On Jan. 1, 2011, most LGBT legal commentators were ready for a federal appellate court ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 -- or at least a decision on whether the initiatives' proponents had a right to be there in the first place. Challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act were under way on the East Coast -- from Massachusetts to Connecticut to New York -- but the Proposition 8 challenge looked like it was on the fast track to the Supreme Court.

But, on Jan. 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent a certified question about the legal role of initiative proponents under California law to the California Supreme Court -- a move that delayed a Ninth Circuit decision and appears to be keeping people waiting into 2012.

The delay and disappointment of the Ninth Circuit decision might have put a damper on the mood of LGBT legal advocates in 2011 -- until Feb. 23.

On Feb. 23, the Department of Justice -- in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder sent to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- announced that DOJ, with the agreement of President Obama, had concluded that sexual orientation classifications should be subjected to heightened scrutiny in legal challenges claiming a violation of the Fourteenth and Fifth amendments' guarantee of equal protection of the laws. As such, Holder told Boehner, Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage at the federal level, is unconstitutional. Moreover, because they had made this determination, Holder said DOJ would no longer be defending DOMA's Section 3 in court challenges.

The change altered the legal landscape -- not just in the direct challenges to DOMA, but in cases across the country, on issues from bankruptcy to immigration -- and led the House Republican leadership to mount a defense of the 1996 law by hiring former George W. Bush administration solicitor general Paul Clement and his firm (first King & Spalding and, when they ended the representation, then his new firm, Bancroft PLLC) to do so.

Karen Golinski's attempt to secure equal health insurance benefits for her wife has taken center stage, as DOJ sent one of its senior lawyers to a court hearing in December to join Lambda Legal in arguing why Golinksi's claim should not be dismissed because DOMA is unconstitutional. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, briefing is completed in the appeal of the 2010 trial court decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, in which Judge Joseph Tauro found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which brought the challenge, expects the oral arguments in the appeal to be held in February.

In the military, the challenge to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that was brought by Log Cabin Republicans had pushed Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others in 2010 to urge legislative action to end DADT, but the lawsuit, despite LCR's attempts to keep the lawsuit alive to help resolve ongoing issues, found its end in the weeks after the law's repeal occurred. Soon thereafter, though, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network raised a challenge to the post-DADT military provision of spousal benefits, which does not include same-sex couples -- a challenge to DOMA within the military.

In schools, like the military, questions about ongoing discrimination are plenty. In Minnesota, the National Center for Lesbian Rights brought a lawsuit against the Anoka-Hennepin School District to challenge what it called "a frightening and harmful toxic environment for [LGBT] students." In California, the sentencing of Lawrence King's killer, Brandon McInerney, to 21 years in prison put some closure on the sad tale of two young lives -- one ended, one altered forever -- by homophobia. The American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit in Missouri, challenging one school district's use of web filtering software. In October, the ACLU sought a preliminary injunction to stop the Camdenton R-III School District from censoring web content geared toward LGBT people.

For prisons, ongoing questions about treatment of transgender prisoners were raised in multiple lawsuits. In September, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD announced that they had reached a settlement with the Federal Bureau of Prisons in the case of Vanessa Adams that would mean that "[t]reatment options [for trans inmates] will not be precluded solely due to level of services received, or lack of services, prior to incarceration." In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, a case is ongoing about Virginia prison system.

Finally, in December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a generally conservative court, sided with Vandy Beth Glenn -- the trans woman, represented by Lambda Legal, who has testified before Congress about being fired from her job as an editor in the Georgia General Assembly's Office of Legislative Counsel because she was transgender -- in finding that discrimination on the basis of gender non-conformity constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.

As 2011 comes to a close, as when 2010 ended, LGBT legal advocates await action at any moment from the Ninth Circuit on the American Foundation for Equal Rights's challenge to Proposition 8. But, if 2011 is to serve as a guide, the key insight to preparing for the legal challenges that will be front and center in 2012 is to be prepared for the unexpected.

A new poll released by CNN/Time this afternoon found that one in five Iowa Republican voters said "moral issues" -- like abortion and same-sex marriage -- will not be that important in deciding which candidate will get their support at the Jan. 3 Republican presidential caucus.

According to the poll, likely voters have placed former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney at the top of their caucus-going hearts -- for today. With 25 percent of voters saying they would vote for Romney, he is outpacing Texas Rep. Ron Paul by 3 percent, the same amount that separated the two in a poll conducted at the beginning of the month.

The big changes, however, were that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lost his significant lead in the state, moving from 33 percent at the beginning of the month to 14 percent today, and that former Sen. Rick Santorum increased his support significantly, moving into 3rd with 16 percent support.

Regardless, 43 percent of survey respondents said that they could change their mind by time the caucus is held on Jan. 3.

