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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to HUD, the final rule:

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

READ the final rule: hud-finalrule.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ Sec. Donovan's full speech here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Photo: Rea Carey at the 2012 Creating Change conference. (Photo by Michael Maldonado.)]

During her State of the Movement Address at the 2012 Creating Change conference this afternoon, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) executive director Rea Carey emphasized, "We are not a single-issue movement," effectively warning activists and media creators against focusing singularly on marriage equality at the expense of other equality issues affecting people of color, students, immigrants, the homeless, unemployed, and transgender citizens -- "the very base of the progressive movement."

She began by comparing the LGBT movement to Elphaba, the widely-despised witch from the musical Wicked who is reviled by the public and yet defies an oppressive government.

Noting this last year's political victories -- including the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the legalization of marriage equality in New York and the passage of transgender employment protections in Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada and Massachusetts -- she highlighted the other significant changes in federal policy that came about in part, she said, thanks to partnerships made between politicians and the NGLTF's 26-organization strong campaign known as the New Beginning Initiative.

Among these victories, she mentioned the national directives extending pubic housing, house loans and hospital visitation rights to LGBT families; de-prioritizing the deportation of LGBT spouses and ensuring care for transgender veterans.

She also highlighted the enormity of Hilary Clinton's United Nations declaration that "gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights," and Obama's statement that "We consider LGBT families to be families."

Moving on to marriage equality, Carey said, "Since the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' people think our movement is about one thing and one thing only -- marriage," but then added, "The LGBT movement is not a movement for marriage only ... we are in the movement for the full dignity of our lives. The challenge is, when the LGBT movement is framed by the media and seen by others as a single-issue, marriage-only movement, it limits what we can achieve."

Once LGBT people achieve full marriage equality around the U.S., Carey said, a huge part of the current movement will become politically disengaged. Carey noted that despite the historic decision of Roe v. Wade, the women's movement still has had to stay engaged to stave off attacks on abortion and reproductive rights in states like Mississippi, where activists help defeat a so-called "personhood" measure that would have outlawed the termination of any fertilized egg cell.

However, Carey also said that "we want more than marriage" noting the elimination of discrimination, violence, bigotry, systemic racism and sexism, as well as unfair housing and immigration laws that continue to disproportionately harm LGBT citizens.

Toward this end, she declared that the movement's immediate sights fall on ending the abuse of transgender immigrant detainees, obtaining equal benefits for same-sex military spouses, trans-inclusion in the military and combatting the rising AIDS infection rates for gay, bisexual and men of color concomitant with the decrease in AIDS services and funding.

"Progress for some is not progress for all," Carey said. "We will not stop until we are all fully free."

She concluded the speech by focusing on the 2012 elections. Though the LGBT community will need to actively rebuff the falsehoods spread by anti-queer political forces, she stated, the right wing knows it can no longer compete by simply whipping up the socially conservative base.

Rather, she said, the right wing has focused its attention on voter suppression measures "taken right out of the Jim Crow playbook" seeking to disenfranchise the very populations most likely to support progressive measures -- namely the impoverished, unemployed, elderly, immigrants, students and people of color.

Highlighting the many voter suppression measures already instated in the South, she added that it is no coincidence that a dozen new voter suppression measures will be in play in the next two years in states like New Jersey, Maine, Minnesota and North Carolina which are currently considering revisions in marriage equality laws.

If we do not protect the people's right to vote, she said, measures on immigration, non-discrimination, affirmative action and marriage will both fail and eventually weaken.

She concluded by calling on all LGBT people to help "occupy the vote" by registering all potential voters and offering rides to the polls. Should one face voter suppression, she suggested casting a provisional ballot, documenting and sharing the story online and then alerting the civil rights division in the Department of Justice.

[CORRECTION: Transgender employment protections were introduced, but not passed, in the Maryland legislature in 2011.]

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

On Friday, Jan. 27, a report co-authored by several national organizations will detail how, "[c]ontrary to stereotypes, children being raised by same-sex couples are twice as likely to live in poverty as those being raised by married heterosexual parents."

