be like, 'Yeah, that's great.'

"But, it's not something that's going to be overly controversial. At least, that's what I think."

Read:

• The OPM Guidance here.
• The Personnel Folder instructions here.
• The FEHB carrier letter: 2011-12.pdf.
  

This afternoon, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with three amendments opposed by LGBT advocates, including one that would add a step to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal process and two that reaffirm or expand the Defense of Marriage Act.

On a 322-96 vote with substantial Democratic support and only token Republican opposition, the bill easily passed the Republican-controlled House. The amendments, however, are unlikely to be passed in the Senate version of the NDAA, which is yet to be considered. Moreover, earlier this week, the White House announced it "strongly objects" to all three provisions -- although it stopped short of recommending a veto if the provisions are included in the final bill.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "The opposition may well believe they won the day in the House, simply outnumbering repeal advocates. But this fight is far from over. We must look to repeal supporters in the Senate, where the defense bill will be taken up next and where we are better positioned than in the House. We need to beat back this harmful language and make sure it does not survive in conference committee."

The DADT-related amendment, proposed in the House Armed Services Committee by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), expands the required certification process for repeal -- which already includes the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- to include the sign-off of the service branch chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

In addition to the Senate and White House impediments to Hunter's amendment, there also is the matter of time. As noted, a version of the NDAA still must pass the Senate, then the differences must be worked out in a conference committee and the final bill sent to the president for his signature or veto. This makes it highly likely -- even if Hunter's amendment was included and the president signed it -- that the provision would be moot by time it became law given the timeline for certification that has been expressed by military officials.

As to the marriage amendments, the first, proposed by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), "reaffirms the policy of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act." The amendment -- made applicable to the NDAA by referencing Department of Defense rules and regulations, as well as DOD employees -- also repeats section 3's policy of defining "marriage" and "spouse" as relating only to opposite-sex marriages.

The second, offered by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), expands upon the current restrictions of DOMA by effectively banning same-sex marriages from being performed at military bases or by military employees. Akin's amendment prohibits weddings from taking place on military installations – such as bases – or other Department of Defense property if they don't comply with DOMA. It also prohibits chaplains or other DOD employees from performing non-DOMA-compliant marriages while "acting in an official capacity."

Of the marriage amendments, Sarvis said, "Make no mistake: these attempts by repeal opponents to shift the debate from DADT to DOMA is simply another way to strike at the dignity of LGB service members. Along with our allies, SLDN will stand up for these warriors, who should never be treated as second-class patriots."

Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson noted in a statement, "The passage of the defense authorization bill with these hostile amendments included comes as no surprise, and it should not become a cause for concern as long as our allies in the Senate and the President all stand strong and refuse to support a defense bill containing these amendments."

Calling the amendments "a waste of time," Nicholson added, "The Pentagon, the President, and the American people have made it abundantly clear - we are moving forward and building a stronger military free of unnecessary discrimination."

Before D.C. residents can head to the beach for Memorial Day weekend 2011, the Human Rights Campaign -- nearly 18 months from Election Day and with no Republican nominee -- has endorsed the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012.

HRC president Joe Solmonese:

President Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any President in history. In 2008 we were promised change and profound change is what we got.  More remains to be done and ensuring that President Obama is able to continue the forward momentum toward equality for another term is an absolute priority of the Human Rights Campaign.

An hour later, GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia responds in a statement:

Today, the Human Rights Campaign chose to endorse Barack Obama's re-election even though the field running for President in 2012 isn't even set yet. This pre-emptive endorsement ends HRC's charade of bipartisanship. LGBT people who are interested in putting policy before partisanship now know that HRC is little more than a puppet of the Democratic National Committee and an organization that has one goal -- to elect more Democrats.

Read the full release below the jump.

[Photo: Bloomberg speaks at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art about marriage equality in New York. (Photo care of Freedom to Marry.)]

Today, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a major address on the fight for marriage equality in New York, concluding in his speech at Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art that "[t]he time has come for us to fulfill the dreams that exploded onto Sheridan Square 42 years ago."

From his prepared remarks:

[T]he question for every New York State lawmaker is: Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights? Or an obstructionist? On matters of freedom and equality, history has not remembered obstructionists kindly.

Not on abolition.

Not on women's suffrage.

Not on workers' rights.

Not on civil rights.

And it will be no different on marriage rights.

And, later, he squarely addressed religious concerns, saying:

I understand the desire by some to seek guidance from their religious teachings. But this is not a religious issue.  It is a civil issue. And that is why, under the bill proposed in Albany, no church or synagogue or mosque would be required to perform or sanction a same-sex wedding – as is the case in every state that has legalized marriage equality.

And, his stirring conclusion:

Tonight, two New Yorkers who are in a committed relationship will come home, cook dinner, help their kids with their homework and turn in for the night. They want desperately to be married – not for the piece of paper they will get. Not for the ceremony or the reception or the wedding cake. But for the recognition that the lifelong commitment they have made to each other is not less than anyone else’s and not second-class in any way. And they want it not just for themselves – but for their children. They want their children to know that their family is as healthy and legitimate as all other families.

That desire for equal standing in society is extraordinarily powerful and it has led to extraordinary advances in American freedom.

It has never been defeated.

It cannot be defeated.

And on marriage equality, it will not be defeated.

There is no retreating to a past that has disappeared. There is no holding back a wave that has crested. And there is no denying a freedom that belongs to us all.

The time has come for us to fulfill the dreams that exploded onto Sheridan Square 42 years ago: to allow thousands of men and women to become full members of the American family, and to take the next step on the inspired journey our founding fathers first began.

Read Bloomberg's full remarks, as prepared for delivery, below the jump.

Equality Maryland's interim executive director Lynne Bowman is in talks with the organization's board about her future with the organization, on the heels of news reported first by Metro Weekly on Tuesday, May 24, about the organization's finances.

Bowman told Metro Weekly, "The organization is in a very difficult financial situation. We're trying to figure out what that means for me for June."

Bowman currently is on a monthly contract with the organization, being paid roughly $7,000 per month. From the time she was announced as the interim head of the organization, she had said she was not interested in making the move permanent.

Members of the board told Metro Weekly earlier this week that the organization could shut down operations at the end of June if it does not collect $20,000 to $25,000 in donations to cover operating expenses

Of the discussions about her June contract, Bowman said, "It's certainly not anything that anyone wouldn't expect given yesterday's news about the organization's financial situation."

Bowman is headed back to Ohio today, where she and her partner have a home, for the weekend for a Columbus State Community College board of trustees meeting and the Memorial Day holiday. She said the trip would have happened regardless of the financial announcement this week and added that she expects discussions with the board to continue over the weekend.

Additional reporting by Chris Geidner.

A new supporter for marriage equality and proponent of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has won election to the U.S. Congress with tonight's upset victory that has been called for Democrat Kathy Hochul against Republican Jane Corwin in New York's 26th District. With 91 percent of precincts reporting, Hochul was winning the race 48 percent to 42 percent, with Tea Party candidate Jack Davis garnering 9 percent of the vote.

The special election, the result of former Rep. Chris Lee (R-N.Y.)'s resignation earlier this year, focused in recent days on Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.)'s Medicare plan and the impact of the self-funded Davis -- but that didn't stop the National Organization for Marriage from getting involved in the race. NOM filed an independent expenditure report with the Federal Election Commission, announcing that it paid $5778.24 to ccAdvertising for "Voter Calls" made in support of Corwin on Monday, May 23.

On April 20, The Batavian's Howard Owens posted the results of at least portions of candidate questionnaires in the race, including a question about marriage and the military.

Hochul's response:

Q: What is your position on marriage?  Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom?  Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?  Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military? 

A: I don’t think the federal government should involve itself on issues of who can marry whom, that needs to be determined by the states. I believe everyone should be afforded equal rights under federal law. I do support the civil institution of marriage for gay couples, with absolutely no requirements placed on religious institutions.  Gay men and women, who want to fight to defend our freedom, should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.

