At the White House LGBT Pride Month Reception this afternoon, President Barack Obama only made one real news announcement -- telling the mostly white, mostly male crowd that "in a matter of weeks, not months, I expect to certify the change in policy" required by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act –- "and we will end 'don't ask, don't tell' once and for all."

Telling the crowd that "we've got more work to do," Obama first reiterated the administration's LGBT accomplishments -- from hate crimes prevention to hospital visitation and from ending the HIV travel ban to ending the executive branch's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court. He then said, "So bottom line is, I've met my commitments to the LGBT community. I have delivered on what I promised."

He then addressed work to come, saying to laughter at points, "There are going to be times where you're still frustrated with me. I know there are going to be times where you're still frustrated at the pace of change. I understand that. I know I can count on you to let me know. This is not a shy group."

Speaking more broadly, he said, "But what I also know is that I will continue to fight alongside you. And I don't just mean as an advocate. You are moms and dads who care about the schools that your children go to. You're students who are trying to figure out how to pay for going to college. You're folks who are looking for good jobs to pay the bills. You're Americans who want this country to prosper. So those are your fights, too.

"And the fact is these are hard days for America. So we've got a lot of work to do to, not only on ending discrimination; we've got a lot of work to do to live up to the ideals on which we were founded, and to preserve the American Dream in our time -- for everybody, whether they're gay or straight or lesbian or transgender."

Speaking about "the deeper shift that we're seeing that's a transformation not just in our laws but in the hearts and minds of people," Obama said, "It's playing out in legislatures like New York. It's playing out in courtrooms. It's playing out in the ballot box, as people argue and debate over how to bring about the changes where we are creating a more perfect union.

"But it's also happening around water coolers. It's happening at Thanksgiving tables. It's happening on Facebook and Twitter, and at PTA meetings and potluck dinners, and church halls and VFW Halls."

On Twitter during the event, however, many LGBT people were asking where the event -- which, as late as this morning, was scheduled to be livestreamed on the White House website -- was. When it wasn't livestreamed, many people asked what happened.

In response to a request from Metro Weekly, a White House official wrote about an hour after the event ended, "The White House generally live streams events when the pool cameras have the capacity to do the same. For this event, the pool camera did not have that ability. The video from the event should be posted shortly."

The video was posted about a half-hour later, about 7:30 p.m.

[Photo: Obama addresses attendees at the White House LGBT Pride Month Reception on June 29, 2011. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

* * *

Watch the video below, or read the transcript below the jump.

[Photo: President Obama speaks to reporters on June 29, 2011 in the East Room of the White House. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

At the presidential news conference today, President Barack Obama wanted to focus on the economy. Two reporters, however, NBC's Chuck Todd and The Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler, shifted the focus at points to marriage.

Although the president told Meckler, "I'm not gonna make news on that today," when asked if he personally supports same-sex marriage, he earlier had said, in response to Todd's question, that he thought the outcome of the New York marriage debate was "a good thing."

Todd asked, simply, "Do you think marriage is a civil right?"

Obama's response sounded like a more nuanced -- and perhaps better enunciated -- version of his comments at the LGBT Leadership Council Gala in New York City on June 23. He began by saying, "This administration, under my direction, has consistently said that we cannot discriminate [unintelligible] against people on the basis of sexual orientation. And, we have done more in the two-and-ahalf-years that I've been in here than the previous 43 presidents ...."

Obama then reiterated accomplishments, from the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- which remains in effect until 60 days after the required certification from the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and president -- and hospital visitation rules, among other areas, before returning to marriage.

Then, he said, "What we've also done, is that we've said that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional. We've said, 'We cannot defend the federal government pokin' its nose into what states are doing and putting the humb on the scale against same-sex couples."

As to New York and the marriage debates in the states, discussed earlier at Metro Weekly, Obama said, "What I've seen happening over the last several years, and what happened in New York last week, I think, was a good thing. Because what you saw was, the people of New York having a debate, talking through these issues. It was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately they made a decision to recognize civil marriages, and I think that's exactly how things should work.

"And so, so, I think it is important for us to work through these issues because each community's going to be different and each state's going to be different to work through.

"In the meantime, we file briefs before the Supreme Court that say, 'We think that any discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgenders is subject to heightened scrutiny, and we don't think that DOMA is unconstitutional.' [NOTE: Although the White House transcript has not yet been released, it appears that Obama misspoke here and meant to say the the administration thinks DOMA is unconstitutional.]

"So, I think the combination of what states are doing, what the courts are doing, the actions that we're taking administratively all are how the process should work.

Asked a follow-up by Todd, Obama broadened the scope of his comments, saying, "I think what we're seeing is the profound recognition on the part of the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are are brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers, and that they've got to be treated like every other American. And I think that principle will win out.

"It's not going to be perfectly smooth, and, it turns out that the president ... can't dictate precisely how this process [goes]," he added. "But, I think that we're moving in the direction of greater equality -- and I think that's a good thing."

When Meckler later said that the answer to Todd sounded like he supported the marriage decision in New York and asked if Obama personally supports same-sex marriage, Obama said, "I'm not gonna make news on that today. Good try, though."

When she followed up by asking again, Obama said, "I think this has been asked and answered. I'll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one."

Read the White House transcript below the jump.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a plan to include sexual orientation and gender identity in health data collection, a result of discretion granted to the secretary of HHS in a provision of the Affordable Care Act addressing data collection regarding health disparities.

Specifically, today's plan requires "HHS [to] integrate questions on sexual orientation into national data collection efforts by 2013 and begin a process to collect information on gender identity."

The release notes that the plan includes the testing of questions on sexual orientation to potentially be incorporated into the National Health Interview Survey.  According to today's information, HHS also intends to convene "a series of research roundtables with national experts to determine the best way to help the department collect data specific to gender identity."

Under section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act, data collection efforts to understand health disparities relating to race, ethnicity, sex, primary language and disability status are required. The secretary, however, has authority to require additional standards.

The moves, advocates say, are a first step in determining standards for inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity questions in all HHS surveys, which include agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and nationwide surveys like the Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

In a release announcing the move, Sebelius said, "Health disparities have persistent and costly affects for minority communities, and the whole country. Today we are taking critical steps toward ensuring the collection of useful national data on minority groups, including for the first time, LGBT populations. The data we will eventually collect in these efforts will serve as powerful tools and help us in our fight to end health disparities."

Explaining the significance of the move, Center for American Progress senior vice president for external affairs Winnie Stachelberg said, "It's foundational. One of the things that we always try to do here at a think tank is quantify the problem and understand the problem – and base your solutions on facts.

"You can't do that unless you have the data about the gay and transgender community. And finally we'll be able to collect that data so that we can develop solutions that actually address the problems – not the notional problems, but the actual ones that are data driven."

Williams Institute scholar Dr. Gary Gates responded to the news in a statement, saying, "As was clearly stated in the findings from the recent Institutes of Medicine report on LGBT health disparities, the need for more data is acute. I urge HHS to move as quickly as possible to include sexual orientation and gender identity questions on the NHIS."

Kellan Baker, a health policy analyst at CAP who, until recently, worked at the National Coalition for LGBT Health, explained the benefits, saying, "Data really drives everything. You can't have a conversation about priorities, about funding, about where attention should be about, about what we should be working on unless we have the data to show what the issues are.

"And particularly in health, with the Affordable Care Act, you really can't talk about quality disparities, improvement of health services for the LGBT community without knowing what the LGBT community looks like – without having that kind of data."

Dr. Scout, a transgender researcher and the Director of the Network for LGBT Health Equity, addressed the importance of transgender inclusion in today’s news in a statement, saying, "The inclusion of transgender measures along sexual orientation is historic. The current sporadic inclusion in surveys usually only addresses sexual orientation, leaving community members with some of the highest documented health disparities invisible."

Baker noted the ripple effect that CAP and others working to advance LGBT data collection efforts hope to see from today’s announcement.

"There are three areas that I think of as being in the orbit of survey research: that is, within HHS; among the agencies; and in the private sector – in terms of this level of nationwide, large-survey data," he said.

"Within HHS, nearly all the agencies have their own surveys. Those standards [developed under the ACA] will be made available to those agencies and, hopefully, the goal is to have those mandated as the floor. So, agencies [would be able to] go above and beyond, in terms of collecting LGBT data, but they must, at a minimum, fulfill the requirements that are set forward in these standards."

Beyond that, Baker said, "Among the agencies, [they] are very interested in improving LGBT data collection. [The Department of] Justice is talking about some of the hate crimes statistics. Education, Labor and Commerce [departments].

"HHS is taking a step out front right now. And every step that they take that leads them closer to these kinds of standards is that much closer that they can help bring the other agencies."

The decision, Baker says, also could ripple outside of government and into private foundations.

"There are many large-scale surveys that are fielded by private foundations with the aim of figuring out, 'Who is the population that we’re seeking to serve? Who needs programs?' So, every time that we have a federal data source that shows us what these data collection instruments could look like, that helps those entities – those foundations or whoever – to field questions that get a better sense of what the LGBT population looks like."

He noted, "Right now, we’ve got some private surveys that do that – but they do it in a mix of different ways. Everybody asks the question a little bit differently, so the development of standards at the national level helps bring everybody that much closer to painting a coherent picture of the LGBT community."

Robert Lee Pitman, an out gay magistrate judge in the Western District of Texas, was nominated today by President Barack Obama to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the district, which includes San Antonio and Austin and also covers the western end of the state.

In a statement announcing the nomination and three others, Obama said, "These nominees have proven to be tenacious and diligent in their pursuit of justice and I am honored to nominate them to serve their fellow Americans as U.S. Attorneys. They will be distinguished public servants."

Of note, Pitman was one of two recommended for the position in late 2009 by Texas's two Republican senators -- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. The move drew some attention at the time, according to a report at Main Justice from the time.

Read Pitman's White House biography below the jump.

On Wednesday, June 29, President Barack Obama and the First Lady are due to host the LGBT Pride Month Reception at the White House. Today, Get Equal announced that volunteers will be showing up with cards in hand to the White House to provide guests with a "Get Bold to Get Equal Scavenger Hunt."

Get Equal DC volunteer Charles Butler told Metro Weekly, "We will be waiting outside the security entrance to distribute these cards to the reception attendees who will then, ideally, will take them inside."

The scavenger hunt game card, a copy of which was provided to Metro Weekly and appears below, includes nine challenges for the attendees to complete at the reception, including "Get Obama to commit to visiting a shelter for homeless LGBT youth," "Take a video on your cell phone of Obama publicly supporting Marriage Equality" and "Get Obama to commit to issuing an executive order to immediately stop deporting bi-national same-sex couples."

A news release announcing the action stated, "The game is meant to be a fun but meaningful opportunity for attendees to step up the pressure on the Obama administration for full LGBT equality."