When it comes to what issues Republicans in Iowa care about, the economy took a strong first with more than 90 percent of respondents saying the issue is extremely important or very important. In contrast, more than 70 percent said so about foreign affairs and national security policy and just more than 50 percent said so of moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

In addition, 19 percent of survey respondents said that moral issues were "not that important." In contrast, only 2 percent said the same of foreign affairs and none said so of the economy.

The survey results echo Log Cabin Republicans deputy executive director Christian Berle, who told Metro Weekly on Dec. 27, "Polls have consistently shown that potential Caucus-goers are primarily concerned with the economy and jobs as are Republicans across the country."

In New Hampshire, where CNN/Time also included independents who are likely to vote in the Republican primary there on Jan. 10, the distinction between "moral issues" and the others was even more striking. There, more likely voters -- 35 percent -- said issues like abortion and same-sex marriage would not be that important in deciding their vote than said the issue was either extremely or very important -- 34 percent. As to the other two areas, however, the responses were similar to those in Iowa.

John Geddes Lawrence, the defendant in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that declared sodomy laws unconstitutional across the country, died on Nov. 20, according to an obituary posted by R.S. Farmer Funeral Home in Silsbee, Texas. He was 68.

According to the obituary, Lawrence was born in Beaumont, Texas, on August 2, 1943, served in the U.S. Navy for four years and worked as a medical technologist in Texas hospitals until his retirement in 2009.

In the facts underlying the Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested under Texas's Homosexual Conduct Law after police entered Lawrence's home on Sept. 17, 1998, and saw them "engaging in a sexual act." The couple challenged the law as unconstitutional, Lambda Legal backed their challenge, and the couple fought it up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jenner & Block partner Paul Smith then argued the case for Lawrence and Garner on March 26, 2003.

Three months later on June 26, 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's opinion, holding, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. ... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

Lambda Legal executive director Kevin Cathcart talked with Metro Weekly on Friday, Dec. 23 about Lawrence, saying, "He really was the most unassuming person that I could imagine, and yet, he was a hero. Most people try to plead out and avoid publicity [with sodomy charges], it's tough to find people who want to attach their names to sodomy challenges. ... and yet, they did this amazing thing. And we all are the better for it."

Human Rights Campaign spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz told Metro Weekly, "It's hard to believe that less than 10 years ago, gay and lesbian people could be marked as criminals just for being themselves, but because of people like John Lawrence, those days are no more in this country. To be the namesake of a legal case that continues to underpin advances for LGBT equality is a fitting tribute to John Lawrence, whose courage to stand up improved the lives of millions."

At the time the Supreme Court decided Lawrence, Cathcart told The Advocate, "Because Tyron Garner and John Lawrence had the courage to challenge homophobic sodomy laws, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that love, sexuality, and family play the same role in gay people's lives as they do for everyone else. That's a colossal legacy and one for which his community will forever be thankful."

According to Lawrence's obituary, "his dearest friend and partner, Jose Garcia," cared for him at the end of his life. Funeral services were held on Nov. 23.

According to the obituary, in addition to Garcia, Lawrence was survived by his brother, sister and her husband, two nieces and two nephews, as well as a host of grand nieces and nephews, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends. Garner had died earlier, on Sept. 11, 2006.

In concluding the Lawrence court opinion, which overturned the still-recent Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws, Kennedy wrote an expansive defense of an evolving understanding of rights. The opinion was later used in Massachusetts and elsewhere by courts holding that same-sex couples have a constitutional basis for equal marriage rights.

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight," Kennedy held. "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

[Photo: Garner, left, and Lawrence, right. (Photo from OutHistory.org.)]

[CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This post was updated at 1:30 p.m. Dec. 23 to correct an error about Lawrence's status as a defendant in the court challenge and to add reactions to the news of his death.]

The new series, Work It, had already caused concern at LGBT organizations before ABC started promoting the series. But any behind-the-scenes worries broke out into the open when ABC published an ad for the show, set to premiere Jan. 3.

Today, the Human Rights Campaign and Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation ran a full-page ad in Variety regarding their concerns about the upcoming sitcom and organizations' leaders published an op-ed at The Huffington Post about the show.

The Work It ad, which featured two men in women's business skirts standing at urinals, was called "provocative" by EW.com's James Hibberd. At AlterNet, however, Genny Beemyn and Sue Rankin wrote about the new show, its ad campaign and the potential impact on transgender people. "[T]o transgender women, these images are no laughing matter," they wrote. "Their femaleness is no masquerade, yet they often experience discrimination for not being able or not desiring to 'pass' as women."

On Friday, Dec. 16, Variety reported that the network had agreed to meet with HRC and GLAAD to discuss the groups' concerns.

GLAAD's associate director of entertainment media, Matt Kane, wrote of the group's concerns, "We ask that ABC … keep the show's bathroom advertisement out of circulation, and seriously consider whether airing this show is worth the damage it has the potential to do. The fact is ABC should not air this show at all, as it will contribute to a climate in which transgender people are something to be laughed at, rather than treated with the respect and dignity that everyone deserves."