Corwin, on the other hand, stated, "I believe that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman." As to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, she appears to have been unclear as to the specifics surrounding DADT repeal:

It's important to look at the military’s implementation plan for allowing gay men and women to openly serve in the military, especially since we are a nation at war. Last year, Democrats made a political decision to decline to wait for the military’s report on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It’s important for leaders in the military – those who would actually be the ones implementing a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – to testify before Congress about how they would implement a repeal of the law to ensure that military readiness during a time of war is not affected.

Although the specifics of the call have not been reported, the company hired by NOM, ccAdvertising, has done anti-marriage equality polling in the past -- which it makes available on its website -- for a "Donor Aquisition Survey" for "Concerned Oregonians."

Among the questions asked in the Oregon survey were if "homosexual relationships" should result in "equal rights and benefits" for those couples. The call went on to state that legislative efforts aimed at allowing same-sex marriages "undermined traditional marriage." Moreover, ccAdvertising has been associated socially conservative robocalls in past election cycles, including the 2008 general election general election in Virginia and the 2006 "Common Sense" ads that ran in several states across the country.

[Photo: Hochul]

In a letter sent tonight from the Equality Maryland board members to "friends, allies, and supporters of LGBT equality" regarding the organization's financial crisis, which was reported earlier today by Metro Weekly, the board members state that they had voted to "remove" former executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets from the position in April.

Board members initially had given conflicting accounts at the time regarding the departure of Meneses-Sheets, who told Metro Weekly she was fired.

The board members -- who include Chuck Butler, Patrick Wojahn, Lisa Polyak, Rosemary Nicolosi, Darrell Carrington, David Lublin and Mark Yost -- state:

Last month the board of Directors took a step that we had hoped to avoid, but was necessary to restore the organization's integrity and viability -- we voted to remove the Executive Director. We took this action with regret, but because our duty as guardians of Equality Maryland compelled it. We also regret that the Executive Director resigned while we were in the process of negotiating an amicable separation.

On April 22, when talking to Metro Weekly, board president Charles Butler disputed the characterization that Meneses-Sheets was fired, saying rather that the board was in negotiations with her.

"Anything was possible," he said then, of her future with or departure form the organzation.

Today's letter, posted on the organization's website, is dated May 25 -- which is Wednesday -- and titled "The Future of Equality Maryland" and it was penned to address "deficiencies in the organizations." The letter notes:

Since late 2010, when we assumed our leadership roles on the Board of Directors, we have become increasingly aware of deficiencies in the organization. We realized early on that we had to take action to rectify these problems. At the same time, we were focused on advancing the gender identity anti-discrimination and marriage equality bills, which had their first real opportunity for success in the 2011 General Assembly. We thus attempted to manage the organization's problems through internal controls without making any changes that could undermine the viability of either bill.

As you know, the gender identity and marriage bills did not pass. However, they progressed significantly further than ever before, and are positioned for a successful outcome in the near future. For this, we owe much gratitude to all who made this achievement possible, including Maryland's LGBT community, the staff of Equality Maryland, state and national partner organizations, Maryland's openly gay and lesbian legislators, and all our allied legislators and public officials.

Read the full board letter here.

Today, the administration issued its Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) regarding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as passed by the House Armed Services Committee earlier this month.

Responding to a decision by the House Armed Services Committee to include provisions in the NDAA attempting to expand the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal process and to reaffirm or expand the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration stated today that it "strongly objects" to all three amendments -- expanding on previous comments to Metro Weekly by White House spokesman Shin Inouye that the administration had "serious objections to any amendment that would unnecessarily delay" repeal.

Despite the strong objections, the White House did not state that inclusion of any of the three provisions would lead to a recommendation that President Barack Obama veto the bill -- as the SAP states would be recommended as to other provisions relating to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the New START Treaty and detainees.

From the SAP:

Attempts to Prevent, Delay, or Undermine the Repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell":  On December 22, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, in order to strengthen our national security, enhance military readiness, and uphold the fundamental American principles of fairness and equality that warfighters defend around the world.  As required by that statute, DoD is diligently working to prepare the necessary policies and regulations and conducting educational briefings to implement the repeal.  Should it be determined, as required by the statute, that the implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention, then the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will send forward the required certification.  The Administration strongly objects to any legislative attempts (such as section 533) to directly or indirectly undermine, prevent, or delay the implementation of the repeal, as such efforts create uncertainty for servicemembers and their families. 

Military Regulations Regarding Marriage:  The Administration strongly objects to sections 534 and 535, believes that section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory, and supports DOMA’s repeal. 

The DADT-related amendment, proposed by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), expands the required certification process for repeal -- which already includes the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- to include the sign-off of the service branch chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

The first of the two marriage amendments, proposed by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), "reaffirms the policy of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act." The amendment – made applicable to the NDAA by referencing Department of Defense rules and regulations, as well as DOD employees – also repeats section 3's policy of defining "marriage" and "spouse" as relating only to opposite-sex marriages.

The second, offered by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), expands upon the current restrictions of DOMA by effectively banning same-sex marriages from being performed at military bases or by military employees. Akin's amendment prohibits weddings from taking place on military installations – such as bases – or other Department of Defense property if they don't comply with DOMA. It also prohibits chaplains or other DOD employees from performing non-DOMA-complaint marriages while "acting in an official capacity."

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "We are heartened to see the White House standing firm against attempts to use the defense spending bill as a vehicle for delaying or derailing repeal and expanding DOMA. The most troubling is the Akin language which infringes upon the religious liberties of chaplains, service members, and Department of Defense civilian employees. This would set a dangerous precedent.

"At SLDN, we are focused on the Senate, where we should be better positioned to fight back these attacks."

Human Rights Campaign spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz concurred, telling Metro Weekly, "Our focus is on working with our allies in the Senate to remove these unnecessary provisions meant to slow down DADT repeal."

The full SAP can be found below the jump.

[Photo: Hunter]

On Friday, May 20, the Republican members of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed a motion to intervene in two cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act that are currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States, have been brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and the state of Massachusetts and are consolidated on appeal. In July 2010, the trial court judge, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, agreed with the plaintiffs and struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which sets the federal definition of marriage as being only one man and one woman. Although the Department of Justice initially appealed those decisions, the subsequent Feb. 23 decision by DOJ that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional led DOJ to file a notice to the court in the cases that it would no longer be defending the provision in the Gill or Massachusetts cases.

This, then led to the BLAG's involvement, which is characterized by Friday's filing in more aggressive terms than the BLAG had done in its April 18 filing in another DOMA challenge.

The attorneys for the BLAG, led by former George W. Bush administration solicitor general Paul Clement, write:

On March 9, 2011, in response to the Department's decision to turn its back on its responsibilities, the House formally determined to defend the statute in cases in which DOMA's constitutionality has been challenged.

Compare this to the BLAG's description of the same decision in the April 18 filing in Windsor v. United States, in which Clement wrote:

In response, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives ... formally determined on March 9, 2011 to defend the statute in civil actions in which Section III's constitutionality has been challenged.

The Friday BLAG filing seeking intervention in the Gill and Massachusetts cases also goes on to state that "the Department now refuses to defend against" DOMA Section 3 challenges -- a statement that appeared nowhere in the Windsor filing.

Additionally, and unlike the Windsor filing, today's filing contains an explicit defense of the standing of the BLAG to intervene, which the BLAG's attorneys say is unnecessary but that, even if necessary to be shown, the BLAG does have standing to intervene.

One final note: Massachusetts did not consent to the intervention. This is notable and is one potential reason for the more aggressive tone take in the brief. The lawyers from GLAD and the DOJ, as well as Edith Windsor's lawyers in her challenge, all consented to the BLAG's intervention. As such in Windsor, the motion was filed as "unopposed" and contained a proposed order. Although a proposed briefing schedule is included in the BLAG's Friday filing in Gill and Massachusetts, there is no proposed order.