Butler noted, "[W]e are there to help embolden these community leaders to speak up once they are inside. ... [W]e're not asking anyone to do anything risky or dangerous or even flashy. We just want them to speak up."

[Image: Screenshot of White House press secretary Jay Carney responding to Bill Press's question about same-sex marriage on Monday, June 27.]

Days after the New York legislature passed and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed a bill to allow same-sex marriages, signs were clear that the fallout was going to be widespread -- from awkward exchanges in the White House press briefing room about the president's position on marriage equality to other states to the political debate more broadly.

In New Jersey, a lawsuit will be filed there aimed at ending marriage restrictions. As The New York Times noted in an editorial: "On Wednesday, a civil rights group, Lambda Legal, plans to file a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court with the goal of showing that civil unions fail to meet the mandate of equal legal rights and financial benefits for same-sex couples set by the State Supreme Court in a 2006 ruling."

In Maine, meanwhile, advocates appear poised to announce on Thursday, June 30, that they are, at least, considering taking marriage equality back to the voters in 2012. From WMTV: "The passage of a law legalizing same-sex marriage in New York last week has many advocates in Maine considering bringing the issue back before voters." In an email sent to supporters, EqualityMaine executive director Betsy Smith wrote: "This important victory in New York generates wind in the sails of the national movement to win marriage, and more specifically, of our efforts here in Maine. ... To that end, stay tuned later this week for an important announcement about winning marriage in Maine."

Even in conservative corners, the New York vote has seen its impact. Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote on Monday, that -- despite his past strong opposition to same-sex marriage -- "I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of 'blue' states will follow within the next 10 years." He went on to write, "I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision. Why? The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test."

Within the current administration, however, the situation was more equivocal -- despite New York being omnipresent on Monday. Five writers with LGBT outlets or known for their LGBT writing attended the June 27 White House press briefing -- writers with The Advocate, Metro Weekly and Washington Blade, as well as former Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld (now with Media Matters) and Detroit News writer Deb Price. Despite none of them being called on by White House press secretary Jay Carney, two different reporters asked questions about marriage (briefing video), The Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler and Bill Press from The Bill Press Show.

Meckler asked, "[L]ast week the President spoke about gay marriage when he was in New York and he said that -- talked about how this has been the province of the state and that’s the -- referring to what was happening in the debate in New York, he said that’s the power of democracy at work.  Does that mean that he also respects the outcome of democracy at work in California where voters rejected the idea of gay marriage?"

The response and follow-up questions left unclear both the answer to Meckler's question and the president's personal view about where he stands on his marriage evolution:

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think as you saw in the decision we announced that we would no longer -- this administration would no longer be participants defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we do not believe it’s constitutional, that it’s precisely because of his belief that this was a matter that needs to be decided by the states.  So without commenting on a particular other state, I think he was making that clear with regard to the action in New York. 

     Q    Okay, but --

     MR. CARNEY:  But I’m not going to put words in his mouth applying to another state.  I mean, you can analyze that, but -- because I haven’t heard him say that.  But obviously the DOMA decision -- what he said in New York was about his belief, our belief, that this is a matter that states should decide.

     Q    And the central argument in the challenge to Proposition 8 by supporters of same-sex marriage rights is that this isn’t something that should be decided state by states, in fact, that there are federal rights involved.  So would he reject --

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President very strongly supports equal rights and he’s -- we’ve been -- he’s made that clear as well, and he said it again in New York at the event that you’re discussing.  So I’m not going to --

     Q    But I’m referring to the --

     MR. CARNEY:  I don’t really have a lot I can say about Proposition 8 with regards to what the President said last week.  You know, I don’t -- I’m not willing to go to what the President didn’t discuss.  I can talk about what he did discuss.

     Q    So, but the proper reading of what he said -- it sounds like what you’re saying but I want to be clear -- is that, yes, this is up for the states and if New York decides that they want to allow same-sex marriage, great; if California decides that they don’t want to, then that’s their decision as well.

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I can’t improve upon the words that the President delivered publicly whatever night it was -- Thursday night.  So I’m not disagreeing with that interpretation, but he has said quite clearly, as he did in the DOMA decision and as he did on Thursday night, that he believes that it’s for the states to decide.

Although Carney likely would have been happy to have no further marriage questions, Press asked, "Jay, I want to come back to the same-sex marriage issue, if I can.  If the right to -- if the opportunity to enjoy the same rights, same-sex couples or straight couples or whatever, is a basic civil right, how can you square that with saying we leave it up to the states?"

Carney was even less responsive to Press's question, or follow-up:

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, I’m not going to -- the President has made his position clear.  It’s not very useful for us to have this debate.  I think the President spoke about this on Thursday.  He spoke about it -- sorry, he’s spoken about this a number of times in the past.  So you could take it to other places but I think I’ll leave it to what he said.

     Q    Let me ask this, then.  But with New York being the largest state so far to recognize same-sex marriage, are you concerned that the President may have missed his opportunity to lead on this issue?

     MR. CARNEY:  Again, the President’s record on issues involving and of concern to the LGBT community is exemplary and we are very proud of it.  He continues to fight on behalf of that community for the rights -- for equal rights.  And his position on New York, he himself, rather than his press secretary, spoke at length about just a few nights ago.  So I’ll leave it at that.

That was not the only New York discussion had by an administration official on Monday. Contrasted with Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to go out of her way to raise New York at an event co-hosted by the Department of State and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) in celebration of LGBT Pride Month. In discussing international struggles, Clinton took a sidestep into domestic politics:

[W]hat we have long thought is becoming the case, and that is if we can convince people to speak out about their own personal experiences, particularly within their own families, it does begin to change the dialogue.

If you followed closely, which I’m sure all of you did, the debate in New York, one of the key votes that was switched at the end was a Republican senator from the Buffalo area who became convinced that it was just not any longer fair for him to see one group of his constituents as different from another.  Senators stood up and talked about nieces and nephews and grandchildren and others who are very dear to them, and they don’t want them being objectified or discriminated against.  And from their own personal connections and relationships, they began to make the larger connection with somebody else’s niece or nephew of grandchild and what that family must feel like.

So we have to continue to stand up for the rights and the well-being of LGBT people, and sometimes it’s hard when you’re in the middle of a long campaign to see where you’re getting.  But I’ve always believed that we would make progress because we were on the right side of equality and justice.

Although Clinton did not explicitly endorse same-sex marriage, the comments did suggest that she views the New York decision to allow same-sex marriages as "progress ... on the right side of equality and justice."

And, that was Monday.

Equality Maryland's board of directors unveiled today, the organization's six-month strategic plan to "stabilize internal operations of Equality Maryland" by December 31. 

In a statement posted on Equality Maryland's website, they write:

The boards are committed to embracing a new way of doing business in order to create a community supported organization.  By doing so, they will secure the necessary resources and leadership capacity to be an effective partner in bringing equality for LGBT people to Maryland in 2012 and beyond.

The plan, organized in a five-page spreadsheet, details goals the organization wishes to fulfill before the end of the year. Those goals include hiring a permanent executive director, build the board of directors and secure funding to help the organization operate through the end of the year.

The plan also includes partnering with the newly-formed Gender Rights Maryland to "develop a shared legislative strategy for 2012." 

Speaking to Metro Weekly on Friday, June 24, Patrick Wojahn, Chair of Equality Maryland Foundation, said the organization's first priorities are money and board leadership.

"We have two main priorities in the short term, which is the next month or so, which are building the board and fundraising," he said. "To build the board, we're developing a nominations committee that will essentially be identifying the needs that we have on our board, and the skill sets that we need on the board, and then recruiting people from around the state with different areas of expertise, different professions and different networks, to fill the board. 

"The second major short-term priority is to fundraise. And to that end we're working on putting together and agreement now with a fundraising consultant who will be working with us on basically building our funds in the short term and also establishing longer term an ongoing fundraising program."

Equality Maryland is in the final stage of contract negotiations with Andy Szekeres, who is gay and founder of 3pg Consulting in Denver, Colo. Szekeres, who will be working from Denver, says his past work includes leading fundraising efforts for Maine's marriage equality campaign, as well as work on Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)'s finance team during his first election. 

"I'm very confident that we should have a contract any day now and I'm going to be coming on board to assist with their fundraising effort," Szekeres, 28, says, speaking to Metro Weekly today, June 27. 

"I think Equality Maryland has definitely hit a rough patch," Szekeres says of the organization's current financial situation, "but clearly Maryland is the next state that could have marriage [equality] so I think it's really about getting donors reactivated and back on board. I think we can fix the mistakes that have happened in the past and move on."

According to Wojahn, Equality Maryland is now out of debt, though it will still be operating on a month-to-month basis. 

"I'm happy to announce we are now debt-free and that we have we are going into the month of July with about $10,000 in the bank. We've been doing a lot of fundraising on our own during the past few weeks and we've worked with our national partners to put some of our restricted funds toward paying off existing debt." 

On Thursday, June 23, Equality Maryland announced that it will not be renewing contracts with the organization's field director Damon Hainline, field organizer Karess Taylor-Hughes and the communications manager Linsey Pecikonis, beyond June 30. Remaining on staff through July, a month in which the organization will focus on fundraising, will be one field organizer Owen Smith, office manager Kim Miller, and interim executive director Lynne Bowman. 

Click here to view Equality Maryland's six-month strategic plan. 

[Photo: Szekeres]

The Advocate's Andrew Harmon reported three more military separations related to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in recent weeks, in addition to the one previously reported by Metro Weekly.

Air Force spokesman Joel Harper released this statement about all four discharges:

On April 29th, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the discharge of an Airman under the provisions of 10 USC 654.  On May 31st, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force approved discharges of two Airmen under the provisions of 10 USC 654.  On June 23, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force accepted the resignation of an Airman who asked to be separated under the provisions of 10 USC 654.

Each case was approved after coordination with the DoD General Counsel and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.  The officials evaluated these cases carefully and concluded that separation was appropriate.

Each Airman made a statement identifying themselves as gay.  Each Airman asked to be separated expeditiously after being informed of the current status of the repeal of 'Don't ask Don't Tell.'  Until repeal occurs, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' remains the law.

[Photo: Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley]

[FOLLOW UP: Read "A Singular Sensation," Metro Weekly's full report on tonight's vote and bill-signing.]

Following developments late this afternoon surrounding the religious exemption language in New York's proposed marriage equality bill, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R) has said a vote on the bill will happen this evening in the Senate.

Assembly Majority Leader Ron Canestrari (D), according to reports, has said that his chamber is ready to pass the bill again this evening with the religious amendments agreed to today.

[UPDATE: The Assembly has overwhelmingly approved -- on an 82-47 vote -- the religious exemption amendments to the bill that were agreed to by leaders in the House and Senate and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) earlier today.]

The Senate vote is expected to happen later tonight, with some sources saying about 11 p.m. [-- any time now, as of 9:30 p.m.] As has been seen many times throughout this process, though, the legislature of New York -- and particularly the Senate -- is unpredictable.