Jennifer Chrisler, the executive director of one of those organizations -- the Family Equality Council -- spoke with Metro Weekly about the report, "Strengthening Economic Security for Children Living in LGBT Families," and its policy implications.

As to why the report -- co-authored by FEC, the Center for American Progress and Movement Advancement Project -- matters, Chrisler said, "I think it's important for two reasons. The first is that there are 2 million children being raised by 1 million LGBT families in this country. Their economic security, their health and welfare, we think is a really important public policy issue.

"And the second is that, frankly, our community, and LGBT parents in particular, are more likely to be living near or at poverty, are more likely to suffer these economic challenges. All of that combined creates a really perilous situation for our families and their kids, especially in this moment, where the economy is sputtering and struggling."

Asked what was the most surprising thing about the report, Chrisler was blunt: It's about diversity.

"I think many people have a perception that LGBT people in general and that our families are middle class to upper-middle class, white and affluent. The reality is that our families are more racially and ethnically diverse than the population as a whole," she said. "Same-sex couples of color raising children are more likely to be poor and there are more LGBT people of color, proportionally, raising kids than Caucasian couples raising kids."

She believes the report can be used as a tool: "I think there's a lot of really good education about how diverse the LGBT family community really is. It's not the stereotypical image of two gay, white dads who have their kids through surrogacy and are living in the Upper West Side in New York. That's not really who our families are."

Chrisler added, "In fact, gay and lesbian couples are most likely to raise children in the South. They're living in the states that are hardest to keep those families health and strong: the most stigma, the worst laws, the toughest environment."

Among the report's findings are the specific challenges faced by LGBT families, which Chrisler said included that "LGBT families pay higher taxes … and they're often denied child tax credits" because of the Defense of Marriage Act's prohibition on recognition of same-sex spouses as a married partner in federal law. The report lays out, in one chart, "How Means-Tested Safety Net Programs Treat LGBT Families Differently," from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to public housing programs to Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Another section details the costs of legal protections that often need to be taken by LGBT families, including those costs relating to adoption and the drafting of powers of attorney documents.

Although Chrisler acknowledged that repeal of DOMA was unlikely in the current Congress, she did point to another bill, the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, as one piece of legislation "that could move forward in the congressional realm" -- while noting that the bill's aim also could be advanced "administratively and through appropriations work." The bill, whose introduction was detailed earlier in Metro Weekly, aims to end discrimination in adoption and foster care based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.

Of the administrative route, Chrisler said, "I think we are at a moment where we have an administration that is open to and willing to figure out how to strengthen LGBT families. And so, for the first time, we can go in and say, 'Look, here's the evidence you need to be able to make this case. Here are the concrete recommendations that we have that will make a positive change in the lives of families.' And those two combined mean that we can get people to move and take action in a much more significant way."

READ a copy of the final report: Strengthening-Economic-Security.pdf

[Photo: Rep. Barney Frank talks to reporters in D.C. about his congressional retirement on Nov. 29, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

He's retiring from Congress at the end of his current term, but news comes today that Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank (D) is adding at least one new commitment to his life.

Initially reported by NECN, Frank's communications director confirmed to Metro Weekly that the 71-year-old representative is marrying is his partner, Jim Ready, in Massachusetts, although no date has been set.

The two have been together since the spring of 2007, according to Frank's office.

Ready, who is 42 years old, lives in Ogunquit, Maine, where, per Frank's office, he has a small business doing custom awnings, carpentry, painting, welding and other general handyman services. He also is a photographer. 

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund's president, Chuck Wolfe, said in a statement, "We are thrilled for Barney and Jim, and offer them both our congratulations and best wishes.

"As one of the world's most visible out elected officials, Barney Frank has long used his position and influence to draw attention to the freedoms LGBT Americans deserve but still do not enjoy," Wolfe said. "It's fitting that as his time in Congress comes to a close, he will finally take advantage of the freedom to marry in his home state of Massachusetts."

Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry who recently married his husband, told Metro Weekly he was "thrilled" by the news.