In today's op-ed, GLAAD's Mike Thompson and HRC's Joe Solmonese go further, writing, "The premise of this show is repulsive, and ABC -- a network that routinely scores highly in GLAAD's annual TV reports and whose parent company, Disney, receives a perfect 100-percent score from HRC's Corporate Equality Index -- should know better than to air it."

Cathy Renna, having watched a re-shot version of the new show's pilot episode, wrote at The Huffington Post, "After seeing the show for myself, the petitions by GLAAD, HRC, and others to get this program pulled make a lot of sense to me."

Renna added to the discussion with another element, writing, "I'd love to be a fly on the wall when HRC and GLAAD -- and hopefully others -- meet with ABC, partly because I would love to hear their defense of this, and also because you just know some of the folks involved in this, from creators to actors, are members of the populations who are rightly up in arms."

Over at AfterElton one headline asks, "What the Hell was ABC Thinking When it Greenlit Work It?" In the accompanying post, Heather Hogan concurred with the organizations and Renna, writing, "ABC should pull Work It from its roster immediately. It's going to tank anyway, and canceling it before it airs is a perfect way to save face in several ways."

Should ABC cancel "Work It"? Take our poll.

Get Poliglot in your inbox. Join our email list.

Follow @metroweekly

Follow us on Foursquare

The Department of Justice sent one of its top lawyers to federal court in San Francisco today to argue that the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of marriage unconstitutionally limits Karen Golinski's ability to secure health insurance for her wife.

Golinski's case, which began as an ordinary request to include her wife, Amy Cunninghis, on her federal employee health insurance plan, became, initially, a dispute between the branches of government about how court employees are managed -- and who can do so. Since then, however, it has evolved into its current status as a challenge to DOMA.

Pitting the House Republican leadership-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) against Golinski and the Obama administration, today's hearing presented the question to U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White whether Golinski's challenge should be dismissed and, if not, whether she should be granted a decision in her favor without a trial.

Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the head of the civil division of DOJ, appeared in court to argue DOJ's position. Lambda Legal's Tara Borelli and Morrison & Foerster's Rita Lin represented Golinski. For BLAG, former George W. Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement did not attend the hearing but rather sent Bancroft PLLC's Conor Dugan, another lawyer who had served in the George W. Bush administration DOJ, to handle the arguments.

Speaking to Metro Weekly after the hearing, Borelli said, "Judge White thanked the DOJ for having sent the head of the civil division" to argue the case himself, adding that it made "a statement of the significance that DOJ and the administration place on this question."

According to the Department of Justice, this is only the second time that West has appeared in court as assistant attorney general to argue a case. The other time, DOJ spokeswoman Nana Efua Embil told Metro Weekly, "was for a national security case." Prior to joining the Obama administration in 2009, West had been a partner at Morrison & Foerster in the firm's San Francisco office. Earlier in his time at DOJ, West was criticized for having signed his name to an administration brief filed in June 2009 that defended DOMA by arguing, among other points, that "DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits."

This June, however, it was BLAG arguing in court filings that the challenge should be dismissed because, in passing DOMA Section 3's federal definition of marriage, "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."

On July 1, DOJ countered that, arguing that under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment), the "rational basis" that BLAG applied to Golinski's case was not the appropriate standard for classifications, like DOMA, based on sexual orientation. As DOJ had announced on Feb. 23, it and the president have determined that courts should apply some form of "heightened scrutiny" -- like that applied to classifications based on race, religion or sex -- which would require a defense of DOMA to be based upon a finding that the law advanced an important government interest.

Borelli said that now that the hearing is done, "We're going to be waiting for Judge White," adding that a series of questions he presented to the parties prior to the argument and his questions at today's hearing suggest that "he is intending to write a quite thoughtful and deliberative opinion."

As to his treatment of the arguments advanced by BLAG to support DOMA's constitutionality, Borelli said of White, "He really expressed some serious, significant skepticism at some of the arguments they were making."

In White's questions, he not only appeared skeptical of BLAG's arguments but also appeared at least curious about BLAG's view of its constitutional basis to be there at all. In one question, he asked, "What is the statutory authority for and evidence of compliance with the role that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has assumed in this matter? Is this group actually bipartisan? Does BLAG have the support – and funding for the increasing cost of defending DOMA – from a majority of Congress or just from the House of Representatives?"

White went on to cite an earlier Supreme Court case about congressional representation in the courts, INS v. Chadha, in which he wrote that the court held that "Congress is the proper party to defend the validity of a statute when an agency of government charged with enforcing the statute agrees that the statute is unconstitutional."

Borelli also referenced the historic nature of the hearing, pointing out, "This is the first time that the lawyers BLAG has hired [to defend DOMA] have appeared in court. This is the first time DOJ has appeared ... to argue" its position that heightened scrutiny should apply to sexual orientation classifications and that, under that standard, DOMA should be found unconstitutional.

Read Judge White's questions: GolinskiHearingQuestions.pdf

[Photo: West (Photo from DOJ website.)]