When it does happen, however, come back here for the latest developments.

9:30: The Senate begins consideration of Assembly bills, include the marriage equality bill.

9:40: Sen. Stephen Saland (R) is describing -- in great detail -- the changed religious exemption amendments, already approved by Assembly. He is, per Gannett News, the 32nd yes vote for the bill.

"As our parents told me, always to do the right thing. My intellectual and emotional journey has ended here."

Saland is a yes. He is the 32nd -- majority -- vote for the bill.

9:50: The roll is called on the religious exemption amendments. But, Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. (D) -- the sole Democrat to oppose the bill -- speaks, as does Sen. Kemp Hannon (R), who is voting for the religious exemption amendment, but will vote against the full bill.

The amendments pass, 36-26.

9:55: The full bill is called up.

Diaz, again, speaks in opposition.

10:03: Sen. Thomas Duane (D) -- openly gay -- is speaking: "Marriage says that we are a family. Louis and I are a family."

10:12: Sen. Mark Grisanti (R): "I am not here as only a Catholic. ... I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage."

"I cannot deny a person, a human being, a worker ... the same rights I have with my wife. ... I vote in the affirmative, Mr. President."

That is a 33rd vote.

10:17: The Senate president calls a brief recess to confer with Skelos.

10:25: Sen. Carl Kruger (D) speaks about the difference between today's bill and the marriage bill he voted no on previously. "I vote yes."

10:29: Marriage equality passes the New York Senate on a 33-29 vote.

10:30: The bill now goes to Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who will sign it. It will then take effect in 30 days.

FIN.

UPDATE @ 12:30 AM JUNE 25: Read "A Singular Sensation," Metro Weekly's full report on tonight's vote -- and bill-signing.

Today, the White House announced the President Barack Obama will be appointing former Rep. Patrick Murphy -- the House champion of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal who lost his re-election bid in 2010 -- to be a member of the Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy, or West Point -- the institution where he formerly taught constitutional law.

Murphy is an announced candidate for attorney general in Pennsylvania, but the Iraq war veteran has been a part of national politics -- as recently as his attendance at the LGBT Leadership Council Gala in New York City on June 23, where Obama recognized him for his leadership on DADT repeal.

Murphy's appointment was announced this afternoon along with several other appointees and nominees, of whom Obama said in the statement, "It gives me great confidence that such dedicated and capable individuals have agreed to join this Administration to serve the American people. I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come."

According to the Board of Visitors's website, "The board, under the provisions of 10 US Code 4355 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, shall inquire into the morale and discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the academy that the board decides to consider."

Murphy, as noted in the White House biographical information provided, "became the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress in 2006 and is currently a partner at the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Volunteering for combat after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Murphy deployed to Baghdad in 2003 with the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division. He earned the Bronze Star for Service.

Although referencing his time in Congress, the White House did not mention his work to repeal DADT, stating, "During his two terms in Congress, Mr. Murphy fought for a pay raise for U.S. troops, a new G.I. Bill for men and women returning from combat and increased protection for servicemembers under the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act."

[Photo: Murphy (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[FURTHER UPDATE: MARRIAGE BILL PASSED: Read "A Singular Sensation," Metro Weekly's full report on tonight's passage of New York's marriage equality law and Gov. Andrew Cuomo's late-night bill-signing.]

[NOTE: A new post, "New York Marriage Vote: Tonight" will cover all developments from 7 p.m. Friday, June 24, onward -- as well as providing the New York Senate livestream.]

Less than an hour ago, The New York Times reported that leaders in Albany had reached a compromise on the religious exemption language in the marriage equality bill. There is not yet, however, word that a vote will be held in the Senate. [The vote will be held tonight. See below.] From Nick Confessore and Michael Barbaro's report:

Senate Republicans were still discussing the marriage bill among themselves in a close door meeting .... And it remained unclear whether — and even if — they would permit a vote on the broader legislation. Assembly lawmakers, which approved an earlier version of the same-sex marriage bill last week, would need to approve the new language in a new vote before the full bill could become law.

Emerging from a meeting with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat who is sponsor of the gay marriage bill in the assembly, said that there was an “agreement in principle” on the new language. He predicted the new language would be adopted on Friday.

Just now, New Yorkers United for Marriage announced their support for the new language. In a statement, the coalition of organizations supporting marriage equality state:

The amended Marriage Equality legislation protects religious liberties without creating any special exceptions that would penalize same-sex couples or treat them unequally.  The legislation strikes an appropriate balance that allows all loving, committed couples to marry while preserving religious freedom.

Confessore noted a "wrinkle" on Twitter: a nonseverability clause added into the bill. In other words, if religious exemptions are challenged and struck down as unconstitutional, then whole marriage equality bill would be void.

* * *

UPDATE @ 5:20 PM: The language was just posted online. Here is the nonseverability clause:

THIS ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE, AND ALL PARTS OF IT ARE TO BE READ AND CONSTRUED TOGETHER. IF ANY PART OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADJUDGED BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALIDATED.

The main added religious exemption language:

10-B. RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION.

1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW, RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AS DEFINED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR A CORPORATION INCORPO RATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF, BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVO LENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDI VISION, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE. ANY SUCH REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOM MODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES SHALL NOT CREATE ANY CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS, OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, A NOT-FOR-PROFITCORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPO RATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION.

2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGU LATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGAN IZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPER ATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMO DATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELI GION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB LISHED OR MAINTAINED.

3. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION THREE OF ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

A final provision states that state or local governments could not "penalize, withhold benefits or discriminate" against clergy who refuse to perform any marriages.

* * *

UPDATE @ 5:35 PM: Danny Hakim from The New York Times reports that a Republican senator says there will be a vote:

"Senator Alesi on #gaymarriage vote: "its what I was hoping for" and "it'll be tonight"

UPDATE @ 5:40: Hakim gets the confirmation that there will be a vote tonight from Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R).

Developing ...

Tonight, President Barack Obama -- with emcee Neil Patrick Harris -- addressed a crowd of about 600 supporters who paid a minimum of $1,250 for a seat at the Sheraton Hotel and Towers on Seventh Avenue in New York City. Introduced by former Army Capt. Jonathan Hopkins -- a West Point graduate forced out of the military because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- the attention on Obama's signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act was clear.

Circumstances, however -- and impatience from the crowd -- forced another issue -- marriage to the fore.

Throughout the 25-minute speech, Obama was interrupted on multiple occasions -- yet, only once, according to the White House trancript of the speech -- with heckling, or requests, related to marriage.

His speech, which began with a recitation of the administration's accomplishments across the board, eventually moved into LGBT issues.

He began the LGBT portion with a broad statement about the basis of his views on equality, saying, "Ever since I entered into public life, ever since I have a memory about what my mother taught me, and my grandparents taught me, I believed that discriminating against people was wrong. I had no choice. I was born that way. In Hawaii. And I believed that discrimination because of somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity ran counter to who we are as a people, and it's a violation of the basic tenets on which this nation was founded."

He then said, "I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country."

When he got to specifics, however, two audience members countered his mention of his "order[ to] federal agencies to extend the same benefits to gay couples that go to straight couples wherever possible" with cries of "marriage."

Obama halted them by saying, "I heard you guys. Believe it or not, I anticipated that somebody might --"

He then went back on script, though, discussing his commitment to "keep on fighting until the law no longer treats committed partners who've been together for decades like they're strangers." He discussed, in detail, the decision made by him and Attorney General Eric Holder that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that the Department of Justice will no longer defend it in court.

He did not, as White House press secretary Jay Carney said earlier in the day, announce a new position in support of marriage equality. Of New York, he said:

And right now I understand there's a little debate going on here in New York -- about whether to join five other states and D.C. in allowing civil marriage for gay couples. And I want to -- I want to say that under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, New York is doing exactly what democracies are supposed to do. There's a debate; there's deliberation about what it means here in New York to treat people fairly in the eyes of the law. 

And that is -- look, that's the power of our democratic system. It's not always pretty. There are setbacks. There are frustrations. But in grappling with tough and, at times, emotional issues in legislatures and in courts and at the ballot box, and, yes, around the dinner table and in the office hallways, and sometimes even in the Oval Office, slowly but surely we find the way forward. That's how we will achieve change that is lasting -– change that just a few years ago would have seemed impossible.

Although it is not reflected in the transcript, Obama was asked, "Do you support it?" at one point during his discussion of New York's marriage debate. Later, when Obama told the crowd, "There should be impatience," an audience member retorted, "Say yes to marriage."

Obama concluded by summing up the work that he said has been done and that remains to be done and said -- in both a challenge to the audience and an acknowledgment of that audience's restlessness -- "And that's the story of progress in America. That's what all of you represent -- of the stubborn refusal to accept anything less than the best that this country can be."

Read the full speech below the jump.

Equality Maryland announced on Thursday, June 23, that the organization will not be renewing contracts with the organization's field director Damon Hainline, field organizer Karess Taylor-Hughes and the communications manager Linsey Pecikonis, beyond June 30. Remaining on staff through July, a month in which the organization will focus on fundraising, will be one field organizer Owen Smith, office manager Kim Miller, and interim executive director Lynne Bowman. 

"Since May, the board, staff, and contractors with Equality Maryland have worked diligently to reduce expenses and increase revenue," said Lisa Polyak, Acting Chair of Equality Maryland, Inc.  "As a result of this work and the financial support of both previous and new donors, we are pleased to be ending June in a better position than we previously expected.  However, the board must continue to take the necessary and difficult steps that align with our new strategic plan in order to move the organization forward.  Linsey, Damon, and Karess all did an excellent job during their time with Equality Maryland and we wish them the best."

Equality Marland also announced that it will unveil a six-month strategic plan, designed to help the organization survive its current financial crisis, on its official website on June 27:

"Over the past two months, the remaining members of the board have undertaken a thorough process of self-evaluation," said Patrick Wojahn, Chair of Equality Maryland Foundation, which leads the organization's education efforts.  "Through individual conversations, over a dozen Listening Tour stops and more than 1,200 responses to our online survey, we have actively gathered input about what people want to see from their statewide equality organization.  We have coupled that input with the results of a comprehensive internal review and developed a strong six-month plan that will allow Equality Maryland to become the organization it must be in order to achieve legislative and cultural equality in our state."

Highlights of the plan include the creation of an external nominations committee to manage the growth of the boards of directors; a shift in funding away from gifts from large national donors and toward more support from individual donors across the state; action around member participation in decision-making; and a renewed commitment to work in coalition to see both marriage and fully inclusive gender identity nondiscrimination legislation passed in Maryland.

[Obama for America 2012 representatives gather outside the Broadway Theater production of Sister Act on June 23, in preparation for President Obama's evening visit and remarks at the theater. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

As President Barack Obama travels to New York this evening, he will be making three stops -- the first at the LGBT Leadership Council Gala at the Sheraton Hotel and Towers just off Broadway and the final at the Broadway production of Sister Act -- as part of a campaign swing through the state.