"Mazel tov! As someone still aglow from the joy of my own wedding and belated honeymoon, still awash in the love, good wishes, and celebration that so many have shared with us, I am thrilled that Barney and Jim will soon experience the same 'yes, it does feel different' happiness," he wrote. "And that through their exercise of the freedom to marry, they, too will touch and move others."

Frank would be the first member of Congress to be legally wed to a same-sex partner. Because the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of marriage limits federal marriage recognition to opposite-sex couples, however, certain federal benefits that otherwise would accrue to a spouse would not apply to Ready.

One of the plaintiffs in the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders's ongoing lawsuit challenging Section 3 of DOMA, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, actually is the same-sex widow of a former member of Congress. Although they married after Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) left Congress, Dean Hara would have been entitled to benefits that are given to surviving spouses of federal employees had he had an opposite-sex spouse.

As he said in a GLAD statement about the Gill lawsuit, however, "Gerry was a public servant for 27 years, worked hard for our country, and paid as much into the system as anyone else. But after he died, I was treated differently than other surviving spouses. Every federal employee counts on their surviving spouses having basic protections, but the federal government denies me those protections because of DOMA."

Of the news of Frank's plans, GLAD's executive director, Lee Swislow, told Metro Weekly, "Whenever two people express their love and commitment to each other through marriage, it is a cause for celebration. It is ironic, though, that because of DOMA and because Barney is a federal employee, Jim will not be eligible for the kind of benefits other spouses receive."

Swislow added: "We certainly hope our lawsuits challenging DOMA will be successful and change all of that."

Although Frank will be leaving the House at the conclusion of the 112th Congress, he has said he plans to continue to impact public policy through ''speaking, writing and in other ways advocating for the changes that I think are necessary'' rather than by ''trying to bring them about inside our constricting political process.''

Frank first won election to Congress the same year Ronald Reagan was elected president. After his 1980 election, Frank served without being out until 1987. According to the Victory Fund, which supports and encourages out LGBT elected officials, "When Barney Frank came out in 1987, fewer than 50 openly LGBT Americans were serving in public office at any level of government in the U.S. Today more than 500 are."

Although Frank's pending nuptials would make him the first married out LGBT member of Congress, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) has the distinction of being the first gay dad serving in Congress. He and his partner, Marlon Reis, celebrated the birth of their son, Caspian Julius, in September 2011.

[NOTE: This post was updated throughout the day as additional information became available.]

Tonight, OutServe announced that it will be holding a "Capital Summit" on May 14 and 15, with the aim of "gather[ing] actively-serving military of all sexual orientations with experts from resource and advocacy groups to discuss the legal rights of gay and lesbian military partners, as well as resources for their support," according to a release issued by the organization tonight.

According to the Josh Seefried, co-director of OutServe, "Our goal with this Summit is to bring together the military community to address the issues that affect LGBT military families and how to solve them. We need to educate decision-makers, as private citizens, how our families are affected -- and send a clear message that our families matter."

The event will be co-sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, Courage Campaign, and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and a website for the conference already has been launched.

The first day of the summit, according to the site, will focus on "workshops and presentations regarding how we can make LGBT military families stronger" and the second will focus on "congressional education."

The release notes, "Spouses and partners of gay and lesbian service members are not currently provided all available resources to support their families during and after deployments, nor are they given access to base facilities or many educational, counseling, healthcare, and other privileges. For example, a gay or lesbian spouse cannot pick up a child from military day care, or purchase groceries for the family at the commissary."

Although out transgender service, currently not allowed by military regulation, is not specifically detailed as a topic of the conference, Seefried told Metro Weekly that transgender service would be a topic addressed at the summit.

Saying that "transgender families" would be included, he noted, "Our transgender network in the military has grown to over 40 (actively serving), and we are addressing their families as well."

Zeke Stokes, the communications director for SLDN, told Metro Weekly, "SLDN is looking forward to being a partner in this first-of-its-kind event that will welcome gay and lesbian service members, their families, and other supporters of full LGBT equality in the military to our nation's capital to discuss issues, challenges, and opportunities and share their experiences with decision makers."