Another potential reason for the more aggressive language is that over the past month BLAG's lead outside counsel, Clement, left the King & Spalding firm and took the BLAG representation to Bancroft PLLC, a smaller firm led by another former George W. Bush administration lawyer, Viet Dinh.

Read the Gill and Massachusetts BLAG motion to intervene: 2011-05-20-blag-motion-to-intervene-in-gill.pdf

The Be the Change nonprofit announced today that Kevin Jennings, currently serving in the Obama administration's Education Department as the assistant deputy secretary and the head of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, will be leaving that role this summer to become the new president and CEO of Be the Change.

Jennings -- who is a prominent out gay member of the Obama administration -- was the subject of significant right-wing outrage when named to the administration position, a topic he discussed in a lunch event with D.C. interns this past summer.

In a news release from Be the Change, Jennings said of his new role, "It has been an honor to serve in the Obama Administration and specifically on Secretary [Arne] Duncan's leadership team at the Department of Education. I am incredibly excited to return to the nonprofit sector by joining the Be the Change team and working on issues like promoting public service and increasing economic opportunity, the kinds of critical challenges we must solve if America is to continue to thrive in the 21st century."

Be the Change was founded in 2007 by current president and CEO Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City Year. Jennings will be the second leader for the organization, a move praised by Be the Change board chair Josh Bekenstein of Bain Capital.

"We are delighted to draw a leader of Kevin’s caliber to succeed Alan," Bekenstein said in the release. "His experience both leading a national nonprofit  as well as working in the federal government makes him the ideal leader to take the reigns as Alan takes on new challenges."

According to Be the Change, Jennings -- best known as the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network prior to working for the Obama administration -- will begin his new role at Be the Change on July 25.

According to the organization, Be the Change is "a nonprofit that creates national issue based campaigns by organizing coalitions of non-profits, social entrepreneurs, policymakers, private sector and civic leaders, academics, and citizens." The organization points to ServiceNation as "the first campaign launched from Be the Change, Inc.'s platform," citing that the effort had "over 270 organizations in its coalition [and] helped to achieve the strongly bi-partisan Kennedy Serve America Act -- the greatest expansion of national service in our country in 60 years."

A request for additional comment from Jennings made through the Education Department was not immediately returned.

Read the release: jenningsannouncement.pdf

[Photo: Attorneys Ted Olson, left, and David Boies -- who are co-counsel in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 -- talk after a lunch forum at the Cato Institute on Wednesday, May 18. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Although the federal lawsuit claiming that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional was filed nearly two years ago and won't find its way to the Supreme Court for quite some time if at all, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who served in the George W. Bush administration, and liberal attorney David Boies made the rounds discussing the case that they are leading in the District on Wednesday.

This morning, the duo spoke to a group of reporters at the left-leaning Center for American Progress about the case -- on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- with a focus on the standing issue that has the case stalled currently as the California Supreme Court considers a question sent to it by the appellate court. A few hours later, Olson and Boies made their way down the street and across the political spectrum to the libertarian Cato Institute for a lunch program about the lawsuit, now named Perry v. Brown because the governor is the lead defendant named in the case.

In both instances, they were joined by the heads of those two organizations, CAP's John Podesta and Cato's Robert Levy. The men serve as the co-chairs of the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the head of which -- Chad Griffin -- recruited Olson and Boies to bring the case two years ago. Podesta and Levy serve as a second-level example of the non-partisan support for marriage equality that Olson and Boies often talk about as one of the benefits of having the "odd couple" of Bush v. Gore -- a line Olson said he's heard "a thousand times" -- teaming up for Perry.

Responding to a question from Metro Weekly at CAP this morning, Boies discussed how he believes a decision that the Proposition 8 proponents lack standing to pursue an appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's decision striking down the amendment as unconstitutional in Perry is not troubling.

Contrasting it with a case in which no party is able to appeal a court's decision, Boies said, "Here, you had lots of people with standing. All of the people that California has entrusted with enforcing the laws -- not just the attorney general and governor -- we had the state registrar involved, we had the two county clerks where our plaintiffs resided, the opponents went to county clerks all over the state.

"This was not something in which somebody just slipped by, and you've got the wrong parties here and so you're not getting to appeal because you have the wrong parties. This is a situation in which none of the people in California with custody of enforcing the laws were prepared to do the appeal."

As to whether a legal decision ending the case on standing grounds might create political difficulties for marriage equality advocates and supporters, Boies said he didn't see such a decision having much impact.

"I don't think anyone who favors marriage equality will be unhappy with it. I think that people who oppose marriage equality intensely will be unhappy -- but then, they'll be unhappy with a decision that comes out that way, no matter what," he said. "I don't think the average person -- who doesn't have a particular view one way or the other -- will care about it, in the sense that they will know that this issue is going to continue to be litigated in other states."

More specifically, Griffin said that AFER would bring another case in another jurisdiction if Perry doesn't go to the U.S. Supreme Court -- and later told Metro Weekly that both Boies and Olson and their respective firms -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and Gibson Dunn Crutcher -- would be involved any such challenge.

Boies also addressed the issue of whether or not Charles Cooper, the lawyer for the proponents who was seen by some observers to have stumbled in his presentation of the case and the appellate arguments before the Ninth Circuit in December 2010.

"The fact of the matter is, the defendants in this case had as good of legal counsel as you can get. The problem with the case was not their counsel; the problem was the case."

Of the case that was put on -- by both sides -- and the ongoing efforts of the proponents to keep the video of the trial from being released publicly, Olson said, "If you had been there during this trial and if America had been there during this trial, attitudes would change overnight. As it is, attitudes are changing remarkably in this country in the last two years since this case was filed.

"The judge ordered that the trial be videotaped," Olson noted, describing, however, how the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in at the last minute to keep the broadcast from being streamed to other federal courthouses during the trial.

"Fortunately, there is an opportunity that still exists for the American people to see that trial," he explained, noting that a matter pending before the trial court involves whether the tape could be released and adding, "The proponents of Proposition 8 ... desperately do not want that videotape out and available to the American people."

During the question-and-answer period of the lunch event at Cato, the lawyers were asked about the motion filed by the proponents to vacate the decision of the trial court because of the fact that Judge Walker told a group of reporters that he is gay and is in a long-term relationship.

Olson characterized the filing, which will be considered by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware on June 13, dismissively, saying, "They have raised the question that because of the judge's sexual orientation, the decision that he made almost a year ago should be vacated, and we should start over. In the first place, that is not timely. ... You cannot know certain facts about the judge's orientation and not raise a question about it, state in fact affirmatively in various different fora that that issue is not going to be raised and so forth, and then wait until you lose and then decide, 'Oh, wait a minute. Maybe we don't like the judge's sexual orientation.

"Number two, on the merits, there are lots of cases and there's a lot of history here -- we don't, constitutionally, allow someone to keep a person off a jury because of their race or because of their sex. We wouldn't tolerate a motion to disqualify Justice Thurgood Marshall, when he was on the Supreme Court, to engage in decisions involving race. Or Justice Ginsburg, cases involving gender.

"I don't like to predict the outcome of motions, but I'd rather be on this side of that motion," he said to laughter, adding -- with an edge, "They're lucky that we didn't ask for sanctions."

Despite complex questions about standing and whether the appeal will go forward and ongoing issues about the videotape's availability and the judge's sexual orientation, the summary of the two lawyers' argument -- as Olson told the reporters this morning -- is rather straightforward: "At the end of the day, the word 'marriage' means something. It isn't just the institution of marriage, it is the words themselves."