By 4 p.m., the New York City streets in the blocks surrounding the events were clearly showing the security signs of a presidential visit.

From White House press secretary Jay Carney, however, expectations were preemptively dampened for LGBT advocates hoping that the president would come out in favor of marriage equality at the event.

Asked on Air Force One this afternoon about whether Obama would be addressing the New York marriage bill -- which is still awaiting action in the state's Senate -- Carney said, according to the transcript, "I'm sure he will mention it and I think make the point that, as he always has, that he believes that this is something that states should be able to decide.  And that's one of the reasons, because of the -- that the President believes that we should withdraw from our participation in DOMA cases, because he believed it was unconstitutional."

Pressed further about whether he would take a position on the New York marriage bill, Carney said bluntly, "He's not going to make any new declarations of a position.  He's simply going to address it."

Tickets for the LGBT Gala start at $1,250 per person. The cost to serve as a "Chair" at the event -- which gets "top billing as Chair on invitation and program, as as well as two priority seats at Gala Dinner, including keynote address by President Obama, and photo with the President for two" -- clocks in at $35,800. According to Public Campaign communications director Adam Smith, $30,800 is the maximum contribution an individual can give to a party, and $5,000 is the maximum total contribution an individual can contribute to a candidate -- $2,500 for the primary election and $2,500 for the general election.

At the Broadway Theater, where Sister Act is being staged, Obama for America 2012 volunteers crowded the scene by 4 p.m. as ticketholders checked in with security. As Broadway.com earlier reported, "Show producer Whoopi Goldberg, a supporter of the President, will host the evening’s events at the Broadway Theater. Tickets for the show will start at $250; $1,000 will get you an orchestra seat and entry to a pre-show reception with Goldberg, while $10,000 will get you a photo shoot with the President himself."

[Security is heightened in New York City on June 23 in the blocks surrounding several political events featuring President Obama. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Following Metro Weekly's June 20 report about a series of LGBT organizations that have submitted letters to the Federal Communications Commission regarding issues that had been the focus of AT&T lobbying, Equality California interim executive director Jim Carroll told Metro Weekly that the organization today filed a letter with the FCC withdrawing its 2009 letter regarding net neutrality regulations being considered by the agency.

The original letter (pdf), filed by then-executive director Geoff Kors on Oct. 12, 2009, stated a desire for the commission ''not to rush'' on ''consideration of whether new network neutrality rules are warranted.''

In today's letter withdrawing the 2009 letter, Carroll writes, "We fully support the principles of net neutrality. Accordingly, we request that you withdraw our letter of October 12, 2009."

As to the process to be employed by the organization when considering the organization's submission of policy letters, Carroll released a statement:

[O]n behalf of myself I made an error in an interview yesterday with [Metro Weekly] in which I said that Equality California doesn't have a policy with regard to our policy positions. In fact, there is a policy that allows the Executive Director to make decisions on policies that are core to the mission of Equality California. On issues that are outside of our core mission, such as support for our friends in labor or in the reproductive rights community, there is a policy that requires the board to weigh in if a board meeting is timely, or directs the matter to the Executive Committee. In the event of an urgent policy choice the ED can seek counsel from the Board President. I apologize for any confusion this might have created.

In response to a request from Metro Weekly, Carroll said he would seek information about what process was used when Kors filed the 2009 letter.

Download today's letter - EQCA-June22-FCCltr.pdf - or read it below the jump.

From today's White House press briefing, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius talked about the difficulties of collecting health data about LGBT populations:

     Q    Madam Secretary, I have a question for you on a different topic.  As I’m sure you know, the absence of nationwide data about the LGBT community’s health needs and disparities has been a problem.  Organizations want government assistance to address problems.  The government assists on data to back up these requests, but the government won’t collect data so the LGBT community remains stymied.  It’s public knowledge that groups have been advocating with HHS to address the data collection issue -- specific things like including LGBT questions on the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.  You and the President have been advocates for evidence-based decision-making.  What’s the holdup here?

     SECRETARY SEBELIUS:  Well, actually, it’s a great question, and we fully intend to collect LGBT data.  The problem is that it’s never been collected, and what our folks came back to us with is we have to figure out -- and we’re working with providers and advocates right now to actually market-test the questions -- how to ask questions in a way that they elicit accurate responses, because collecting data that doesn’t give an accurate picture is not very helpful in the first place.  And there has been so little attempt, either directly to consumers or to parents or to anybody else, to ask questions about LGBT health issues that we don’t even know how to ask them.

     So it is definitely a commitment.  We will be adding data questions to the National Health Surveys.  And right now we are looking at developing a slew of questions, market-testing them, coming back and making sure we have the right way to solicit the information that we need.

Asked about "the president's views on the gay marriage bill in New York," White House press secretary Jay Carney started giving a series of answers in the Monday, June 20, press briefing that drew clear and unmistakable attention to a series of delicate political circumstances surrounding President Barack Obama and LGBT advocates who are looking for the president to support marriage equality.

Carney responded, "I haven't heard any [views] expressed about that."

The ongoing questions of whether and when there will be a vote in New York on the marriage equality bill that passed the General Assembly this past week is only the first of several complications for the president's well-established "evolving" position on marriage equality.

Additionally, on Friday, June 17, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer stated at Netroots Nation that then-state senate candidate Barack Obama had not filled out the oft-cited 1996 Outlines candidate questionnaire stating that he supported same-sex marriage.

Although the White House corrected the statement later that evening, with spokesman Shin Inouye telling Metro Weekly in a statement that "Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the President's views are clear," the issue had not been resolved.

On June 20, the Pfeiffer flub was raised again and, in response to a question from Metro Weekly about "whether or not the '96 survey was signed by Obama," Carney said, "It's my understanding that it was." That, according to Metro Weekly's review of available materials, is the first time the administration or campaign acknowledged that Obama had signed the survey stating support for "same-sex marriages."

Then, marriage questioning continued, as Carney was asked -- in light of Obama's attendance at this week's LGBT Leadership Council Gala campaign fundraiser in New York City and next week's LGBT Pride Month reception at the White House -- whether the president is "selling this audience short by saying he supports them and wants their money for his reelection campaign, but also saying at the same time he does not support their right to marry."

Although Carney responded that "this president is very supportive of and strong on LGBT rights and his record is significant with regard to that," he also noted that the president has "been very clear about his position on gay marriage" and "been very clear about how that position is evolving."

Pressed further, Carney was asked whether "the president will come to a conclusion on this evolution by Thursday."

Carney said, "I don't anticipate that."

* * *

Watch part of the June 20 questioning below, or read the marriage questions and responses below the jump.

As a supplement to Metro Weekly's in-depth report on the scope of AT&T's involvement in the public policy positions of multiple LGBT organizations, here are the letters submitted over the course of more than two years.

Equality California:

• 07-52 10-13-2009 Geoff Kors 7020141585.pdf

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation:

• 09-51 06-05-2009 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation 6520219446.pdf
• 07-52 01-25-2010 Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation 7020384292.pdf

National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce:

• 09-51 06-05-2009 National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce 6520219518.pdf
• 07-52 10-14-2009 National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce 7020141932.pdf
• 09-191 01-06-2010 National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce 7020355398.pdf
• 09-191 03-19-2010 National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce 7020396626.pdf

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

• 09-51 06-05-2009 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 6520219393.pdf
• 09-191 01-06-2010 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 7020355358.pdf
• FCC Letter Correction 01 14 10.pdf

The board co-chair of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation confirmed that Jarrett Barrios submitted a resignation letter to the board and that he will be helping the organization "manage the transition" for his successor.

Beyond that, however, Roxanne Jones was unable to provide Metro Weekly with many specifics in a discussion about recent happenings at the media watchdog organization over recent weeks.

"The GLAAD Board received Jarrett's resignation letter, and we discussed this, along with many other topics, on our call last night, so we expect at our board of directors meeting – we have another one set for Wednesday – to reach a conclusion on all of the issues at hand," Jones said. "And at the time, Jarrett will begin to help us transition, manage the transition that we have, and bring on his successor.

"So, that's exactly where we are right now."

Asked whether that meant the board had accepted Barrios's resignation, Jones had no comment other than to repeat that she expects that all the outstanding issues will be concluded on June 22 and reiterated, "Jarrett will be asked to and has agreed to help us with the transition and bring on his successor."

As for the timing for finding a successor, Jones has no comment at this time. As for whether Barrios will be staying with the organization during the interim, Jones said, "He will help us manage the transition. That doesn't say 'staying with the organization,' but that's our comment."

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation communications director Rich Ferraro emailed Metro Weekly regarding the article published earlier today at Politico about the future leadership of Jarrett Barrios. He writes:

This evening Jarrett Barrios resigned from his position as President of GLAAD.

I'm sure you might have seen a Politico article that ran this evening regarding GLAAD’s Board of Directors. I just wanted to let you know there will be an announcement from GLAAD this evening to address those accusations.

Ben Smith at Politico wrote earlier today about the background:

POLITICO's Eliza Krigman reported recently that GLAAD was among a number of progressive groups with no obvious institutional interest in telecom issues who received money from AT&T and subsequently issued public statements supporting AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. Another letter was sent from GLAAD to the FCC opposing possible net neutrality rules. GLAAD later rescinded the letter, claiming it was sent in error. The issue had created an uproar in the gay blogosphere.

[UPDATE @ 2 AM JUNE 19: No additional information was provided by GLAAD on Saturday. Metro Weekly will provide updates as possible.]

[UPDATE @ 12:45 AM JUNE 20: Another day has passed with no word from GLAAD. Metro Weekly can, however, report a brief comment received from Barrios earlier today, in which he wrote, "I have resigned in the form consistent with my contract. Any other characterization of that would be inaccurate."

Barrios did not respond to Metro Weekly's request for more information about the contract's terms and, hence, what a "form consistent with" the contract would be.

The particular wording of Barrios's comments is all the more noteworthy given Michelangelo Signorile's post this evening, which states that sources tell him that the status of Barrios's resignation remains unclear.

GLAAD, meanwhile, has not released any public information to the media since the June 18 email, and Metro Weekly has received no response to emails requesting further information about Barrios's status.]

The "glittering" fad -- which began when Nick Espinosa tossed glitter at Newt Gingrich earlier this year and continued when others "glittered" Tim Pawlenty -- continued across the GOP 2012 presidential field today when pro-LGBT activist Rachel E. B. Lang "glittered" Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) at the RightOnline conference.

The difference today was that Get Equal was on the case immediately, sending out supportive tweets about the action -- which, for the most part, missed Bachmann -- and launching a subpage: http://getequal.org/getglitter

By visiting the site, one learns:

GetEQUAL is supporting anyone who wants to join the "Glitterati" -- who wants to let anti-LGBT politicians know that their hate is not welcome in political debates, whether it's for President of the United States or President of the School Board.