President Barack Obama delivered the State of the Union Address tonight.

The sole mention of LGBT issues came, basically, as an aside at the end of the speech, when Obama referenced the military's diversity and, by inference, the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight.

An out lesbian servicemember, U.S. Air Force Colonel Ginger Wallace, was one of First Lady Michelle Obama's guests at the address. Open transgender service, not mentioned by Obama, is not allowed in the military, under current regulations.

Wallace was joined in the First Lady's box tonight by several other invited guests, including Lorelei Kilker, a lesbian who fought sex discrimination by her former employer and spoke with Metro Weekly on Jan. 23.

The Republican response was delivered by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, and there was no mention of LGBT issues in his brief response.

[Photo: Obama at the 2011 White House LGBT Pride Month Reception. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

Read the full speech, as prepared, below the jump.

With reporting by John Riley.

Early today, Jan. 24, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) met with marriage-equality supporters at a breakfast held at the governor's residence to discuss the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012 before introducing it to the General Assembly.

In a news conference today following the breakfast, O'Malley explained his support for marriage equality and why he sees the bill moving forward in the state.

"All of us want the same thing for our children ... We want our children to live in loving, stable, committed households that are protected equally under the law. We also believe that we can protect religious freedom and rights equally under the law," he said. "Other states have found a way to do this; we can find a way to do this, too. And that common ground that allows us to move forward is dignity. The human dignity of every single person."

Rev. Dr. John R. Deckenback, conference minister of the United Church of Christ Central Atlantic Conference, supported the bill in a statement released by the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition following the Jan. 23 announcement of O'Malley's 2012 legislative agenda, saying, "The governor's bill not only protects but strengthens religious freedom."

The coalition's release also quoted Ezekiel Jackson, political organizer for SEIU 1199 of Maryland and president of Marylanders for Marriage Equality.

"Labor is on the side of all working families -- not just certain families," Jackson said. "There are thousands of same-sex families who wish to make a better life for their kids. Their dream just got closer to reality today because of Governor O'Malley."

[Image: Screen capture of Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley speaking at a news conference on Jan. 24, 2012.]

WATCH today's news conference:

One of First Lady Michelle Obama's guests tonight at President Obama's State of the Union Address will be U.S. Air Force Colonel Ginger Wallace -- the first U.S. servicemember following the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to have her partner, Kathy Knopf, participate in her "pinning" promotion ceremony. 

In a statement today from Servicemembers United, Wallace said, "Kathy and I are honored and humbled to represent the many thousands of gay and lesbian Americans who are currently serving, have served, and will serve in the armed forces, as well as their partners and spouses who are an equally important part of our military community."

Wallace will be joined in the First Lady's box tonight by several other invited guests, including Lorelei Kilker, a lesbian who fought sex discrimination by her former employer and spoke with Metro Weekly on the eve of the president's address.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement, "This is a clear victory in the fight to achieve full equality for service members.  In his 2010 State of the Union, President Obama committed to repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and indeed, it would not have been possible without his determination to do so."

Of the invitation, Wallace said, "Tonight is not about us, but rather about what we represent and how far we have come, thanks in part to the hard work of the President and many members of Congress in attendance tonight. I also feel privileged to be sitting in the company of the First Lady, herself a champion and advocate for military families, and to be publicly and proudly included without Kathy and I having to fear the loss of my career and our family's livelihood as a result."

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said, "We could not be more proud of Ginger for her accomplishments, her poise, and now her selection for the honor of sitting with the First Lady to watch tonight's State of the Union address in person. She and her partner Kathy are the best role models our community has to offer, and we could not be more pleased that they have been chosen to represent us on such an historic and high-profile occasion."

Sarvis, whose organization has sued the Department of Defense challenging the denial of equal spousal benefits for same-sex partners of servicemembers, added, "Even as we celebrate this milestone tonight, let us not forget that our work is far from done. While gay and lesbian service members may now serve openly if they choose, they are still not serving equally. They are without the same protections from harassment and discrimination that are afforded others, and legally married gay and lesbian service members do not receive the same recognition, support, and benefits for their families as their straight married counterparts. We must keep fighting until the mission is complete."