GOProud co-founder Chris Barron will be stepping down as board of directors chair at the end of the year, according to a news release issued today following a Dec. 13 board meeting of the gay conservative organization. The meeting was held following the resignation of Andrew Breitbart from the advisory council of GOProud over this past weekend after a series of actions that Breitbart called outing by the organization's co-founders attacking presidential candidate Rick Perry's pollster.

Lisa De Pasquale, the former director of Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), will be stepping in as the interim chair of the board of directors, although she says in a release that the day-to-day operations of the organization will be unchanged. She already had been serving on GOProud's advisory council. According to the release, Barron will remain on the board. Executive director Jimmy LaSalvia tells Metro Weekly that he remains the executive director and will remain a board member.

[READ Metro Weekly's report on this past week's GOProud developments, including an interview with Andrew Breitbart, here.]

In the release, Barron says, "My role in the day to day management of GOProud will continue as the organization's Chief Strategist and I will remain on the Board as Chairman Emeritus. It is with great excitement that I announce that conservative coalition builder and former CPAC Director Lisa De Pasquale has been elected interim Chairman of the GOProud Board of Directors. Lisa brings a lifetime of experience within the conservative movement and is the perfect person to oversee the expansion and restructuring of GOProud’s Board, as well as to help in refining GOProud’s mission and to aid in building a bigger, better and stronger organization."

For her part, De Pasquale says in the release, "I am truly honored to be elected interim chairman of the GOProud board. The next several months will be important for their growth. Along with the GOProud staff, the Board will help refine the organization's mission, develop a strategy for making Obama a one-term president, do substantive activities across the country, and build coalitions with conservative organizations, lawmakers and activists."

According to the release, the group plans to restructure, including by asking several of its advisory council members to join the board.

De Pasquale also noted, "The day to day management of the organization will remain the same. The board has 100 percent faith in the leadership of Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia."

The news release's opening description of the group states that it is "an organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights." Previous releases have described the group as "the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies."

[Photo: Lisa De Pasquale speaks at CPAC in 2011. (Photo by Gage Skidmore.)]

Get Poliglot in your inbox. Join our email list.

Follow @metroweekly

Follow us on Foursquare

What do you think of Twitter's new look? Take our poll.

One week after the U.S. Department of Education released a report detailing state policies on bullying, the West Virginia Board of Education took action to ensure that both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or expression" are included in the state's anti-bullying policies. The move brings it into line with the majority of states that the Education Department report found include enumerated categories in their state's anti-bullying policies.

As Fairness West Virginia announced on Facebook, "Policy 4373 passes! LGBT students expressly protected from bullying under WV state board[.] The decision was unanimous." The group says the move constitutes the first time that sexual orientation and gender identity were included in the state's anti-bullying policies.

Fairness West Virginia executive director Bradley Milam told Metro Weekly, "We put our whole weight behind this policy, we supported it through and through. We met with the Department of Education ... and had recommended enumation very similar to the kind that's in Policy 4373 that was approved today."

In the new policy's definitions of "Harassment/Bullying/Intimidation," which the policy prohibits, it specifies, "Acts of harassment, intimidation, or bullying that are reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics, shall be reported using the following list: race; color; religion; ancestry; national origin; gender; socioeconomic status; academic status; gender identity or expression; physical appearance; sexual orientation; mental/physical/developmental/ sensory disability; or other characteristic."

Although the policy lists more stringent consequences for "a complaint of racial, sexual and/or religious/ethnic harassment or violence," Milam praised today's move, saying, "Our hope is that this kind of policy will get a lot of coverage and that it will actually be implemented in schools across West Virginia. We know that when policies are enumerated like this that students feel significantly safer in their school environment, particularly students who happen to be LGBT or are targeted for being perceived for bewing LGBT."

Earlier today, Milam and victims of bullying spoke at the West Virginia Board of Education meeting that resulted in the passage of the policy.

In the U.S. Department of Education's report, Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies, it noted that 41 states have model anti-bullying policies of one form or another. Of those, "Enumeration of groups is addressed in more than two-thirds (71 percent[, or 29 states]) of state model policies, whereas only a little over one-third of laws (37 percent) contain similar language on this component. This may reflect the fact that the inclusion of enumerated groups has been a focus of controversy in legislative and political debate in several states."

Read the U.S. Department of Education report: state-bullying-laws.pdf

Get Poliglot in your inbox. Join our email list.

Follow @metroweekly

Follow us on Foursquare

What do you think of Twitter's new look? Take our poll.

Following the report that the House and Senate conferees had reached a compromise on the National Defense Authorization Act, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network announced this evening that both amendments opposed by LGBT advocates in the House version of the NDAA were dropped from the conference report. SLDN also announced, however, that a provision in the Senate version of the NDAA that would have repealed the military's sodomy prohibition was not included in the conference report.