With today's Bachmann action, then, the "glittering" incident has garnered the support of an LGBT organization -- and one known primarily for its direct action and civil disobedience surrounding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The news of the day from Netroots Nation, taking place in Minneapolis, came when White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer stated that then-state senate candidate Barack Obama had not filled out the 1996 questionnaire stating that he supported same-sex marriage -- a survey that has been reported countless times over the past couple years.

He was asked about the 1996 Outlines survey response -- in which Obama stated, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages" -- at a session this morning.

Pfeiffer told the moderator today, "If you actually go back and look, the -- that questionnaire was actually filled out by someone else, not the president."

Which prompted the response from moderator Joy Gray of Daily Kos, "So, it was a fake questionnaire?"

Pfeiffer never answered that question, but instead went on to reiterate Obama's comments made over the past several months that his views on marriage equality are "evolving."

In a statement provided to Rex Wockner by Windy City Times editor Tracy Baim, the paper stood by the survey:

Despite a statement by President Obama's White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer June 17 that a 1996 survey response was not written by the then-candidate for Illinois state Senate, Windy City Times newspaper stands by the reporting on Obama's early support of gay marriage in at least two gay surveys.

The surveys were from a 1996 response to Outlines newspaper (which now owns Windy City Times) and IMPACT, a now-defunct gay political action committee. ... This is the first time a claim has been made that Obama did not complete the surveys himself, even though his signature is on the typed one sent to Outlines, and the IMPACT survey appears to be completed in his own writing.

Windy City Times has made the Outlines survey, as well as the IMPACT survey, available on its website.

[UPDATE @ 6:55 PM: This evening, the White House is distancing itself from Pfeiffer's comments, with spokesman Shin Inouye telling Metro Weekly, "Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the President's views are clear. He has long supported equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples and since taking office he has signed into law the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell,  signed into law the Hate Crimes bill, made the decision not to defend  section three of DOMA and expanded Federal benefits for same sex partners of Federal employees."

Inouye did not respond to a follow-up question asking whether the White House acknowledges that Obama did, in fact, sign the 1996 Outlines survey.]

On Thursday, June 16, the Senate Armed Services Committee complete its work on the National Defense Authorization Act, announcing on Friday morning that it had been unanimously approved by the committee.

None of the three amendments opposed by LGBT advocates that were adopted by the House in its version of the bill earlier this year are listed in a comprehensive summary of the SASC bill that that committee issued (pdf) this morning. Among the provisions in the bill, however, according to the committee's summary, is one that "repeals Article 125 of the UCMJ, relating to the offense of sodomy."

According to Servicemembers United, which issued a news release about the bill this morning, the bill "contains none of the reactionary and distracting amendments related to the repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law that were inserted into the House version of the bill, and also would repeal the outdated and widely ignored prohibition on sodomy between consenting adults."

Among the House amendments was a DADT-related amendment, proposed in the House Armed Services Committee by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), that would expand 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. Two other amendments would reaffirm or expand the Defense of Marriage Act.

SASC chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has scheduled a conference call with reporters for noon to discuss the committee's bill.

Developing ...

Over the course of the past hour, Lady Gaga -- who had been very involved in the 2010 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal efforts -- jumped into the New York marriage debate. Minutes ago, she provided her nearly 11 million Twitter followers with a link to the Human Rights Campaign's New Yorker for Marriage Equality webpage, which is used to connect people with their senators.

According to the site:

Just enter your phone number and address details below and we'll call you! You'll hear a brief message with tips for making your call to your New York state senator. After the message you will be automatically connected to your state senator's office. After you make your call, be sure to ask your New York friends and family to call as well!

Gaga isn't alone.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) -- a major contributor to Republicans in Albany -- went to Albany to speak with the GOP caucus earlier today.

Also today, Ted Olson -- the conservative George W. Bush administration solicitor general who is leading the court fight against Proposition 8 -- urged conservatives to support marriage equality in New York:

Conservatives should support the Governor's marriage equality bill. Equality under the law, nurturing strong families, and religious freedom are bedrock conservative values, and the Governor's bill promotes them all. The bill finally ends the State of New York's demeaning treatment of gay men and lesbians as second-class citizens unworthy of the institution of civil marriage. It stabilizes and strengthens New York families headed by gay men and lesbians by allowing them to marry, delivering untold benefits to the thousands of children raised by those parents. And the bill protects religious freedom by ensuring that religious institutions will not be required to perform marriages contrary to their beliefs. As a lifelong Republican and conservative, I support this legislation. New Yorkers who believe in freedom, respect family values and cherish religious liberty should embrace it as well.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R) must schedule the bill, passed June 15 by the General Assembly, for a vote before the end of the session next week.

[UPDATE: Lady Gaga also is pushing out the work of Freedom to Marry -- linking to the New Yorkers United for Marriage site -- and HRC on Facebook, where her page is "liked" by more than 38.5 million people.

Gaga's work on DADT was recognized by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network at its annual dinner earlier this year, showing the organization's view of the power of her support.]

An incident involving a supermarket, a D.C. gay couple, an epithet and an apology grabbed the attention -- and the Twitter feed -- of a member D.C. City Council this evening.

D.C. City Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) reacted today to news that a gay couple had been called "faggots" over this past weekend by a cashier at the Safeway grocery store at 1100 4th St. SW, located in his ward, by taking to Twitter and calling the incident "unacceptable."

Referencing Metro Weekly's report from earlier in on June 15, Wells wrote at a little before 9 p.m., "Unbelievable and absolutely unacceptable. I expect and await an official response from Safeway ASAP."

Hours after Metro Weekly reported on Jason Morgan and Brendan Harrington's story, a local D.C. resident, Andrew Kloman, went to the Safeway store where the incident occurred and videotaped the cashier apologizing. 

As of midnight on Thursday, June 16, the Safeway Eastern Division public affairs office had not responded to a Metro Weekly inquiry seeking comment. When speaking to Metro Weekly, the manager at the Safeway store, Michael Bigelow, declined to comment, referring questions to that office.

Tonight, marriage equality in New York took a step forward -- albeit one it's taken several times previously.

Simon Garron-Caine at Gay City News reports:

While State Senate Republicans on June 15 dragged their heels on moving a marriage equality bill to debate and a vote, the Assembly, having waived the three-day hold on newly introduced legislation, rushed Governor Andrew Cuomo’s measure through committee and to the floor, where it passed by an 80-63 vote Wednesday evening.

This was the Assembly’s fourth vote on marriage equality, each one of them successful, since 2007. Upper West Side Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, an out gay Democrat, is the lead sponsor.

On the heels of two Republican senators pledging their “yes” votes in recent days, the majority in that chamber met behind closed doors for more than four hours on Wednesday morning, only to announce they would pick up the discussion again the following day. Senators who have yet to firmly commit to one side or another refused comment or stuck to their noncommittal positions.

The public count of Senate supporters stands at 31, one vote shy of a majority.

Read the full story.

The Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families today announced it has a awarded a $250,000 contract to the Heartland Alliance of Chicago to create first-ever resource center to support the resettlement of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender refugees.

From the release:

"The Obama administration has issued a clear mandate that comprehensive human rights include the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity," said ACF Acting Assistant Secretary David A. Hansell. "Addressing the protection and resettlement challenges faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) refugees is a priority for ACF and ORR, and we are pleased to bring on Heartland Alliance as a partner to support this key initiative."

The aim of the contract is to develop resources and capacity in key resettlement locations; provide sensitivity training to network staff, including overview of key issues facing newly arrived LGBT refugees; provide technical assistance in service delivery; and to develop a set of "best practices and orientation materials" for refugee service providers across the country.

In a announcement from the Heartland Alliance, the organization stated, "Heartland Alliance's partnership with ACF on this project is a natural fit as we have nearly 125 years experience serving immigrant and refugee populations, specifically helping them build better futures."

Read the full HHS-ACF release below the jump.

Former Lt. Dan Choi was in federal court today, the lone individual still facing charges from any of the 2010 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests that took place at the White House.

He also was in uniform, a reminder of the symbol for repeal that Choi and other active servicemembers became during the course of the 2010 debate over ending the 1993 policy and instead allowing out gay, lesbian and bisexual service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Sitting at the defense table in Courtroom 7 of the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse, Choi was silent throughout today's brief conference where U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan Kay set an Aug. 29 trial date for Choi on federal charges of violating a federal regulation prohibiting "interfering with agency functions," specifically disobeying a lawful order of the National Park Service.

Jane Hamsher, of the liberal Firedoglake blog and a prominent critic of Obama administration policies, had announced on Twitter earlier in the morning that she was driving Choi to the courthouse and was seated in the courtroom's public gallery for the conference.

She also stated that Choi is the first person facing federal charges for protesting in front of the White House since Alice Paul was arrested for picketing the White House of President Woodrow Wilson in support of women's suffrage in 1917 -- a point later raised by Choi after today's conference.

Unlike other court dates, which brought multiple media outlets and several other supportive activists, the only other observers, besides Metro Weekly, were James Pietrangelo and the nine-year-old daughter of one of Choi's lawyers. Pietrangelo was arrested with Choi at an earlier White House protest, the charges from which were dismissed by the D.C. Attorney General's Office, and said he was there to support Choi.

Choi's lawyers, Christopher Lynn -- a New York City attorney who ran for City Council in 1999 against now-Council Chair Christine Quinn (D) -- and Yetta Kurland -- also from New York City and also a former Quinn opponent, in 2009 -- replaced Mark Goldstone and Ann Wilcox, the two D.C. attorneys who had been representing all 13 defendants arrested at a Nov. 15, 2010 protest.

After today's conference, Choi explained that he decided the change in his counsel was necessary when the other 12 defendants accepted an agreement avoiding a trial in their cases. Since he was going to continue to contest the charges, Choi said he brought in Lynn and Kurland.

The conference, which began at 11:30, started with a quick recitation of where the case stood by the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George. After George stated that a May conference had left unclear whether Choi was interested in accepting a deferred sentencing agreement that would avoid trial, Lynn stated that the defense was not interested in such an agreement and that he wanted to see a trial date set.

When the counsel and Kay started discussing possible dates, Lynn stated bluntly, "It's up to the government."

"It's their burden," he said of the government's burden of proof in a trial. "We're ready to go."

Although Kay said he believed the trial wouldn't last more than a half-day, George noted that Choi's defense team planned to bring forth multiple character witnesses and that the prosecution also would have multiple witnesses.

Kay appeared surprised at this, asking George, "Oh, you have more than one witness?"

George replied that she would.

As such, Kay set the trial for two days, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Aug. 29 and running over to Aug. 30 if needed.

The trial is to take place before Magistrate Judge John Facciola, who had raised concerns about the charges when he presided over a March 18 hearing in the case.

The case conference for Choi, dismissed from the military this past summer, came just a day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Associated Press that he could support certification of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal before leaving office on June 30.