[Photo, above right: Center for American Progress's John Podesta, attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, Cato Institute's Robert Levy and American Foundation for Equal Rights's Chad Griffin discuss the Perry case with reporters at CAP on Wednesday morning. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)

Photo, below: Olson, center, and Boies, right, answer questions by audience members selected by David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, on Wednesday, May 18. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Activists in Maryland followed up on a statement issued by Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) on the hate crime indictiment of a suspect involved in a beating of a transgender woman at a McDonald's restaurant by announcing the formation of a new group called Gender Rights Maryland.

According to a press release issued on Wednesday, May 18, Gender Rights Maryland identifies itself as "a new civil rights organization focused on gender identity and expression in the State of Maryland."

"The organization will consist of a 501(c)4 political arm and 501(c)3 foundation. The organization was founded by members of the Maryland transgender community who were active this year in supporting gender identity legislation in Annapolis as well as in previous years. The organization will be formally launched in the coming weeks."

Maryland transgender activist Dana Beyer will serve as the executive director of the organization, while Sharon Brackett is listed as serving as the group's board chair. 

"The purpose of Gender Rights Maryland is to promote civil rights, education, tolerance, equality and acceptance on the basis of sex and gender identity/expression in the State of Maryland. Gender Rights Maryland’s initial legislative goal is to see the passage of a comprehensive gender identity anti‐discrimination bill by the end of the 2012 legislative session.

Reacting to O'Malley's May 17 statement, Gender Rights Maryland states: 

"Gender Rights Maryland commends Governor O’Malley’s statement yesterday regarding prosecution of the perpetrators of the beating of Chrissy Lee Polis in April, and we concur with him on the importance of fostering a culture of understanding and respect for the dignity of all persons. We welcome the actions of Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger, and place our trust in the legal process in pursing justice for Ms. Polis.

We also call upon the Governor to appoint a Commission to study gender identity discrimination in Maryland this year. The debate over the gender identity anti-discrimination bill during the 2011 session of the legislature in Annapolis, followed by this horrific assault, highlight the need for comprehensive legislative remedies, and we believe a commission would be a useful first step in moving our state closer to the goal of being a place where we are all able to lead lives of full human dignity and receive equal justice under law. We welcome the Governor's actions and pledge to work with him to achieve these ends."

[Photo: Beyer by Todd Franson]

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) issued a statement today, reacting to Monday's indictment of Teonna Brown, 18, who was charged with first degree assault and a hate crime, for the physical attack on Chrissy Polis, a transgender woman, at the Rosedale, Md., McDonald's on Monday, April 18. In the statement, he said:

“I want to commend BaltimoreCountyState's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger for using every available means to prosecute the heinous beating of Chrissy Lee Polis last month," O'Malley states.  

“Even with Maryland's 'hate crimes' law, it is clear that more must be done to protect the rights and dignity of transgendered people.  In the struggle for justice and equality for all, I'm committed to working with the Maryland General Assembly during the next legislative session to increase awareness and provide even greater protections for transgendered people. 

“As some have noted, out of this awful beating has come a moment to foster a deeper understanding and respect for the dignity of all persons.  We should not allow the moment to pass without greater action.”

Brown was charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault and a hate crime for the attack on Polis. Brown also was charged with second-degree assault charges regarding Vicki Thoms, who tried to intervene during the attack, and Darrick Jones.

She is currently detained along with a female juvenile that has been charged in the Juvenile Court with the identical charges as the adult. According to the Baltimore County State's Attorney's Office, no other individuals will be charged "with crimes arising out of this incident."

The April 18 incident was caught on video tape by a McDonald's employee who was later fired. The attack left Polis battered and angered members of the LGBT community and beyond who gathered at the McDonald's one week later for a vigil calling an end to violence

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is jumping into an already crowded Republican primary to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in 2012. In a statement released today, Akin's office announced:

MISSOURI - Today Congressman Todd Akin, a known and tested conservative congressman from Missouri’s Second Congressional District, announced that he will run for the United States Senate to replace Claire McCaskill in 2012. Congressman Akin made his announcement in St. Louis today, and will be traveling across Missouri this week to take questions regarding his candidacy.

At Politico, David Catanese noted:

Not only will Akin have to face former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman -- who while flubbed an early fundraising opportunity has also shown a penchant to throw a primary punch -- it looks increasingly likely he could face a self-funder from his own backyard [-- wealthy businessman Jon Brunner --] who lacks the baggage of a voting record.

Akin's announcement comes less than a week after successfully offering an anti-LGBT amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which effectively bans same-sex marriages from being performed at military bases or by military employees, was a response to a Navy memorandum released earlier in the week, which detailed legal guidance that such weddings -- where legal under state law -- could be performed on military property.

The amendment, approved on a 38-23 vote in the House Armed Services Committee, if approved by both chambers of Congress and signed into law, would expand upon the current restrictions of the Defense of Marriage Act. Akin's amendment prohibits weddings from taking place on military installations -- such as bases -- or other Department of Defense property if they don't comply with DOMA. It also prohibits chaplains or other DOD employees from performing non-DOMA-compliant marriages while ''acting in an official capacity.

[Photo: Akin]

Immigration Equality plans to host a meeting in New York City on Wednesday, May 18, to discuss strategies for helping keep bi-national same-sex couples from being separated due to current law, which prevents Americans with same-sex spouses from sponsoring their foreign partner for purposes of obtaining a green card or otherwise preventing deportation.

Among the organizations planning to have representatives in attendance are the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Freedom to Marry, Metro Weekly has confirmed. Immigration Equality would not release a complete list of attendees.

The issue of the fate of same-sex bi-national couples has been in the news repeatedly since the Department of Justice decided that it would no long defend section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which creates a federal definition of marriage that includes only opposite-sex couples. That definition has kept Americans from being permitted to sponsor same-sex foreign partners for immigration purposes.

Most recently, Attorney General Eric Holder on May 5 vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying the cancellation of a removal order for Paul Wilson Dorman, asking the BIA to answer several questions relating to the status of Dorman and his American partner, with whom he had entered into a civil union in 2009.

Of Wednesday's meeting, Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls told Metro Weekly, "Immigration Equality has organized, and will lead, a meeting later this week in New York. The guest list for the event is private, though I can confirm that the conversation will be centered around Immigration Equality's work on behalf of binational families."

Asked to explain the purpose of the meeting further, Ralls explained, "[T]here has been enormous attention focused on our work surrounding LGBT binational families recently, and many groups and individuals have expressed an interest in that work. We are bringing a group of those allies together for an off-the-record discussion about how to ensure we win that campaign as quickly as possible, and end the discrimination those families are facing."

Ty Cobb, HRC legislative counsel, Josh King, HRC's lobbyist on the issue, will be attending on behalf of the organization, according to HRC spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz. Attorney Janson Wu from GLAD will be attending on behalf of his organization, according to GLAD communications director Carisa Cunningham.

Freedom to Marry president Evan Wolfson, who will be attending part of the meeting, tells Metro Weekly, "Clearly Freedom to Marry, like many other groups, is eager to identify and support strategies to end -- and, as quickly as possible, suspend -- the hardships and injustice endured by binational couples denied the family unification policies afforded to other couples who can marry. 

Writing about his organization's broader work, he added, "And, Freedom to Marry has a particular interest in connecting the larger immigration conversation and progress to be made in improving our country's policies to our call to tell the stories of our families and how they are harmed by the denial of marriage, our federal push to overturn the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act,' and our three-track campaign to end exclusion from marriage."

The grand jury for Baltimore County indicted Teonna Brown, 18, with five charges on Monday, May 16, including that of a hate crime, for the physical attack on Chrissy Polis, a transgender woman, at the Rosedale, Md., McDonald's on Monday, April 18.

According to information obtained from the Baltimore County State's Attorney's Office, Brown was charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault and a hate crime for the attack on Polis. Brown also was charged with second-degree assault charges regarding Vicki Thoms, who tried to intervene during the attack, and Darrick Jones.