The end of DADT also did not end discrimination against open transgender military service, which SLDN includes among its ongoing goals but Sarvis did not mention in today's comments in advance of the president's State of the Union Address.

[Photo: Knopf (left) and Wallace (Photo courtesy of Servicemembers United.)]

A week after calling for a public vote on marriage equality, Washington state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D) has pledged to support a bill legalizing marriage equality all across the Evergreen State. Her support marks the crucial 25th vote needed to pass the Senate bill in the 49-person chamber, which is the last hurdle to passage of marriage equality in the state.

The House version of the bill already has the votes needed for passage, and Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) has said that she will sign it into law. Washington would join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York, as well as the District, in allowing same-sex couples equal marriage rights should the bill become law.

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Haugen serves a conservative voting district with a lot of evangelical voters -- a factor she took into consideration when making her decision:

"I've weighed many factors in arriving at this decision, and one of them was erased when the legislation heard today included an amendment to clearly provide for the rights of a church to choose not to marry a couple if that marriage contradicts the church's view of its teachings. That's important, and it helped shape my decision.

"My preference would be to put this issue on the ballot and give all Washingtonians the opportunity to wrestle with this issue, to search their hearts as I have, and to make the choice for themselves. But I do not know that there are the votes to put it to a ballot measure. So, forced to make a choice, my choice is to allow all men and women in our state to enjoy the same privileges that are so important in my life."

Just last week, Sen. Jim Kastama (D) pledged to vote for the bill while Senators Joe Fain (R), Brian Hatfield (D), Andy Hill (R) and Paull Shin (D) remain undecided.

With two Senate Republicans and two Republicans in the House already having voiced support for statewide marriage equality before today, the National Organization for Marriage has pledged $250,000 to help unseat pro-equality Republican legislative incumbents.

Nevetherless, many businesses -- including Washington-based Microsoft -- have supported the state's marriage equality efforts with Mircosoft general counsel Brad Smith saying, "As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington's employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families."

Pro-equality state Sen. Ed Murray (D) also cautioned voters that eve if marriage equality passes the legislature, that it could still face a November ballot amendment like the state's domestic partnership law faced with Referendum 71 in 2009.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is nominating the gay, black mayor of Chatham, N.J. to the state's supreme court, a historic nomination celebrated by the state's LGBT organization today.

Garden State Equality executive director Steven Goldstein was told the news by Christie himself. "As I told the Governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor," Goldstein said in a statement.

Just elected mayor in November 2011, Goldstein said of Harris, "Bruce will become the first openly LGBT person in history, and the third African-American person in history, to serve on the New Jersey Supreme Court. Most importantly, Bruce is eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice."

Goldstein said that Christie called the LGBT organization head personally to tell him the news just a few minutes before announcing he news.

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund stated in November that Harris was "likely the nation's first openly gay, African American, Republican mayor."

Of today's news, Goldstein noted, "When I met with Governor Christie in 2010 at his request, he told me that though we would differ on some issues like marriage equality, he viewed the LGBT community as an important part of New Jersey, and that he wanted his Administration to have a good working relationship with Garden State Equality. That has been the case every step of the way.

"Since Governor Christie took office, his Administration has treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we'll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help," Goldstein said in the statement. "To be clear, the Governor and his staff were invaluable in helping us pass the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, the nation's strongest anti-bullying law that the governor signed in January 2011."

Goldstein noted that he and the governor did not discuss New Jersey's marriage equality bill in today's call. Although Christie opposed marriage equality in the past and said during his 2009 campaign that he would veto such a bill if it came to him, he has not commented on his view of the pending marriage equality bill.

In addition to Harris, Christie is nominating Phil Kwon, who worked under Christie when he was U.S. attorney, to the state supreme court, according to the Star-Ledger.

[Photo: Harris (Photo from Harris's Facebook page.)]