If that were to happen, and the other two certifications -- by the president and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- also took place at the same time, then the 60-day congressional review period would end and repeal of DADT would be final sometime before Aug. 30 -- as or immediately before Choi is scheduled to start his trial for charges resulting from his protest of the policy.

[Photo: Autumn Sandeen, Father Geoff Farrow, Lt. Dan Choi, Evelyn Thomas and Justin Elzie protest at the White House on Nov. 15, 2010. (Photo by Yusef Najafi.)]

U.S. District Court Judge James Ware ruled today that the Aug. 4, 2010, decision by now-retired Judge Vaughn Walker striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional could not be vacated -- as the proponents of Proposition 8 argued on Monday, June 13 -- because Walker is gay and has a partner.

In introducing the denial, Ware writes:

After considering the Oppositions to the Motion and the governing law, as discussed below, the Court finds that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted grounds. The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4). Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED.

Specifically, Ware looks at recusal case law and concludes:

In a case that could affect the general public based on the circumstances or characteristics of various members of that public, the fact that a federal judge happens to share the same circumstances or characteristic and will only be affected in a similar manner because the judge is a member of the public, is not a basis for disqualifying the judge under Section 455(b)(4).

In applying this conclusion to the present case, the Court finds that Judge Walker was not required to recuse himself under Section 455(b)(4) on the ground that he was engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship and, thus, could reap speculative benefit from an injunction halting enforcement of Proposition 8 in California. ... Requiring recusal because a court issued an injunction that could provide some speculative future benefit to the presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against whom the unconstitutional law was directed would lead to a Section 455(b)(4) standard that required recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases. Congress could not have intended such an unworkable recusal statute.

As to the underlying principles at play, Ware also notes, "[I]t is inconsistent with the general principles of constitutional adjudication to presume that a member of a minority group reaps a greater benefit from application of the substantive protections of our Constitution than would a member of the majority."

In denying the portion of the proponent's motion claiming that a "reasonable observer" would question Judge Walker's impartiality, Ware writes:

The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits.

Read the decision: 797.pdf

[UPDATE: On a conference call with reporters immediately following the decision, plaintiffs' attorney Theodroe Boutros said, "They could try to appeal" -- but he noted both standing and procedural complications to doing so.

Later, Charles Cooper, the proponents' lead lawyer, announced that they planned just that, saying in a statement, "Our legal team will appeal this decision and continue our tireless efforts to defend the will of the people of California to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman."]

[SECOND UPDATE: Ware also issued a written ruling on the recordings of the trial, denying the proponents’ Motion for Order Compelling Return of Trial Recordings. Going a step further, Ware also set "August 29, 2011 at 9 a.m. for a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to lift the Protective Order on the video recording of the trial" -- a move sought by the plaintiffs to, as lead lawyer Ted Olson put it, to provide "an opportunity ... for the American people to see that trial."

The effort to publicize the trial is a long-term goal of Olson's, who told a group of reporters in May, "If you had been there during this trial and if America had been there during this trial, attitudes would change overnight."

Read the decision: 798.pdf]

Today, in a move announced last week, the Department of Education sent a letter to schools around the nation alerting them to their obligations under the Equal Access Act -- specifically as they relate to gay-straight alliances and other similar student organizations.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote that the act "requires public secondary schools to treat all student-initiated groups equally, regardless of the religious, political, philosophical, or other subject matters discussed at their meetings."

Specifically, he wrote, "Its protections apply to groups that address issues relating to LGBT students and matters involving sexual orientation and gender identity, just as they apply to religious and other student groups."

Duncan wrote that the Education Department's general counsel "is issuing a set of legal guidelines affirming the principles that prevent unlawful discrimination against any student-initiated groups. We intend for these guidelines to provide schools with the information and resources they need to help ensure that all students, including LGBT and gender nonconforming students, have a safe place to learn, meet, share experiences, and discuss matters that are important to them."

The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, a leading organization to help students form gay-straight alliances, was pleased with the letter.

GLSEN executive director Eliza Byard said in a statement, "Secretary Duncan's Dear Colleague letter is a clear signal to schools and school districts that they may not discriminate against students who seek to form Gay-Straight Alliances. We are grateful to the Department of Education for supporting students' rights, attempting to prevent discrimination and affirming the positive contributions Gay-Straight Alliances make to the life of our schools, right alongside other non-curricular clubs."

The also move was applauded by other LGBT organizations and the ACLU.

Laura Murphy, the director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said in a statement, "Today's guidance from the Department of Education is a welcome and much-needed reminder to our nation's school districts that all students have the right to be free from exclusion."

Of the benefits of gay-straight alliances, Murphy wrote, "Those attempting to create a safe haven where all students – LGBT and otherwise – can come together to discuss acceptance and provide each other with mutual support should not be stymied by their schools. Gay-straight alliances can play a crucial role in improving students' lives."

In a news release, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese noted the potential impact of the move, saying, "The message is: schools must support LGBT students. They must allow LGBT students and allies to create support networks because, like all students, LGBT students have value. That message -- spoken or unspoken -- is a life-saver."

In October 2010, the Education Department issued a letter to educators on a different topic related to LGBT students, that one providing guidance to the educators on, among other topics, their obligations under Title IX to protect LGBT students from sexual harassment and gender-based harassment resulting from sex stereotypes.

Although today's move was applauded, two pieces of legislation aimed at making schools safer for LGBT students -- the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act -- are stalled in Congress. Although Obama administration officials have repeatedly issued statements of support for safe schools, no administration official, including President Barack Obama, has endorsed either specific piece of legislation.

Read Duncan's letter below the jump.

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics against House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) regarding the $500,000 contracted by the Office of the General Counsel for the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The contract at issue -- first signed with King & Spalding and then with Bancroft, PLLC -- was entered into after the Department of Justice informed Boehner on Feb. 23 that it would no longer be defending Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of marriage -- in court challenges.

The complaint alleges a violation of the Antideficiency Act and of House Rules -- charges that Boehner's office strongly denies.

The Antidificiency Act portion of the complaint sums up the alleged violation as follows:

Congress appropriated $1,415,000 for the Office of General Counsel for fiscal year 2011. The $500,000 contract represents more than 35 percent ofthe office's total appropriation. With more than two-thirds of the fiscal year having passed, the office will not have sufficient funds to pay for both its remaining salaries and expenses and the DOMA defense as Mr. Kircher acknowledged in his testimony. By authorizing an obligation for more than the amount available in the appropriation for the Office of General Counsel, Speaker Boehner violated the Antideficiency Act.

In describing the alleged violation of House rules, the complaint notes the case of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), in which "the House held that failing to uphold the Constitution, laws and legal regulations of the United States is an ethics violation." As to Boehner, then, the complaint alleges:

As a result, by violating the Antideficiency Act and possibly other federal statutes, Speaker Boehner violated the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

Finally, Speaker Boehner likely violated House Rule 23, which requires all members of the House to conduct themselves "at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House." This ethics standard is considered to be "the most comprehensive provision" of the code. ...

It does not reflect creditably on the House for the Speaker of the House to violate any federal law or House rule. As Speaker Boehner vocally and vociferously has called for a new era of government fiscal austerity, it is even more egregious for him to have violated federal laws designed to prevent the government from overspending. By authorizing the expenditure of funds the government does not have in violation of the Antideficiency Act and other laws, Speaker Boehner's conduct does not reflect creditably on the House.

Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, said in a statement, "This 'complaint' is off-base and stupid to the point that it creates the appearance of partisanship by CREW. The Speaker expects any cost to be recouped from the Obama Administration Justice Department, which should be defending the law in court. The 'anti-deficiency act' has nothing to do with this situation, as anyone with a basic grasp of the law knows."

Read the CREW complaint: CREW-BoehnerComplaint.pdf

Today, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, released an opinion finding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a bankruptcy filing brought by a same-sex married couple, Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Morales.

The underlying basis for the challenge was described by the court:

This case is about equality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for two people who filed for protection under Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code). Like many struggling families during these difficult economic times, Gene Balas and Carlos Morales (Debtors), filed a joint chapter 13 petition on February 24, 2011. Although the Debtors were legally married to each other in California on August 20, 2008, and remain married today, the United States Trustee (sometimes referred to simply as “trustee”) moved to dismiss this case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1307(c) (Motion to Dismiss), asserting that the Debtors are ineligible to file a joint petition based on Bankruptcy Code § 302(a) because the Debtors are two males.

It is important to note that the case was filed on Feb. 24, one day after President Barack Obama's position that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional was announced in a letter sent from Attorney General Eric Holder to House Speaker John Boehner.

As the court summed about the trustee's position:

The trustee seeks dismissal solely because the Debtors are a same-sex married couple, in violation of DOMA’s definition of “spouse” as the statute applies to Bankruptcy Code § 302(a).

The case had been brought to the attention of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is defending the Defense of Marriage Act in several other cases, but the BLAG had not intervened in this case, according to the opinion:

The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, acting through the United States Trustee, at the last minute orally requested a short continuance of the May 17 hearing in order to determine whether to intervene in this case to address the issues. Debtors consented and the court granted the request; yet, there have been no further pleadings and no challenge from the government to any issue raised by the Debtors. The government’s non-response to the Debtors’ challenges is noteworthy.

After reviewing the law as it relates to DOMA, the court concluded:

This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. Debtors have urged that recent governmental defenses of the statute assert that DOMA also serves such interests as “preserving the status quo,” “eliminating inconsistencies and easing administrative burdens” of the government. None of these post hoc defenses of DOMA withstands heightened scrutiny. In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: the Debtors have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled.

The opinion is then signed by 20 of the 24 (or 25) bankruptcy judges in the district, presumably to show that a majority of the bankruptcy judges in the district approved of this method of addressing the question in the district. (The confusion comes because one of the signatories, Kathleen Thompson, is not listed as a judge on the court's website.)

Read the opinion: 57794777-DOMA-Memorandum-of-Decision.pdf

I'll be liveblogging the GOP 2012 presidential debate taking place in New Hampshire and broadcast on CNN here should any LGBT questions or answers arise or other related news of interest to LGBT people, but be sure to follow me on Twitter for live coverage.

* * *

8:12: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced that she filed the paperwork necessary to be a declared candidate for president.

* * *

9:18: Bachmann is asked about same-sex marriage, which is legal in New Hampshire:

I do believe in the Tenth Amendment, and I do believe in self-determination for the states. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

And I believe, for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.

Asked about whether she would support repeal of marriage equality there as president:

I'm running for the presidency of the United States, and I don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state law.

Then, John King asked the candidates if they are more of a "George W. Bush Republican" -- meaning they would support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- or a "Dick Cheney Republican" -- meaning it should be a state's decision.

Herman Cain: "State's decision."

Tim Pawlenty: "I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman."

Ron Paul: "The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment. ... Get the government out of it."