In addition to Brown, the Baltimore County State's Attorney's Office states that a female juvenile has been charged in the Juvenile Court with the identical charges as the adult. Both individuals are currently detained. According to the office, no other individuals will be charged "with crimes arising out of this incident."

The April 18 incident was caught on video tape by a McDonald's employee who was later fired. The attack left Polis battered and angered members of the LGBT community and beyond who gathered at the McDonald's one week later for a vigil calling an end to violence. 

In a statement released to Metro Weekly, Equality Maryland lauded the Baltimore County State's Attorney's actions, with Lynne Bowman, interim executive director at Equality Maryland, saying:

"Today, the State's Attorney for Baltimore County came to the only possible conclusion in deciding to try the assault on Chrissy Lee Polis as a hate crime. As the video shows, the violent attack was directly related to the fact that Ms. Polis is a transgender woman. Lack of understanding or fear about someone who is transgender is never an excuse for violence and when it occurs, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

"Through our Transgender Education Project, Equality Maryland will continue to work to educate people in Maryland about issues related to gender identity and the challenges transgender people face just trying to go about their daily lives. We will also continue our push in Annapolis to see gender identity protections added to Maryland's existing anti-discrimination laws. Maryland has always been on the forefront of social justice issues. It's time that our Assembly makes a clear statement that discrimination against someone based on their gender identity is wrong and will no longer be tolerated in this state."

[Photo: Brown]

From The Washington Post editorial board:

PAUL WILSON DORMAN, a citizen of the United Kingdom, came to the United States on a visitor's visa in 1996 and never left. He met an American man who became his partner of 15 years. They have jointly purchased property and made out wills with the other as beneficiary. In 2009 they entered into a civil union in New Jersey. ...

Two immigration courts concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) precludes recognition of his same-sex partner as a spouse. ...

The attorney general has vacated the court decision and asked the Board of Immigration Appeals whether Mr. Dorman's civil union makes him a "spouse" under New Jersey law and whether, absent DOMA, he would be considered a "spouse" under immigration law. Mr. Holder should erase any confusion by declaring a moratorium on removal of foreign nationals in state-recognized same-sex unions until federal courts determine DOMA's constitutionality. He should ensure that the government is not focusing on breaking up otherwise law-abiding families.

For more background, read this earlier report at Metro Weekly.

The news of the retirement of Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) has set off a flurry of speculation about the House's only out lesbian, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), and whether she would run fr the seat. Although other possible names include former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), the Victory Fund's Denis Dison told Metro Weekly that sources close to Baldwin have said she is likely to run. 

The Victory Fund then posted the following:

Sources close to Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., have told the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund she is very likely to run for the U.S. Senate seat now occupied by Sen. Herb Kohl, who has decided not to run for reelection in 2012. If Baldwin runs and wins, she would become the nation’s first openly LGBT member of the U.S. senate.

"This would obviously be a top priority for us. Tammy Baldwin has been an outstanding congresswoman, and she'd be an outstanding senator," said Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which has endorsed Baldwin repeatedly. In 1998, when Baldwin became the first openly LGBT candidate to win election to the U.S. Congress as a freshman, the Victory Fund raised nearly a quarter million dollars for her campaign."

The Wall Street Journal brought attention to a Fulton County Daily Report article providing additional information about the circumstances of -- and problems with -- King & Spalding's representation of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in its defense of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On April 14, the House general counsel signed a contract for the representation with Paul Clement, a partner at the time at King & Spalding and the former solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration. The decision to reatain King & Spalding was revealed on April 18, and the contract was released the next day. Metro Weekly and other publications examined provisions of the contract, including the "gag rule" and the "$500,000 cap."

A few days later, on April 25, King & Spalding announced that they were withdrawing from representation of BLAG, and Metro Weekly followed up the next day with analysis of the questions raised in the aftermath of the withdrawal.

The withdrawal request in the one case in which King & Spalding had filed paperwork already was Windsor v. United States. The request to the court, as noted at the time by Metro Weekly, was signed by Richard A. Cirillo, a partner in the firm's New York office. Cirillo, according to his firm biography, serves as chair of the firm's "Business Review (Ethics) Committee."

The firm's chairman, Robert Hays Jr., issued a statement that day, noting in part, "In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate."

Clement, who also resigned from King & Spalding that day, wrote in a letter to the firm, "I would have never undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. ... If there were problems with the firm's vetting process, we should fix the vetting process, not drop the representation."

Today's report from the Journal, however, suggests that the "problems with the firm's vetting process" were rather clear:

[T]he Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding's business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.

The sources said the firm's partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. "Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee," one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.

The Journal goes on to quote a statement given to the Daily Report by King & Spalding partner J. Sedwick Sollers:

Although our chairman Robert Hays has issued a short statement saying he assumed ultimate responsibility for any mistakes that were made, I want to make sure the record is clear that I was the member of firm management in primary contact with Paul Clement regarding this matter. As I have reflected on this, despite the fact that our standard client/matter review process was not followed, it was reasonable for him to believe that the firm would accept the matter. This was an unfortunate misunderstanding with a friend whom I personally recruited to the firm and strongly supported. I am deeply disappointed by Paul's departure and regret the breakdown in communications.

Although the Journal's Nathan Koppel characterizes this statement as "back[ing] Clement's earlier comments that he believed he had the all-clear before taking the assignment," the statement only appears to acknowledge that a previously established vetting process for the firm -- of going through the ethics committee before taking on the representation -- was not followed in this case.

Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, tells Metro Weekly that he views the new information far differently that the Journal's Koppel, writing, "What this new insider account suggests is that Clement did not follow the rules of his own firm, he was at least partly to blame for taking the case before the firm gave its approval, and now, if there are legal ethics questions, they are at least in some way his own fault. None of which should be earning him praise from the legal community."

Clement and his new firm, Bancroft PLLC, have now taken on the BLAG's DOMA defense cases under a similar contract.

Beginning at 8:35 p.m. Wednesday evening, May 11, the House Armed Services Committee reached the "military personnel" portion of today's committee markup of the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA markup began a little past 10 a.m. Wednesday morning, and the committee took breaks for meals and full House floor votes throughout the day before reaching the personnel issues in the evening, which included three amendments altering the current process for implementation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and addressing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) had his amendment considered first of the DADT-related amendments. His amendment would add to the certification process -- which currently requires the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sign off on repeal -- the OK of the service branch chiefs.

Hunter introduced his amendment by saying that the only people who have to sign off on the certification, under the DADT Repeal Act, are "the president, who has never been to war or ground combat," as well as Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who Hunter said also has never been in ground combat, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who Hunter called a "political appointee."

The second amendment to be considered was that of Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), who is aiming to reaffirm the Defense of Marriage Act in this year's NDAA.

The third amendment, considered a little before 11 p.m., was from Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), and would prohibit same-sex marriages to happen on military bases or be performed by military personnel.

Roll-call votes began a little past 11 p.m., first on an amendment unrelated to DADT that was offered by Hunter addressing special education for children of servicemembers.

Following that, Hunter's certification amendment was agreed to on a 33-27 vote.

Alex Nicholson, the executive director of Servicemembers United, said in a statement, "Despite the passage of this amendment within the ever-hostile House Armed Services Committee, it is highly unlikely that such an amendment would ever pass the Senate and be signed by the President. The offering of this amendment was a shameful and embarrassing waste of time."

He continued, "The service chiefs have unequivocally said that they do not want this extra burden forced upon them, so if Congress really values their advice on this issue they should take it and forget this unnecessary and unwanted amendment."

Hartzler's DOMA reaffirmation amendment then was agreed to on a 39-22 vote. Finally, Akin's amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages from being performed on bases or by military personnel was agreed to on a 38-23 vote.

The amendments, which are now a part of the House committee's NDAA bill, still need to be approved by the full House. Additionally, the provisions would need to be approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama before they could become law.