On Jan. 27, The Advocate reported that major layoffs had occurred at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a fact confirmed by the organization to Metro Weekly.

The nonprofit organization, whose aim is "empowering real people to share their stories, holding the media accountable for the words and images they present, and helping grassroots organizations communicate effectively," confirmed that it cut 11 people from its staff of 45.

In a statement, GLAAD acting president Mike Thompson said, "It's no secret that GLAAD experienced some real challenges in 2011. While the changes that took place subsequent to last summer's tumult were in many ways healthy for the organization, the reality is that the experience had financial impacts for the organization."

Thompson was referring to questions about the organization's relationship with AT&T, a contributor to the organization for whom GLAAD had taken the company's position before the Federal Communications Commission on two issues: net neutrality and the company's proposed merger with T-Mobile. GLAAD has since reversed course on both issues and was not alone in taking AT&T's position before the agency, but early attention focused on GLAAD and resulted in the resignation of its then-president Jarrett Barrios.

Of the layoffs, Thompson added, "Our restructuring is reflective of that, though our core programs work in National and Local News, Religion, Faith & Values, Entertainment Media and Spanish-Language Media remain intact. We look forward to a stronger GLAAD, one that is focused on our mission and commitment to LGBT equality. We believe the current structure will help us achieve those goals."

[UPDATE @ 5P: GLAAD communications director Rich Ferraro responded to a request from Metro Weekly about the status of the seach for a president for the organization, writing, "The Search Committee of the Board of Directors is in the process of reviewing and interviewing candidates to find the best person to serve the organization and its mission."

He added that "they have not put a date on when a new President will be announced."]

[NOTE: This post was updated throughout the evening, with the final update at 10:45 p.m.]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has won the South Carolina primary today, garnering more than 40 percent of the vote with two-thirds of the vote having been reported.

The shift of circumstances for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who began the week preparing, effectively, to wrap up the GOP nomination today, means that Romney now faces additional scrutiny, continued challenges and another primary in 10 days.

Romney was coming in second, garnering 26 percent of the vote. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) was in third, with 18 percent of the vote, and Santorum was in fourth, with 13 percent.

Gingrich's victory speech tonight largely focused on the former House speaker's fight against "the elites in Washington and New York" -- a line repeated multiple times throughout the speech. He ended, however, on a note that accentuated Romeny's wealth -- and presumptive "elite" status -- by declaring that his victory shows that "people power -- with ideas -- beats big money."

Ben Smith, editor in chief at BuzzFeed, wrote of the night's outcome, "Terrible night for the influence of the [social conservatives] who gathered in TX to endorse Santo[rum]."

Smith was referencing the 150 evangelical and other social conservative leaders who gathered in Texas this past weekend and chose Santorum as the social conservative standard-bearer. The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins said at the time, "There is a hope and expectation that those represented by the constituency will make a difference in South Carolina."

According to exit polls reported by Fox News, 65 percent of the South Carolina primary voters describe themselves as "born-again or evangelical Christian." Although "the constituency" may have turned out, they do not appear to have done so to Santorum's benefit.

More than Santorum, though, the night and the week have been tough on Romney. In addition to tonight's Gingrich victory, certification of results in the Iowa caucuses led to Romney's victory there being erased, with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) ending up with a slight edge on Romney in the state. In one week, Romney went from expecting three victories by tonight to ending with only one victory.

Before speaking tonight about his victory, Gingrich already reached out on Twitter, writing, "Thank you South Carolina!  Help me deliver the knockout punch in Florida. Join our Moneybomb and donate now." He provided a donation link there as well.

On behalf of GOProud, co-founder and chief strategist Christopher Barron issued a statement in which he said, "Tonight, we congratulate Speaker Gingrich on his victory in South Carolina. We are hopeful that in the contests ahead that Speaker Gingrich will run the type of positive campaign he promised earlier in the primary process."

Barron has been very critical of Gingrich, writing on Twitter this evening, "Among SC voters who said 'moral character' most important, Gingrich finished last. #SHOCKING" and, then, "Maybe Romney needs a girlfriend."