One of the dropped House provisions, proposed by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), "reaffirm[ed] the policy of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act." The amendment -- made applicable to the NDAA by referencing Department of Defense rules, regulations and employees -- also repeats Section 3's policy of defining "marriage" and "spouse" as relating only to opposite-sex marriages.

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

SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "We congratulate the House and Senate conference committee for having struck the correct balance on the chaplains provisions. Clearly, there was no place for the restrictive Akin language as the Defense Department continues to move forward on effective implementation of open service in our military. This report demonstrates that a majority in Congress remains committed to, and in lock step with the Pentagon, in ensuring that we stay on the repeal course adopted by the last Congress and signed off on by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There was no back tracking in the conference report on this front.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, also noted the move, saying in a statement, "Anti-gay attacks and infusion of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act have no place in legislation designed to support all the brave men and women who fight to defend this nation. Gay and lesbian servicemembers risk their lives every day and Freedom to Marry is pleased that the conference committee agreed with us and voted to remove these discriminatory anti-gay provisions from the bill."

Sarvis said of the decision on the sodomy provision: "However, we are very disappointed that the conferees voted to keep the sodomy provisions in Article 125 [of the Uniform Code of Military Justice]. Dropping Article 125 has been recommended for more than a decade by SLDN and several groups, including the Cox Commission that includes distinguished legal scholars from the military and academia, as well as the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG). The Senate was right to take this action, and it is unfortunate that their attempt to end Article 125 did not prevail. SLDN will continue to work with the Senate, House, and Department of Defense to bring about  this needed change."

Sarvis also noted, "Additionally, our initial reading of the committee's decision to update the provisions for rape and sexual assault in Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is also positive."

Follow @metroweekly

Share your opinions. Take our daily poll.

As Metro Weekly noted on Dec. 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is holding oral arguments this afternoon, at 2:30 Pacific Time, to hear from the parties involved in the litigation over Proposition 8 about two questions: whether the public release of videotapes made of the trial should be allowed and whether U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker "should be disqualified from presiding over the case because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time."

Neither the ongoing question of whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal the trial court ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional nor the constitutional question itself are due to be discussed in today's arguments.

Watch here and follow on Twitter for more.

* * *

KQED plans to livestream the arguments here.

* * *

The judges on today's panel, the same judges who heard the standing and merits questions argued more than a year ago, are Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Randy Smith and Michael Daly Hawkins.

First up is the trial tape question, and the judges sound inclined, at least for the time being, to overturn U.S. District Court Judge James Ware's ruling unsealing the tape.

* * *

Second topic is the recusal question, and the judges sound even more inclined, nearly certain, to uphold Ware's ruling that Walker's relationship needn't have been disclosed and, thus, that his trial court decision needn't be vacated.

Assuming that to be the case, the appeals court will need to go on to the standing question and, if the proponents are found to have standing, the merits of the case challenging Proposition 8.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), seeking the Republican nomination for president, pushed out an aggressive anti-LGBT push this week, criticizing President Obama's human rights memorandum that supported advancing LGBT equality in foreign policy and then launching a campaign ad attacking "gays" serving "openly in the military" as part of a "war on religion"

In the ad, Perry says, "You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

On Twitter, GOProud's board chairman Christopher Barron lashed out on Dec. 7.

Then, GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia joined in.

LaSalvia specified later.

Metro Weekly asked Barron about the tweets, and he responded, "Perry's pollster and strategist Tony Fabrizio has lined his pockets with gay money (from folks like [The] Gill [Foundation]) for years and now he sits back and watches as Perry unfolds a designed strategy to demonize gay people to score political points."

Barron added, "Totally disgusting and an example of Washington political whores at their worst."

Asked about questions of whether LaSalvia's tweets were outing Fabrizio, he replied, "We didn't think that there was any question about Tony Fabrizio's sexual orientation. Obviously there are questions, so those questions should be directed to Tony."

The person who answered the phone at Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, Inc., said that Fabrizio is traveling today. A message was left seeking comment.

[UPDATE @ 10A DEC. 9: A joint statement was issued by Barron and LaSalvia this morning. In it, they said, "From the time this organization was founded we have been clear in our opposition to outing. We would never intentionally out anyone. However, in the case of Tony Fabrizio, top pollster and chief strategist for the Presidential campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry, we did not believe there was any question about his sexual orientation -- nor did the reporters who called us to ask about his involvement in Perry’s anti-gay campaign strategy. Questions about an individual’s sexual orientation should obviously be answered by that individual.

"Let us be crystal clear, however, Tony Fabrizio is not the victim here. Tony Fabrizio has lined his pockets for years with money from gay groups and is now one of the chief architects of a campaign strategy -- not just an isolated television ad -- intended to demonize gay people in order to score political points. Fabrizio claims he opposed the latest anti-gay Perry television ad. If Fabrizio really does oppose the ad and the broader strategy then the honorable and decent thing to do would be to resign from the campaign. Tony Fabrizio is no junior staffer he is one of the top campaign pollsters and strategists in the country.