Of all three amendments, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "The amendments adopted tonight during mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act in the U.S. House related to the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' represent nothing less than an assault on our nation's senior military leaders and rank-and-file service members, who are marching toward open military service successfully."

Sarvis added, "These adopted amendments to delay and derail repeal are a partisan political attempt to interject the same-sex marriage debate and other unrelated social issues into the NDAA where they have no place. Make no mistake -- these votes should be a wake-up call to supporters of open service that our work is not done. Our commitment to timely certification and repeal must be redoubled as we move to the House floor to defend the progress we have made to ensure that LGB patriots can defend and serve the country they love with honesty and integrity."

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "Make no mistake, these amendments are meant to slow down open service and perpetuate scare tactics about the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Republicans should stop playing politics by standing in the way of all Americans being able to serve their country equally."

Of the further steps needed before the amendments would become law, Solmonese said, "As the process moves forward, we call on all lawmakers to stop these side shows and get back to the real work on which Americans so desperately want them to focus."

[Image: House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) chairs the markup of the National Defense Authorization Act.]

[NOTE: This post was edited throughout the evening, with final changes made at 12:30 a.m. Thursday, May 12.]

From today's White House press briefing:

    Q    Jay, I've got some questions for you, a series of questions where DOMA and immigration intersect.  Under DOMA, U.S. citizens in legally recognized same-sex marriages cannot sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States.  And -- nationals could be subject to deportation and separation from their spouses upon expiration of temporary visas. Members of Congress have been calling on President Obama to issue a temporary moratorium on these deportations.  Is there any consideration in the administration to issuing such an order?  

     MR. CARNEY:  The President I think made the point in his speech yesterday that he believes we have to take comprehensive action on immigration reform and that he can't just wave a wand and change the law.  So I’ll leave it at that, in terms of his views.

     Q    But do you believe that issuing such an order is within the President's authority?

     MR. CARNEY:  It's not for me to decide.  I'm not a lawyer. 

     Q    On the legislative side -- on the legislative side, does the President want to see a fix to this problem, whether these nationals are married to their same-sex partners or otherwise, as part of comprehensive immigration reform.  There’s legislation that would accomplish this end known as the Uniting American Families Act.

    MR. CARNEY:  It's a level of specificity I don’t have.  But the President is committed to comprehensive immigration reform.  He thinks that it’s got to contain the elements of the continued focus on law enforcement and border control.  And it has to deal with changes to legal immigration and a way to deal with the 11 million illegal immigrants here that’s fair to both them and to businesses and to those who are here legally and approaching this in a legal manner.

     Q    But why didn't the President address this specific address during his immigration speech yesterday?

     MR. CARNEY:  He gave a pretty long, comprehensive speech ....

Legal filings in Edith Windsor's challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act could be completed as early as August 19, according to an order filed today by the magistrate judge overseeing this part of the case.

The discovery and briefing schedule in Windsor's case -- the first case in which the lawyers for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) appeared in court in defense of the 1996 law -- was set by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV in a two-page order following the conference held in the case on May 9.

Although the briefing could be completed by mid-August, questions of whether the BLAG, only supported by its three Republican members, will call expert witnesses to testify in the case and whether it will file a motion to dismiss the challenge could extend that timeline to as late as Sept. 23, according to the order.

The discovery phase of the case, in which parties exchange evidence, is to be completed by July 11.

Windsor's motion for summary judgment -- in which she is expected to argue that there are no disputed matters of fact that would require a trial and that Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutionally required her to pay a $350,000 estate tax bill following the death of her wife, Thea Spyer -- will be due June 24 (or July 15 if the BLAG calls experts to testify in the case).

The BLAG's response -- and a motion to dismiss the case, if it chooses to do so -- will be due Aug. 1 (or Aug 15 if the BLAG has called expert witnesses).

A reply, or final, brief is due from Windsor's counsel approximately two weeks later, to be followed -- if the BLAG files a motion to dismiss -- by the reply brief from the BLAG counsel approximately two weeks after that.

Read the scheduling order: Windsor - Scheduling Order.pdf

From the ACLU:

WASHINGTON– The Department of Justice (DOJ) today filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico which seeks full separation pay for service members who were honorably discharged but had their separation pay cut in half because of “homosexuality.” In the past six years, 142 honorably discharged veterans had their separation pay cut in half because of the discriminatory policy. The total amount of separation pay withheld from those veterans is approximately $2.1 million.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2010, before Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that barred gay or lesbian service members from the military. The lead plaintiff in the case is Richard Collins, a former staff sergeant in the Air Force who served for nine years until he was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Collins was stationed at Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. In its response, the DOJ states that the half-separation pay policy applies not only to those who engage in “Homosexual Conduct,” but also those discharged from the military for drug and alcohol abuse or being deemed a national security risk.

Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, says in the release, "The government’s decision to contest these claims is baffling. These honorably discharged veterans were forced out of the military under the unconstitutional and discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which is in the process of being repealed. All that these veterans are asking for is to receive the same separation pay that any other honorably discharged veteran would have received. It is outrageous to equate these service members with those who were discharged for threats to national security and drug abuse. The government’s treatment of these veterans is shameful and adds insult to injury."

Read the motion: Collins_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

More to come ...

Today, in an extensive speech addressing his aims for comprehensive immigration reform, President Barack Obama spoke to a crowd in El Paso, Texas, about his aims. Nowhere in the speech, however, did he address the issue of same-sex bi-national couples.

Such couples have had green card applications denied in the past because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law the president has said he believes is unconstitutional. Several different pieces of legislation -- including, most specifically, the Uniting American Families Act -- aim to rectify that.

Just this past week, Attorney General Eric Holder pulled a case back from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by remanding it to the Board of Immigration Appeals for consideration of four questions relating to recognition of same-sex couples.

On Monday, May 9, White House press secretary Jay Carney had promoted today's speech as one that would "reflect [Obama's] continued commitment to comprehensive immigration reform."

In a paragraph of the prepared remarks discussing families, Obama addresses husbands and wives separated by the immigration system but not same-sex families.

"Our laws should respect families following the rules – reuniting them more quickly instead of splitting them apart. Today, the immigration system not only tolerates those who break the rules, it punishes the folks who follow the rules," the president was to say. "While applicants wait for approval, for example, they're often forbidden from visiting the United States. Even husbands and wives may have to spend years apart. Parents can't see their children. I don't believe the United States of America should be in the business of separating families. That's not right. That's not who we are."

UPDATE @ 4:35 PM: Attorney Lavi Soloway responds to today's speech, writing, "I applaud the President's commitment to reform so that we can finally achieve a system that is fair, transparent and efficient. However, the legislative process will be a long, uphill battle and the administration has both a responsibility and an opportunity to use its broad executive power in this area now to ensure that this country is not tearing families apart."

He continues, "The administration has not yet delivered fully on its goal to protect all families from deportation, where possible, by application of existing prosecutorial discretion guidelines. President Obama must act immediately to guarantee that the concern for keeping families together extends to all American families, including those who are currently shut-out of the existing immigration system because of the Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, a discriminatory law that he believes is unconstitutional and which he has ceased to defend in federal court. This administration can act now to ensure that no LGBT families are torn apart by instituting a moratorium on deportations of all spouses of lesbian and gay Americans until all married couples are treated equally under our immigration laws."

UPDATE @ 5 PM: White House spokesman Shin Inouye, however, writes, "The President delivered this speech because he wants a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system so that it meets Americas economic and security needs for the 21st century. It is fundamental for America to win the future. His remarks are not meant to be a laundry list of all the issues that immigration reform should address."

In the prepared remarks, Obama was to say, "So what would comprehensive reform look like?"

He then presented a numbered list.

Big news in today's poll out from The Washington Post: Virginians are pro-marriage equality.