In GOProud's release, however, Barron said, "In the coming weeks, we look forward to hearing each of the remaining candidates articulate how they can defeat Barack Obama in November.  At the end of the day, making Barack Obama a one-term President must be the goal of every conservative across this country."

Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper minimized the importance of Gingrich's South Carolina victory, telling Metro Weekly, "The primary in my home state of Florida will be a greater mark of who will be the Republican nominee. Unlike South Carolina, the demographics of Florida provide an electorate closer to what the nominee will face in the November general election."

Of the views of LCR members specifically, he added, "Like all Republicans during primary season, Log Cabin Republicans, including our members in the Palmetto state, have differing views of who should be our nominee. To date, we have members who are currently committed delegate or alternate delegate candidates to Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul and Romney."

Although polling prior to today in Florida shows Romney easily winning the Jan. 31 primary in Florida, today's results will lead observers to wait for new polling to allow likely voters there to reassess the campaign after today.

Come back to Metro Weekly for more on the Republican presidential primary and its impact on LGBT equality issues.

[Images: South Carolina field and victor by Aram Vartian; screen capture of Gingrich, with wife Callista, in South Carolina.]

[Photo: Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D) speaks at Freedom to Marry's "Mayors for the Freedom to Marry" news conference on Jan. 20, 2012. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D) told attendees of the winter meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors today that "[m]arriage for gay couples has made my city of Boston a much better place to live."

Then, focusing on the D.C. location of the meeting, Menino added, "Unfortunately, these couples are still being discriminated against by the federal government. The Defense of Marriage Act excludes legally married couples from more than 1,100 federal responsibilities and protections."

To the mayors, he directed them to work to repeal DOMA: "I ask all the mayors here to talk your congressmen and women, ask them to sign on [to the Respect for Marriage Act]. Get a commitment from them. This is a very important issue as we move forward."

Menino made his comments today at Freedom to Marry's news conference launching its "Mayors for the Freedom to Marry" pledge. More than 20 mayors attended the news conference, including the mayors of four of the five largest cities in the country: New York City Mayory Michael Bloomberg (Ind.), Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D), Houston Mayor Annise Parker and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D). Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emanuel (D), also is a signatory to the pledge, but had to leave the meeting to return to Chicago before today's news conference. More than 80 mayors already have signed the pledge, according to Freedom to Marry's Marc Solomon, who led off today's news conference.

Talking with Metro Weekly after the news conference, Bloomberg said that his work for marriage equality has focused on the local level.

"In terms of talking to federal officials, other than our federal officials from New York state, I really haven't reached out," he said. "And I've not talked to the president about this, but I think he knows my views."

Bloomberg, in fact, was recognized by the Human Rights Campaign with its National Ally for Equality Award for his work on marriage equality on the same night that Obama had earlier given the keynote speech to the group.

Although Obama already had left the HRC national dinner on Oct. 1, 2011, when the New York City mayor spoke, Bloomberg gave a stark appraisal of his view of governments that fail to recognize marriage equality. Bloomberg said, "When two people commit their lives to one another, no government should stand in the way."

Today, Bloomberg spoke more locally, tell Metro Weekly about his work to support marriage equality supporters in New York.

"Mostly, what I've tried to do is work with local elected officials. One of the concerns that I have is to make sure that those who voted for changing the law in New York state get re-elected, both Republicans and Democrats. For the Republicans, it was probably a bigger lift, and there were four of them," he said. "The good news is they are being well supported by a lot of people, me and lots of other people. I think it shows you can vote your conscience, even if sometimes some of the pressure that people bring is on the other side."

Outside of New York, he added, "I've tried to support people around this country -- local legislators' levels -- who are my position on this, and guns, the environment, the education and that sort of thing."

Among the mayors to speak at today's Freedom to Marry news conference were Tacoma, Washington, Mayor Marilyn Strickland, who spoke about the importance of her state's legislators voting to approve marriage in this session, and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders (R), who spoke about his "evolution" to support of full marriage equality.