Mitt Romney: "Constitutional."

Newt Gingrich: "I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Obama administration should be, frankly, protecting in court. I think if that fails, at that point, you have no choice except to have a constitutional amendment."

Rick Santorum: "Constitutional amendment. Look, a constitutional amendment includes the states. Three-quarters of the states have to ratify it, so the states will be involved in this process. We should have one law in the country with respect to marriage.

Bachmann then came in with a somewhat contradictory caveat to her earlier answer: "I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law."

The constitutional amendment regarding marriage that has been considered in the past in Congress would, if passed and ratified, have the end result of overturning any state law allowing same-sex marriages.

* * *

9:21: A follow-up question from John King asked the candidates if they would leave open gay, lesbian and bisexual service in the military, assuming that it had been fully repealed, should they take office.

Cain: "If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn't create a distraction trying to turn it over as president."

Pawlenty: "I think we need to pay deference to our military commanders, particularly our combatent commanders. In this case, I would take my cues from them ...."

Paul: "I would not work to overthrow it."

Romney: "I believe that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' should have been kept in place until a conflict was over."

Gingrich: "I think it's very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelming opposed changing it, that they're recommendation was against changing it. And if as president I met with them, and they said, 'You know, it isn't working. It is dangerous. It's disrupting unit morale, and we should go back,' I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are in fact trying to protect."

Bachmann: "I would keep the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy."

Asked to clarify if she would try to reverse the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act, she said, "I would -- after again, following much just what the Speaker just said, I would want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come."

Obviously, the president is the commander-in-chief, and King's question made Bachmann president in this scenario. It sounded like she just misspoke.

Santorum: "The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed, and the commanders should have a system of discipline in place ... that punishes bad behavior."

It is unclear to me what he meant by that, exactly and King didn't ask him to clarify.

This afternoon, a suggestion from outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" certification could come before he is set to leave office at the end of the month.

From the Associated Press:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he sees no roadblocks to repeal of the ban on gay military members serving openly.

He says if the military chiefs make their recommendation to move forward on the repeal before the end of the month, he will sign it, which would make it effective as early as September.

Clearly, specifics are lacking, and the sentence is not a direct quote, but this interview appears to be the first time that one of the three individuals who must sign the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act certification -- the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- has suggested that repeal certification could happen this month.

Nothing, however, has been said about whether the other two -- currently Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and President Barack Obama -- also would sign certification prior to June 30 if Gates does so.

Under the act, even if they all would sign before June 30, a 60-day congressional review period follows certification before the law -- 10 U.S.C. 654 -- is removed from the books.

Repeal advocacy groups have been calling for Gates and the others to certify repeal before Gates is to leave office on June 30.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "SLDN is pleased to see Secretary Gates clearly state that he is prepared to certify 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal before he leaves his post at the end of the month. 

"After nearly six months of preparation and training, we join the Secretary in expressing confidence that the military is, indeed, ready for open service. Hopefully, with the bulk of the training completed in all of the services, the service chiefs are rapidly approaching the point where they can officially recommend to the JCS Chairman Michael Mullen, Secretary Gates, and to the President  that the time has come to make the long anticipated certification," Sarvis said. "The time to certify 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal is on Secretary Gates' watch."

Today, a group of lawyers led by Tennessee attorney and former Lambda Legal legal director Abby Rubenfeld is filing a lawsuit instate court challenging the constitutionality of a law recently passed in the state that would prohibit local municipalities and counties, including local school districts, from enacting local laws or school policies that protect LGBT people against discrimination.

Rubenfeld will be joined by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Morrison & Foerster, an international law firm based in San Francisco, in bringing the suit.

As NCLR states in a news release announcing the challenge, "The bill was passed earlier this year, just weeks after Nashville added sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing local anti-discrimination law." The plaintiffs include Nashville Metro councilmembers, the Tennessee Equality Project, the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition and Tennessee residents impacted by the new law.

Referring to Romer v. Evans, the 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision that will play a central role in the challenge, Rubenfeld said in the news release, "Fifteen years ago, in fact—in a case quite similar to this one—the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, 'if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest'."

In Romer, the court, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, described local antidiscrimination laws that had been passed in several Colorado municipalities and then discribed the constitutional amendment that the court struck down:

Amendment 2 repeals these ordinances to the extent they prohibit discrimination on the basis of "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." ... Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.

Rubenfeld and the other attorneys argue in today's complaint:

HB600, by blocking anti-discrimination protections for gay and transgender people at the local level, imposes a different and more burdensome political process on gay and transgender people than on non-gay and non-transgender people who have state protection against identity-based discrimination.

Read the complaint: Complaint Final.pdf

[Photo: Rubenfeld (via law firm website).]

On June 12, 2011, residents of and visitors to Washington, D.C., celebrated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride at the Capital Pride Festival. Less than five blocks away -- but 44 years earlier -- the U.S. Supreme Court met to hand down its opinion in Loving v. Virginia, a case brought by Mildred and Richard Loving challenging Virginia's anti-miscegenation law -- a criminal ban on interracial marriages.

The court -- led by Chief Justice Earl Warren -- unanimously concluded in part:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

Then, as to marriage, the Supreme Court concluded also:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

As David Boies concludes in a video released in celebration of the Loving anniversary by the American Foundation for Equal Rights -- which is backing the challenge to Proposition 8 in California:

Today, we salute the courage of Mildred and Richard Loving, whose efforts laid the groundwork to ensure that someday all Americans will be equal under the law.

The lawyers for AFER -- led by Boies and Ted Olson -- are due in front of U.S. District Court Judge James Ware on Monday, June 13, to address two issues in the case, Perry v. Brown. The first is a request by the proponents of Proposition 8 to toss out now-retired Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional because Walker is gay and has a long-term partner. The second is a question, also raised by the proponents, about whether the video taken of the trial should be able to be used -- by Walker or more broadly.

Julian Bond, the former chairman of the NAACP, wrote this weekend in USA Today about the connection between the two cases:

Prop 8 continues to label some Americans as second class. It denies those Americans the fundamental rights afforded their fellow citizens. Like the anti-miscegenation statutes struck down 44 years ago, Prop 8 serves no purpose but to permit one group of Americans to degrade another.

Watch the AFER video:

[Photo: The Lovings (Screen capture from AFER YouTube video).]

On June 3, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- the three Republican members -- filed a motion to dismiss Karen Golinski's lawsuit seeking equal health insurance benefits for her wife. A federal court employee in California, Golinski has spent the past couple years in a legal process that had at one point pitted the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the Office of Personnel Management and resulted in the present lawsuit.

The brief is the first in which Paul Clement -- the outside lawyer hired by the Republican leaders to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court -- presented a substantive defense of the law.

From its recitation of the facts -- quoting generously from Democrats who supported the bill in 1996 -- to the equal protection legal arguments, Clement and the BLAG present a vigorous defense of the law.

A key portion of the BLAG's argument that only opposite-sex -- and not same-sex -- marriage is a fundamental right:

Unlike traditional marriage, same-sex marriage, by any objective measure, is not deeply rooted in American law and history — indeed, it has scarcely any roots at all. Although the landscape has changed somewhat in the last 15 years, see infra at 17, when Congress enacted DOMA in 1996, not one of the 50 states permitted same-sex marriage, and no American court had discovered a state or federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Interestingly, as for equal protection -- that DOMA discriminates against same-sex couples -- the Clement filing appears not to dispute the immutability of sexual orientation:

The overwhelming majority of same-sex marriages will be between two individuals who share the same sexual orientation and, therefore, it is reasonable to regard DOMA as drawing a line based on sexual orientation.

The brief does, however, argue that U.S. Supreme Court and appellate court precedent means that only rational basis -- and not the heightened scrutiny President Barack Obama determined applies to sexual orientation classifications -- should apply in cases challenging DOMA:

Given these binding precedents, there is no need to review the considerations that make a class suspect or not. That said, no one can doubt the political power of those who support same-sex marriage and similar rights. Congress’s passage of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, and the Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, P.L. 111-84, §§ 4701-13, 123 Stat. 2190, 2835-44, are two recent examples that reflect that influence. DOJ’s decision to forego the defense of DOMA is itself an example. That decision resulted from sharp public criticism of the Obama Administration by gay rights organizations.

Assuming that rational basis applies, Clement argues for the BLAG:

Because DOMA does not implicate a suspect class, Congress could rationally decide to adhere to the historic, fundamental-rights definition of marriage — for purposes of federal law only, and without prohibiting any marital arrangements that a particular state might choose to permit. Consistent with equal protection principles, Congress reasonably could choose to extend federal benefits based on the historic definition of marriage rather than a recently-minted definition that would encompass same-sex marriages.

Clement raises the procreation issue -- quoting Maggie Gallagher at one point -- and cites an earlier sex discrimination case to buttress his point:

Logically, the experience of a child raised by a man and a woman may differ from that of a child raised by same-sex caregivers. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (“The two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.”) (quotation marks and brackets omitted).

Incidentally, the next line in U.S. v. Virginia – the case that ended the Virginia Military Institute’s men-only admission policy – was: "'Inherent differences' between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration, but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual’s opportunity."

Toward the end, Clement also makes a point about the "limited" scope of DOMA:

Finally, it bears emphasizing that DOMA’s effect is limited. DOMA only defines marriage for purposes of benefits—and burdens—, created by other federal laws. … Congress "did not penalize" same sex couples; it "decided not to offer them a special inducement."

On June 8, Golinski's lawyers asked for a one-week extension -- until June 24 -- to respond.

Read Clement's BLAG brief: Golinski-MtDMemorandum-BLAG.pdf

Asked today to explain the difference between a 2009 moratorium on deporting certain widows and widowers of U.S. citizens and the White House's failure to take up advocates' request that a similar moratorium be issued to stop the deportation of the foreign same-sex partner of U.S. citizens, White House press secretary Jay Carney provided no direct answer -- only reiterating the president's support for comprehensive immigration reform and belief it can happen "in the future."

In June 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued the moratorium on deporting certain widows and widowers of U.S. citizens. At the time, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, "Smart immigration policy balances strong enforcement practices with common-sense, practical solutions to complicated issues."

Advocacy groups, including Immigration Equality and Stop the Deportations, have been pushing the administration to take a similar step as to same-sex bi-national couples. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the U.S. citizen in such a relationship has been unable to sponsor his or her partner -- even when legally married -- for immigration purposes.

Asked in May about the issue, Carney dismissed the possibility of a moratorium, saying, "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."

Asked today by Metro Weekly how the circumstances for same-sex bi-national couples differed from the 2009 decision that a moratorium was both possible and appropriate, Carney only would say, "The President has called for comprehensive immigration reform for a reason -- because he thinks we have to move in a comprehensive way to get there.

"Because that kind of comprehensive approach has in the past enjoyed bipartisan support, he believes that if we talk about it in the right way and we push for it and folks out in the country push for it, that we can return to a situation where there will be bipartisan support for it in the future."