"It is obvious that the campaign of Rick Perry is desperate, and in a desperate last ditch effort to become relevant in the GOP Presidential race he and his campaign have decided to employ a strategy that plays to the cheap seats and appeals to the worst in people.  Rick Perry should be embarrassed and the people around him who are the architects of this strategy, particularly people like Tony Fabrizio, should be ashamed."]

Watch the Perry ad:

President Obama's memorandum on use of U.S. foreign policy to advance LGBT equality prompted Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry to say in a statement, "Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money."

In the statement, Perry said, "Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn't get any more out of touch with America's values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights. This administration's war on traditional American values must stop."

He went on to say, "But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea. This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America's tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake."

Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper pushed back, saying in a statement, "With all due respect, Governor Perry is wrong. Speaking out for the basic human rights of LGBT people to life and liberty is anything but 'at war with American values.'"

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "Rick Perry has made no secret of his dislike for LGBT Americans -- but his most recent remarks are outrageous even by his own standards. It is bewildering that someone who wants to be President of the United States wouldn't want to see our nation be a global leader in universal human rights. This is further proof that Rick Perry doesn't want to represent the best interests of all Americans -- he wants to advance an extremist, anti-gay agenda that represents the fringe views of a very small few."

Cooper also compared Perry's view with another Texan, former President George W. Bush, stating, "Throughout his administration, President George W. Bush was strongly committed to supporting and protecting dissident and minority voices abroad. Our nation can be proud of its long, bipartisan legacy of promoting freedom for all. Around the globe today, gay and lesbian people are often subject to 'corrective' rape, state-sponsored torture, imprisonment and execution. Combatting these injustices is not advocating for any kind of 'special rights,' and it is shameful for Governor Perry to suggest that American people of faith do not support protecting vulnerable populations from brutality."

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a major address on LGBT equality as her Human Rights Day Address. Delivered in Geneva, Clinton acknowledged America's imperfect record on the issues but carried forth on the importance of moving forward on an international level.

Toward the conclusion of her speech, Clinton directed one portion of her remarks to "LGBT men and women worldwide", saying, "Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people."

Clinton detailed the importance of discussion and humility when addressing LGBT issues, but strongly called out anti-LGBT treatment as human rights violations:

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave.  It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished.  It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives.  And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay.

Responding to the speech, as well as President Obama's earlier announced memorandum addressing international LGBT issues, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Rea Carey, said in a statement, "We applaud the president for this monumental step forward, and thank Secretary Clinton for taking to the world stage to send the unequivocal message that LGBT people everywhere should be able to live freely and with dignity."

Carey added of Clinton's remarks, "She spoke of how our common humanity should know no borders, but that in reality it does, often with harsh -- even deadly -- consequences for LGBT people. Secretary Clinton made it clear that the fair and equal treatment of LGBT people worldwide is a moral imperative, and a priority and legitimate concern in U.S. foreign policy."

National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendall said in a statement, "Between the initiatives outlined in the President's memo, and the visionary speech of Secretary Clinton, it seems possible that my children could grow up in a world where LGBT people are no longer terrorized or victimized based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It seems possible that LGBT people could become, as the Secretary put it, 'free and equal in dignity and rights' around the world. This is a day to remember, and one that will mark the beginning of a new era in the international recognition of our community."

Watch Clinton's address below, and read Clinton's full address below the jump.

At a background briefing held today in advance of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's Human Rights Day Address about global LGBT equality, the issue of marriage -- and President Obama's lack of support for marriage equality -- was raised twice.

From the transcript:

QUESTION:  How does the Administration reconcile the fact that the President won’t explicitly endorse marriage for gay couples at home, but here you are touting human rights, of which marriage is one?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  I think this – both the speech and our global policy – is dealing with the first iteration of questions.  You don’t attack, you don’t commit a violent act, against somebody because of their sexual orientation.  You don’t criminalize conduct.  And so we’re here trying to, again, broadly speaking, identify a human right, a global human right, which starts with those fundamental principles and which is consistent with everything we’re doing across the board.

And, later:

QUESTION:  To go back to Nicole’s question and your comment about leading, the President has not supported, or has not been explicit in supporting or calling for gay marriage, right?  And are there not still statutes on the books in certain American states that criminalize some LGBT conduct?  So why should anybody listen to the United States of America on this, if its own union is still far from perfect on these issues?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  We always say that we’re going to lead by example, and at the same time we are always trying to form a more perfect union.  We – the last U.S. states repealed laws criminalizing LGBT conduct in 2003.  So we are – what we’re asking the world to do is to not violate people’s rights by attacking them or by criminalizing conduct.

The State Department official is incorrect here. Although Lawrence v. Texas declared Texas's Homosexual Conduct Law unconstitutional in 2003, Tim Murphy at Mother Jones detailed earlier this year how Texas's law remains on the books. Later, Carlos Maza at Equality Matters reported that many states that had sodomy laws in 2003 have not formally removed them from their books.