From the Post:

Forty-seven percent of Virginians say gay couples should be allowed to legally wed, and 43 percent are opposed, according to the poll. Fifty-five percent of Virginians say gay couples should be able to legally adopt children.

The results mirror a dramatic and rapid shift in national public opinion about gay rights in recent years. The evolving public opinion could create a challenge in the key political battleground for the commonwealth’s Republicans, who are almost universally opposed to gay marriage, if voters think the GOP is falling out of sync with the electorate. But the results also present complications for Virginia Democrats, who have moved more slowly than their national counterparts to embrace liberal social stands for fear of alienating independent voters.

The poll comes out following opposition from Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and Ken Cuccinelli (R) to allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and a decision by the Virginia State Board of Social Services not to put into effect a regulation proposed change that would have allowed for such adoptions.

Just in from the office of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.):

During consideration of the national defense authorization act this week by the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will offer an amendment to require that all four military service chiefs certify that implementation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)" repeal won’t impact combat readiness and effectiveness. The amendment mirrors legislation previously introduced by Hunter—H.R. 337, the Restore Military Readiness Act. 

"The four military service chiefs are far more closely connected to the day-to-day realities facing each respective service branch than those who are currently required to sign off on the repeal—including the President," said Hunter, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  "The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should all take part in the certification process, but excluding the service chiefs is a mistake. They may agree to move forward with the repeal or they may have other recommendations for implementation and timing. Either way, their unvarnished perspective is critical to this process—especially as it relates to preserving the military's high rate of effectiveness.

"I've said before that our priority should be winning in Afghanistan and focusing on the roadside bomb threat, the primary source of U.S. casualties. The repeal of DADT won't make our troops any safer or help achieve victory any faster. Even so, any movement toward implementation must be efficient and show respect for the culture and tradition unique to each service branch and the military as a whole."

Although Hunter's comments are couched in terms of how implementation should be approached, Hunter will an outspoken opponent of repeal in the 111th Congress and has been one of the few voices still speaking out strongly in opposition in the 112th Congress. Hunter does have support from at least some Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, where his amendment will -- it appears -- be offiered on Wednesday, May 11.

On repeated occasions, when asked in congressional testimony -- both before the Senate on Dec. 3, 2010, and the House earlier this year -- service chiefs have said that they believe such additional certification language is unnecessary.

Human Rights Campaign vice president for communications Fred Sainz tells Metro Weekly, "This is the school yard equivalent of a 'do-over.' It's just plain wrong. Republicans didn't get their way when the issue was heard last year so now their trying to remake history. It won't work."

He continued, "This is misguided effort that Republicans should approach advisedly for these reasons: 1) to the American public, this is a settled issue. Re-opening the issue will be a total disconnect to an issue that the American public overwhelmingly support. It will come across as exactly what it is: sour grapes; 2) the defense secretary and joint chiefs chairman are opposed to it; and 3) this sideshow is completely at odds with the Republican priorities of jobs and the economy. We'll make sure that everyone knows this is a complete deviation from the stated priority."

Attorney Lavi Soloway tells Metro Weekly that Henry Velandia's deportation proceedings have been adjourned, in part, because of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals decision in another case involving a same-sex couple on Thursday. Moreover, Soloway says, "The government attorney agreed to adjourn the case."

Velandia, who is from Venezuela, is married to Josh Vandiver of Colorado. The couple was married in Connecticut and live in New Jersey, and Vandiver has filed a petition seeking a marriage-based green card for Velandia, an I-130 petition.

Speaking with Soloway, their attorney in this matter, after the hearing, he tells Metro Weekly the immigration judge adjourned the deportation proceedings, which will place the matter back on the "master calendar," which is more of a status conference and, more importantly for Velandia and Vandiver, removes the "immediate threat" of deportation.

"The judge said at the outset that he wanted to deal with the question of whether the case should be adjourned before we discussed anything else," he says. "Despite the fact that he had earlier twice denied our motions for continuance. At this time, he essentially reversed himself."

Of the reasons, Soloway says, "The first reason that he granted an adjournment was that the I-130 petition filed by Josh for Henry was still pending and he felt that it was appropriate to let the U.S. CIS to adjudicate that petition, and that it would be inappropriate to move forward until that happened."

The second reason the judge cited, Soloway says, was Holder's May 5 decision to vacate a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals related to the application of Paul Wilson Dorman, in which the BIA had applied Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to his pending case.

"He also cited the potential that he saw from the Matter of Dorman decision yesterday, which he reviewed it in court and discussed it," Soloways says. "He cited the potential that the government might be looking at a different way of approaching the definition of marriage for immigration purposes, and so, it was appropriate to adjourn in light of that decision to vacate."

Once "the judge explained his reasoning," Soloway says, "The government attorney said, 'On behalf of the Department of Homeland Security' that they were in agreement that that was the appropriate way to move forward."

Of the Metro Weekly Poliglot report on Holder's May 5 decision, Soloway notes, "I came into the court and the judge handed me Matter of Dorman, and attached to it, with a staple, was [Metro Weekly's] article xeroxed for everyone to see, from yesterday. The judge said, 'I'd like to make this part of the record.'"

[Photo: Soloway.]

As Metro Weekly publishes the first part of its series on the Defense of Marriage Act, the man who signed the bill into law -- President Bill Clinton -- is now working to help pass marriage equality in New York.

In a statement released by the Human Rights Campaign earlier today, Clinton says:

Our nation's permanent mission is to form a 'more perfect union' - deepening the meaning of freedom, broadening the reach of opportunity, strengthening the bonds of community. That mission has inspired and empowered us to extend rights to people previously denied them. Every time we have done that, it has strengthened our nation. Now we should do it again, in New York, with marriage equality. For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free. In the 21st century, I believe New York's welcome must include marriage equality.

In the statement, HRC president Joe Solmonese welcomed the news, "There is enormous momentum right now all across the state for marriage equality. We are grateful to President Clinton for adding his voice to the mainstream majority who support loving couples getting married in New York."

UPDATE @ 7:45 PM: Today, it's a family affair for the Clintons, as Freedom to Marry's Cameron Tolle shares this photo of Chelsea Clinton speaking to -- and joining -- volunteers at a New Yorkers United for Marriage phonebanking night. Brian Ellner, HRC's senior strategist in New York, is on the right.

Earlier today, in HRC's news release about Bill Clinton's support for New York marriage equality, Ellner talked about the group's aim, "What we're fighting for is pretty simple. We want to make sure gay and lesbian couples have the freedom to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love. Nothing says family like marriage."

Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a very rare decision, vacating a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals related to the application of Paul Wilson Dorman, in which the BIA applied Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to his pending case.

Holder writes:

Pursuant to my authority set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I order that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") in this case applying Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, be vacated, and that this matter be referred to me for review.

Saying the attorney general "has taken [an] extraordinary step" with the decision, attorney Eric Berndt -- the supervising attorney for the National Asylum Partnership on Sexual Minorities at the National Immigrant Justice Center -- tells Metro Weekly, "It adds some heft to our requests for prosecutorial discretion in individual cases in which the foreign partner" of a same-sex bi-national couple is seeking a green card because of his or her citizen same-sex partner.

Attorney Lavi Soloway, a co-founder of Immigration Equality, has been one of the leading attorney-advocates on the issue of asking the government -- the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and White House -- to exercise that discretion. Soloway tells Metro Weekly in an email, "This development could be a sign that the Obama administration is looking for a way to protect gay and lesbian bi-national couples who are currently barred from the regular marriage-based immigration process by the Defense of Marriage Act.

Immigration Equality's communications director, Steve Ralls, writes, "This seems to be a step in the right direction. I have little doubt that the recent, significant Congressional pressure on DOJ, led by Senator Kerry and Congresswoman Lofgren, played a key role in Holder's decision."

Of his current work at Stop the Deportations, Soloway says, "This is precisely why we must continue to advocate for the executive branch to implement administrative remedies to keep couples from being torn apart, remedies which include instituting a moratorium on deportations."