Lavi Soloway, who launched Stop the Deportations in 2010 and was a co-founder of Immigration Equality, told Metro Weekly that Carney's comments were insufficient and did not address the underlying issue.

"It is true that comprehensive reform is desperately needed to fix our broken immigration system, but achieving bipartisan support in the foreseeable future is extremely unlikely and, frankly, irrelevant at this point to the thousands of lesbian and gay binational couples who are threatened with deportation, separation and exile," Soloway wrote. "By repeatedly returning to its comprehensive immigration reform talking points, the administration side-steps what is at the core of this issue: Equality."

Just this past week, the Obama administration appeared to acknowledge that, writing in a fact sheet about "winning the future for the LGBT community" that "President Obama believes ... Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country."

Soloway sees a disconnect between the fact sheet and Carney's answer today.

"With all due respect, this is not about achieving comprehensive reform, bipartisan or otherwise. It is about treating all Americans with foreign spouses equally under the law," he wrote. "The executive branch has the power to ensure that our families are at least protected from deportation today while we continue the fight for full equality."

The possibility of a moratorium had been discussed by advocates for some time now but was breathed new life when Attorney General Eric Holder announced in a letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Feb. 23 that he and President Barack Obama reached the conclusion that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and, accordingly, would no longer be defending it in court.

One of the many consequences of that decision, a DHS official told Metro Weekly in March, was that DHS examined whether the decision would have any impact on married, same-sex bi-national couples’ green card applications. A few days later, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it had received its guidance. The agency will continue to “enforce the law,” USCIS spokesman Christopher Bentley said, which he said meant that DOMA would continue to prevent those green card applications from being approved.

[UPDATE @ 6:20 PM: The White House transcript:

     Q    Yes.  I’m just wondering, in June 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum on deporting certain widows and widowers of U.S. citizens.  At the time, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that, “smart immigration policy balances strong enforcement practices with the common-sense practical solutions to complicated issues.”  Yet, in May, asked about requests by advocates for a moratorium on deportation of foreign partners and same-sex binational relationships, similar to the 2009 moratorium, you said the President can’t just wave a wand and change the law.  Can you explain the difference there?

     MR. CARNEY:  I mean -- the President can’t just wave a wand and then change the law.  I think that was in response to a broader set of issues that some folks are understandably advocating for --

     Q    No, it was specifically about the issue of --

     MR. CARNEY:  And the President has called for comprehensive immigration reform for a reason, because he thinks that we need to move in a comprehensive way to get there, and -- because that kind of comprehensive approach has in the past enjoyed bipartisan support, and he believes that if we talk about it in the right way and we push for it, and folks out in the country push for it, that we can return to a situation where there will be bipartisan support for it again in the future.]

Pride at Work, a nonprofit labor organization that is the official LGBT constituency group for the AFL-CIO, announced today that Morgan Meneses-Sheets has been hired as the organization's development director. The organization, whose mission is to ensure equality and visibility for LGBT people at their place of employment, stated in a message to supporters:

"Morgan is an exemplary, tireless worker and someone deeply committed to the fight for equality and justice," said Peggy Shorey, Pride at Work's Executive Director.  "We are thrilled to have Morgan dedicate her skills and experience in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender labor and our allies."

Morgan Meneses-Sheets has spent the past twelve years fighting for social justice, with work including 501(c)3,  501(c)4 and PAC fundraising, writing grant proposals, membership development, event organizing and developing major donor programs.

According to the e-mail message sent to "members and friends" of the organization, Meneses-Sheets will begin working out of Pride at Work's D.C. office, at 815 16th St. NW, immediately. 

Meneses-Sheets, 34, announced on April 22, that she was fired from Equality Maryland. While the board at Equality Maryland initially gave conflicting accounts on Meneses-Sheets's departure, the board later clarified that they had voted to "remove" her from the organization.

In addition to Equality Maryland, Meneses-Sheets, a native of Massena, N.Y., has served as the director of the Montana affiliate of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She currently lives in Howard County, Md., with her wife and their eight-month-old daughter.

Meneses-Sheets is not talking to the press at this time about her new position at Pride at Work.

[Photo: Meneses-Sheets by Todd Franson.]

On June 7, Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin -- the same blog that has led the country in its coverage of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill -- unveiled his newest project: "What Are Little Boys Made Of?"

In introducing this new investigation, Burroway wrote:

In the summer of 1970, just before Kirk [Murphy]'s fifth birthday, his parents learned about a new federally funded research program at UCLA for young boys who were showing early signs of being effeminate. Concerned that Kirk was exhibiting some of the behaviors listed by a UCLA researcher on a local television talk show, Kirk's parents decided to take him in for an evaluation and treatment. Ten months later, Kirk's therapy was judged a success and his parents were reassured he would now grow up to be a normal, heterosexual man.

When Kirk was undergoing treatment at UCLA, he was under the care of a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. In 1974, Rekers and his mentor, Dr. Ivar Lovaas, published a landmark paper describing "Kraig's" treatment — "Kraig" being their pseudonym for Kirk. That paper, which appeared in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, was "the first experimental study on the subject of childhood cross-gender problems." That paper launched Rekers's career, first as an expert in childhood sexual development, and later as an anti-gay activist.

Unfortunately -- and despite the treatment's "success" -- Murphy attempted suicide before turning 18 and ultimately killed himself in 2003 at the age of 38.

Rekers, however, went on to co-found the Family Research Council, one of the most vigorously anti-LGBT organizations in the country. He also was a board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) -- up until he was caught by the Miami New Times returning from having taken a vacation with a young man who he found on Rentboy.com.

Now, with Burroway's uncommon skill at critically researching some of the most notorious anti-LGBT figures in the country and world, he is taking on the work that formed the basis for Rekers's career -- and for much of the "ex-gay" organizations in which he was later involved. As Burroway writes:

Much has been written about "Kraig," but until now the world knew virtually nothing about Kirk, the real life young boy behind George Rekers's most famous case. It's time to change that.

This time, Burroway has some help from CNN's Anderson Cooper, whose show is running a three-part series on what it calls "The 'Sissy Boy' Experiment." The first segment, below, aired on the night of June 7. The second is to air tonight.

WATCH THE FIRST CNN SEGMENT:

[Photo: Murphy at 4. (Photo courtesy Box Turtle Bulletin.)]

Tonight, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) -- a leading potential 2012 Republican challenger to President Barack Obama -- was on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight. Romney was asked about same-sex marriage and how his faith affects his political views on matters relating to homosexuality.

Romney has said that he had supported "gay rights," but Morgan questioned that because of his opposition to marriage equality.

Of that, Romney responded, "The gay community changed their perspective of what they wanted," adding that he said he wouldn't support same-sex marriage. Although he opposes marriage equality, he said he supports "equal rights in employment."

On his Mormonisn, he said, "You don't begin to apply the doctrines of a religion to responsibility for guiding a nation or guiding a state."

WATCH:

An Air Force spokesman told reporters that the April 29 discharge of an Airman under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- the first such discharge since heightened procedures for discharge were instituted in October 2010 -- was based on a statement from the Airman that he was gay.

Following up on Metro Weekly's June 2 report that the Airman had been discharged and in response to requests from Metro Weekly and other outlets for additional information on the matter, Major Joel Harper, the spokesman, wrote, "In this instance, the Airman 1st Class made a statement that he was a homosexual."

Harper detailed the facts of the discharge process that followed, noting, "After making the statement but prior to the commander initiating separation action, the Airman wrote the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) asking to be separated. After the separation action was initiated, the individual was informed of the current status of the repeal of 'Don't ask Don't Tell,' and he reaffirmed to the SecAF that he desired his separation action be expeditiously processed."

At that point, according to Harper's earlier statement to Metro Weekly, Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley -- after consulting with Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson and Understary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanely -- approved the Airman's discharge on April 29 under the October 2010 requirements for DADT discharge.

The Pentagon classifies DADT discharges as being based on a "statement," "act" or "marriage," as was seen when the military relased official figures in March regarding DADT discharges from Fiscal Year 2010.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "Though unfortunate, this discharge highlights the need for certification this month, and in fact, does nothing to diminish our concern that service members remain under investigation and are at risk of being discharged."

Harper would not provide further information about the circumstances of the individual's discharge, including the circumstances that led to the initial statement.

Despite that, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson said in a statement, "While the specific circumstances surrounding this airman's decision to intentionally out himself or herself remain unclear, this appears to be a classic case of someone simply trying to use the fact that the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law is still technically on the books to get out of his or her service obligation.

He added, "The overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian servicemembers are serving, have served, or have tried to serve out their service obligations despite the unnecessary extra burden of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law. This is all the more reason that repeal should be certified before Secretary Gates departs, as is expected, so that this misguided chapter in our history is finally over."

Certification by the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the changes needed to implement repeal are "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces" is required under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act -- along with a subsequent 60-day congressional review period -- by the DADT law, 10 U.S.C. 654 -- is repealed.

Talking about SLDN's caseload, Sarvis noted, "At SLDN, we have clients facing administrative board hearings right now. Some of these clients have 10 to 18 years of military service and are not looking to be separated under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' In fact, they are fighting these investigations and board proceedings today. It's critical that certification happen in the month of June."

[Photo: Donley]

The Obama administration -- ever eager to advance its 2011 theme of "winning the future" -- has now extended the three-word slogan to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality with an official White House web page: "Winning the Future: President Obama and the LGBT Community."

Brian Bond, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, described the page in an email as the "first ever LGBT specific constituency webpage" and wrote, "Please take a look at our Winning the Future for LGBT Americans factsheet (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/factsheet_lgbt.pdf) and sign up for our e-mail updates (http://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/sign-updates-issues-impacting-lgbt-community) that will keep you up to speed with what is going on in the Administration. We encourage you to spread the word about this site to your friends, families, and the communities you work with."

In addition to the fact sheet and email sign-up page, the LGBT home page contains links to the administration's "It Gets Better" videos; White House blog posts relating to LGBT issues; LGBT-related news releases from the administration; and links to resources, including StopBullying.gov, AIDS.gov and the Defense Department's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal page.

The two-page, "The Obama Administration's Commitment to Winning the Future for the LGBT Community" fact sheet contains many bullet points of accomplishments -- similar to but more expansive than Tuesday's 2011 LGBT Pride Month proclamation from Obama -- and three bullet points about future progress. The "progress" points all relate, at least in part, to relationship recognition -- a topic absent from Tuesday's proclamation.

Supporting LGBT Progress

• President Obama has called for the Congressional repeal of the discriminatory "Defense of Marriage Act" and has announced that in his view, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional
• President Obama also continues to support legislation that would directly impact the LGBT community, including an inclusive ENDA and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act
• President Obama believes that all students should be safe and healthy and learn in environments free from discrimination, bullying and harassment; that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation; and that Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country

Read the full fact sheet below the jump.