More broadly, several people and organizations -- including Get Equal -- highlighted ongoing inequality in the U.S. as a problem all the more apparent when a U.S. leader like Clinton calls for an end to LGBT discrimination before a global audience.

President Obama today issued a memorandum "directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons."

Among the steps required by the memorandum are efforts to fight the criminalization of LGBT status or conduct, as well as to support the protection of LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.

According to a release issued by the Human Rights Campaign, HRC President Joe Solmonese met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton earlier today in Geneva. Clinton is to speak about the issue at noon today. (A livestream is to be available here.)

"The Obama Administration has made a tremendous difference in the lives of LGBT people in the United States and this new strategy helps to extend that presidential leadership across the globe," Solmonese said. "There is no question that the administration's record of advancing equality for LGBT people has been enhanced by the leadership of Secretary Clinton who consistently underscores the simple truth that LGBT rights are human rights."

According to HRC, the presidential memorandum is the first ever U.S. government strategy to deal with human rights abuses against LGBT people abroad.

Obama's memorandum requires the Department of State to "lead a standing group, with appropriate interagency representation, to help ensure the Federal Government's swift and meaningful response to serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBT persons abroad."

Another portion of the memorandum directs "agencies engaged abroad" to "strengthen the work they have begun and initiate additional efforts" to combat LGBT discrimination and strengthen international policies and programming on LGBT issues.

The State Department details that Clinton's address is a part of Human Rights Day, which it notes "recognizes the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. The Declaration outlines the inalienable rights of all people and has since served as the benchmark for the extension and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Developing ...

Read the memorandum: 2011lgbt_mem_rel.pdf

The Howard County Council has approved legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression, making it the third jurisdiction in Maryland to do so.

The measure, which extends gender identity protections to county residents in the areas of housing, law enforcement, public accommodations, financing, employment and health and social services, was initiated by Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and Gender Rights Maryland. It passed the council on Dec. 5 on a 4-1 vote along partisan lines, with Republican Greg Fox opposing.

"This is a very happy day here in Howard County," Heath Goisovich, co-chair of the advocacy committee of PFLAG-Howard County, said in a statement released by PFLAG and Gender Rights Maryland. "Our County Council has shown that Howard County is willing to lead the state on civil rights issues."

Sharon Brackett, board chair for Gender Rights Maryland, said in the statement, "Howard County will now join Montgomery County and Baltimore City as the third jurisdiction in Maryland supporting these rights. With this measure, one-third of Maryland residents are now covered by gender identity civil rights legislation. This is a clear sign of exciting and changing times in Maryland for advocates of civil rights."

The bill will go before Howard County Executive Ken Ullman and is expected to be signed into law. The measure takes effect 61 days after receiving Ullman’s signature.

Brackett said the passage of the bill would "yield great momentum in expanding these same rights throughout the state in 2012," referring to the hope by advocates of the measure that passing it would further the push for a similar statewide bill to be passed by Maryland's General Assembly.

Transgender activist Dana Beyer, also of Gender Rights Maryland, hailed the bill's passing and said she was looking forward to the fight to get a statewide gender identity non-discrimination bill passed.

Despite a recent California Supreme Court opinion stating that the proponents of California's Proposition 8 have the authority under state law to assert the state's interest in court, opponents of the initiative today told a federal appeals court that those proponents lack the required standing to pursue an appeal before the federal court. Supporters of Proposition 8 fought back, telling the court that a state has the authority to decide who can defend its own laws in court.

The question, which pits the high value the state of California places on the initiative right against the federal constitutional requirement that cases before federal courts involve an actual "case or controversy," must be answered before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can consider whether or not to uphold U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's August 2010 decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

If the appeals court determines that the proponents have standing to bring the appeal, then it will consider the underlying issue of Proposition 8's constitutionality. If there is no standing, then it is likely that Walker's initial decision will stand -- although the standing decision could and likely would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the proponents.

The issue has come about because the state defendants in the case, who decided not to defend Proposition 8 at trial when it was challenged, also decided not to appeal Walker's decision that the initiative was unconstitutional. The state defendants did not file any brief about their interpretation of the impact of the California Supreme Court's opinion upon the federal standing question.

The plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 argued, "Nothing in that decision alters the fact that Proponents lack standing to pursue this appeal. Even though Proponents possess the right under California law to assert the State's interest in the validity of Proposition 8, their standing under Article III depends on their ability to establish that the invalidation of Proposition 8 would cause them a 'personal, particularized, [and] concrete' injury."

The tone differs in a sense from comments made by the plaintiffs' lawyers on the day the California Supreme Court issued its answer to the question sent to it by the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Ted Olson, told reporters on Nov. 17, "[The Ninth Circuit judges hearing the appeal]'ve pretty much locked themselves in and agreed to accept whatever the [California Supreme Court] said."

In its filing, the proponents of Proposition 8 argue just that, noting, "The Supreme Court's precedents ... establish the unremarkable proposition that state law determines who is authorized to assert this interest on behalf of the State."