In Holder's decision, he goes on to state four questions that he directs the BIA to consider:

In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent's same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a "spouse" under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent's same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 3) what, if any, impact the timing of respondent’s civil union should have on his request for that discretionary relief; and 4) whether, if he had a "qualifying relative," the respondent would be able to satisfy the exceptional and unusual hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.

Unlike in other cases in which Soloway has pressed this issue, this case appears to involve a couple who have a civil union in New Jersey -- and not a marriage license in one of the jurisdictions that permits same-sex marriages.

Soloway tells Metro Weekly, "The heart-breaking stories of couples facing deportation have raised the profile of this issue, but we must keep the pressure on. Tomorrow, another New Jersey couple faces an Immigration Judge at a final deportation hearing in Newark. We will ask the Immigration Judge to adjourn proceedings in light of today's action by the Attorney General."

The couple, Josh Vandiver of Colorado and Henry Velandia of Venezuela, were married in Connecticut and live in New. Jersey. On April 20, Soloway received a notice from the chief counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that "termination of [Velandia's] removal proceedings would not be appropriate at this time because "the Attorney General released a statement in which he indicated that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 'will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch'" -- despite Holder's decision in that same statement that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Soloway and others have argued, however, that the discretion given to the executive branch in its enforcement of immigration law allows it to exercise the discretion to put those cases on hold while challenges to the constitutionality of DOMA can be resolved.

Today's letter from Holder, as Soloway states, "could be a sign that the Obama administration is looking for a way to protect" couples like Velandia and Vandiver. A rally in support of the couple is planned for Friday, May 6, in conjunction with the hearing scheduled to take place.

Ralls also is looking to see where today's development leads, writing, "The question now is whether the Attorney General's action in this case foreshadows future action that would halt the separation of LGBT immigrant families. We hope the answer is yes. Absent the discriminatory language of DOMA, a spouse is a spouse, whether gay or straight, and we’re glad to see Attorney General Holder moving toward that inclusive view, too."

Read the decision: 3712.pdf

[NOTE: This breaking story was updated throughout the afternoon with the final version published at 3:45 p.m.]

This September, same-sex couples in America will have lived under the Defense of Marriage Act -- a federal law that both defines those relationships out of existence across the U.S. government and purports to forbid states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere else in the country or around the world -- for 15 years.

Today, activists, advocates, lawmakers and lawyers are taking aim at the law -- from the effort to repeal the law in Congress to the cases challenging the law in court. Since Feb. 23 -- when the administration decided that, as to the federal marriage definition, it would no longer defend -- DOMA has been everywhere. When the House Republican leadership voted to take on the defense of the law, the stories only increased.

Despite the attention, few people are really talking or writing about the passage of DOMA and how it happened. Signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, the bill was introduced in Congress by Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia on May 7, 1996 and quickly made its way through Congress and to the president's desk.

In this week's issue of Metro Weekly, I begin a series of articles looking at the law. The aim of the series is to present an in-depth examination of the circumstances, consideration and passage of DOMA. In doing so, I hope to take readers to places they've not often gone -- starting with Thursday's cover story, "Domestic Disturbance," which examines the early debate over marriage within the gay and lesbian community.

Twenty-five years ago -- as a community organizer named Barack Obama was thinking about attending law school -- it was by no means clear that the gay and lesbian community even wanted marriage, let alone would become almost wholly committed to securing marriage -- with many pressuring now-President Obama to support marriage equality before the 2012 election.

Here's the story, and here's the cover by Metro Weekly art director Todd Franson ...

Today, Metro Weekly received the new contract signed by House General Counsel Kerry Kircher and attorney Paul Clement, on behalf of his new firm -- Bancroft PLLC -- for its representation of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in defense of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in ongoing challenges to the law.

The contract was signed by all parties, including House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.),on April 25 -- the same day that King & Spalding had announced that it was seeking to withdraw from the representation and that Clement resigned from King & Spalding to work at Bancroft.

Drew Hammill, spokesman for Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told Metro Weekly, "This contract was not shared with Committee on House Administration Democrats before it was signed. Leader Pelosi has not received any response from her April 18 and April 20 letters to Speaker [John] Boehner [(R-Ohio)] pressing for additional details about the transparency, cost and ethics surrounding his decision to hire outside counsel to defend discrimination."

As Metro Weekly was told on April 25 by a Boehner spokesman, the contract terms appear to be the same as in the King & Spalding contract.

Read the contract: BancroftContract.pdf

[Photo, above: Luke Gruenhagen (second from left), Paul Organ (center), Jessica Gbegnom (second from right) stand on the raised cement barrier at the White House fence minutes past midnight on Monday, May 2, 2011, following the announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

On Sunday night, May 1, less than 30 minutes before the day's end, President Barack Obama spoke to the American people, and the world, to announce that Osama bin Laden had been killed earlier in the day Sunday by U.S. forces.

Before he had even completed his speech, a jubilant crowd began to gather outside the White House, remaining there -- and often erupting into chants and even songs -- into the early hours of the morning.

[WATCH VIDEO of the crowd here.]

The president, speaking from the East Room of the White House, said bin Laden was "the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Obama described how "[t]he images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction."

Talking about "our time of grief" that followed September 11, 2001, however, Obama noted, "On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family."

Of the actions that led to bin Laden's death, Obama said, "Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.  No Americans were harmed.  They took care to avoid civilian casualties.  After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

Obama said that bin Laden's "death does not mark the end of our effort" to defeat al Qaeda, but he went on to say also, "I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam.  Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims."

In concluding, Obama talked about Americans' "relentless" commitment to defend our citizens and thanking intelligence and counterterrorism professionals and those who conducted the operation, as well as saying to the families of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, that "we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores."

He then called "today's achievement ... a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people," adding, "The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place."

Before the speech had ended at 11:44 p.m., a crowd started gathering outside the White House. By midnight, when Metro Weekly arrived on the scene, it was a mass that reached from the White House fence facing Pennsylvania Ave all the way across the street and into Lafayette Park.

Still in their signature Stonewall Kickball league T-shirts, three players who had been enjoying their post-kickball game drinks at Cobalt -- Martin Garcia, Jayme Birgy and Shawn Werner -- were at the White House, where Birgy and Werner had been hoisting Garcia up on their shoulders in the middle of the enormous crowd.

Birgy said, "I got a text from my friend Idan, and I tried to look it up on CNN and it wouldn't work, and then I looked on Twitter and I saw it."

Werner added, "We literally ran from 17th Street down here to be here," with Garcia piping in, "I was ready to go home, but we were like, 'No, we gotta go to the White House!'"

Idan Liaz, who let Birgy know the news, said, "I'm a proud Israeli. I'm not even from here, but -- I follow Anderson Cooper on Twitter, and I saw him twit."

Three of the hundred-plus people standing all the way along the raised platform at the White House gate spoke with Metro Weekly a little past midnight. Luke Gruenhagen, from Brainerd, Minnesota, and Paul Organ, from Chicago, two first-year students at George Washington University, were in the midst of celebrating the end of their first year when they heard the news and headed over to the White House.

Gruenhagen said, "It's actually my last day. I leave tomorrow, so this is a pretty good last day, I think."

Jessica Gbegnom, standing to their right, said, "I'm French, and I'm just interning here.

"I was with my friend. We wanted to take pictures of the White House, and we saw it was crowded," she told Metro Weekly. "And I said, 'What happened?' And they said, 'Bin Laden is dead.' So it was amazing. Really awesome."

Read the full text of Obama's speech below the jump.

[Photos: Top right, top left and below: A large crowd gathered at the White House following the Sunday night, May 1, announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed earlier in the day. Bottom right: Martin Garcia, hoisted by friends, in front of the White House a little past midnight on Monday morning, May 2. (Photos by Chris Geidner.)]