The plaintiffs, however, argue, "Proponents would not suffer any personalized injury as a result of the invalidation of Proposition 8, and thus are unable to satisfy the requirements of [the Constitution], even if their right under state law to represent the interests of the State is taken into account."

The proponents, by contrast, argue in today's filing that Supreme Court precedent relied upon by the plaintiffs relates only to states in which there was no state-granted authority as the California Supreme Court stated exists here. "Because Proponents are authorized by California law to assert the State's interest in defending the constitutionality of its laws—an interest that is indisputably sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction—they plainly have standing to appeal the district court's judgment invalidating Proposition 8," the proponents' lawyers write.

In the brief filed by the City and County of San Francisco, it agreed with the plaintiffs but also raised another issue -- about the type of defense that had been brought by the proponents at trial and on appeal. Lawyers argued, "[I]f Proponents are to stand in the shoes of the State, they should not advance arguments at odds with the State's law and policy." The lawyers pointed, for example, to the proponents' argument that "Californians were entitled to rely on purported uncertainty about whether lesbian and gay couples are equally worthy parents as opposite-sex couples biologically related to the children they rear," noting that California law makes no such distinction.

Although there are oral arguments slated for 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time Dec. 8 on two related issues -- whether the public release of videotapes made of the trial should be allowed and whether Walker "should be disqualified from presiding over the case because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time" -- there are no oral arguments scheduled at this time on the standing question or the underlying merits of the Proposition 8 challenge, now named Perry v. Brown.

READ:

• Proponents' filing:Proponents-PostCSC.pdf
• Plaintiffs' filing: Plaintiffs-PostCSC.pdf
• San Francisco filing: SanFran-PostCSC.pdf

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Old Dominion's top law enforcement officer and a fierce opponent of LGBT rights, announced to his staff in an e-mail today that he plans to run for governor of the commonwealth in 2013, according to the Virginian-Pilot.

Cuccinelli, a Republican, was previously thought to be a possible challenger to incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Warner in 2014. But his decision to step into the governor's race means he will face a Republican primary against current Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, who already has announced his intention to run.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonell, who is term-limited but also a subject of national speculation, has said he will stand by his promise to support Bolling as his successor. But Cuccinelli's popularity, particularly with grassroots conservatives and the Tea Party, are expected to make the race competitive.

In the e-mail to his staff, Cuccinelli said that although he was expected to run for re-election as attorney general, he felt he could best serve the people of Virginia from the governor's office.

In a public statement, Cuccinelli said he wanted to "ensure that there would be no misunderstanding from this point on." He said he would focus on his job as attorney general and would formally announce his gubernatorial run at a later point.

"Politically, we as Republicans need to continue to work toward less government, fostering an environment that increases jobs and improves our economic condition, and strives to elect a Republican President, a United States Senator and Congressional Delegation that will not only carry Virginia, but bring back to our nation a federal government that restrains itself in terms of both spending and the exercise of power, consistent with the first principles on which this nation was founded," he said in the statement.

Cuccinelli first made headlines as attorney general when he advised public colleges that they could not adopt nondiscrimination policies protecting LGBT students. He also got into a legal battle with the University of Virginia when he subpoenaed documents relating to the work of a former climate scientist at the university who he accused of fraud. More recently, he sued both the Environmental Protection Agency over rulings on climate change and the federal government over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the federal health-care overhaul bill, a case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today, marking World AIDS Day, President Obama said of the battle against HIV/AIDS, "make no mistake, we are going to win this fight." 

Addressing a crowd at George Washington University, Obama also noted, "But the fight is not over -- not by a long shot. The rate of new infections may be going down elsewhere, but it's not going down here in America. The infection rate here has been holding steady for over a decade." 

Specifically, he noted, "When new infections among young black gay men increase by nearly 50 percent in 3 years, we need to do more to show them that their lives matter. When Latinos are dying sooner than other groups, and when black women feel forgotten, even though they account for most of the new cases among women, then we’ve got to do more."

Among the additional domestic steps he discussed, Obama noted, "We're committing an additional $15 million for the Ryan White Program that supports care provided by HIV medical clinics across the country.  We want to keep those doors open so they can keep saving lives. We're committing an additional $35 million for state AIDS-drug assistance programs."

On the international front, Obama echoed several of the efforts discussed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her recent speech at the National Institutes of Health, adding a note about the importance of scientific recommendations, saying "We need to listen when the scientific community focuses on prevention. That's why, as a matter of policy, we're now investing in what works -- from medical procedures to promoting healthy behavior."

The president also issued a proclamation this morning declaring today World AIDS Day, stating that "we stand with the individuals and communities affected by HIV and recommit to progress toward an AIDS-free generation."

READ:

• The presidential proclamation: 2011aidsday.pdf
• The president's World AIDS Day address below the jump. 

[Photo: Obama at a June 2011 news conference in the East Room of the White House. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]