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) is a signatory to the pledge, saying in a statement today, "These loving and committed couples have been prevented from sharing in the critical safety net of protections associated with marriage for far too long, and laws preventing gay people from marrying are both unjust and harmful to any society that values family, commitment and stability."

[Photo: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Ind.) speaks at Freedom to Marry's "Mayors for the Freedom to Marry" news conference on Jan. 20, 2012. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) announced today on Facebook that her campaign for U.S. Senate raised more than $1 million in the last three months of 2011. The note states:

Tammy is thrilled by the enormous outpouring of support for her campaign to fight for WI's middle class. Thanks to you, we raised over $1.1 mil last quarter. Tammy now has $1.8+ mil cash-on-hand to share her message. This shows our strength, and these resources will be critical in responding to the false, negative right-wing attacks sure to come our way. Thank you to our more than 16,000 individual donors!

Baldwin is the presumptive Democratic candidate running for the retiring Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)'s seat in the Senate and would be the first out LGBT senator in the nation's history.

Endorsed by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, the group's vice president for communications, Denis Dison, told Metro Weekly today, "There's a lot of excitement around this campaign. With 16,000 donors in just a matter of months, it's clear Tammy is attracting strong grassroots support. Still, money will matter a lot in this open seat race, and having close to $2 million on hand is a great start."

Baldwin announced her run in an email to supporters on Sept. 6, 2011, writing, "I can't wait to take my fight to the Senate: a fight to grow our economy, protect seniors, force Wall Street to clean up its act, and bring our troops home from Afghanistan. And I can't wait to see you on the trail as we bring our campaign to every corner of Wisconsin."

Shortly after announcing her run, Baldwin echoed that populist theme when she spoke at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner in Washington, D.C., and told the crowd, "I come from a state that isn't fully blue or red, but somewhere in the middle. To be perfectly honest with you, most of the people that I represent couldn't care less that I'm gay.... They care about making sure that they can find a good job."

According to Talking Points Memo, "On the Republican side, there is a heated primary between former Gov. Tommy Thompson, former Rep. Mark Neumann, and current state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, which will be held in August."

Follow @metroweekly

Get Poliglot in your inbox. Join our mailing list.

[Image: The Republican field narrows in advance of the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary. (Illustration by Aram Vartian.)]

This morning, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he was dropping his bid to be the Republican presidential nominee -- throwing his support to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich just three days after former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. dropped his bid and gave his support to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

In announcing his decision, CBS News reports, Perry said, "I have come to the conclusion that there is no viable path forward for me in the 2012 campaign. I know when it's time to make a strategic retreat."

Aside from his notoriously bad debate performances, one of the most noted parts of Perry's campaign was an ad run in Iowa in which the one-time front-runner lambasted President Obama about "gays ... serv[ing] openly in the military" and what he called the president's "war on religion."

Adding to the shake-up that leaves only Romney, Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Ron Paul in the GOP presidential primary contest, news came out of Iowa today that Santorum -- and not Romney -- had more votes in the state's Jan. 3 caucuses. Although the two still finished within 50 votes of one another and, according to a Washington Post report, the state's Republican Party chair said today that there was no winner because the results were so close, Romney had used his 8-vote victory in Iowa and his win in New Hampshire's Jan. 10 primary to claim the mantle of front-runner in the GOP nomination.

In his campaigning in advance of the conservative South Carolina primary to take place on Saturday, Jan. 21, Romney, according to Think Progress, has added a line to his stump speech criticizing Obama's position that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, saying, "This is a president also who is attempting to pave the way for same-sex marriage in our nation by refusing through his attorney general to defend the Defense of Marriage Act."

According to limited, one-night results released today by Public Policy Polling, Gingrich has potentially overtaken Romney in the state. Although the company stressed that the limited sample means the results have a +/- 5 percent margin of error, the one-night results -- polled before Perry dropped out -- are: "Gingrich 34, Romney 28, Paul 15, Santorum 14, Perry 5."

For the two candidates at the front of the polls in the South Carolina, though, the past 36 hours have been grueling.

For Romney, questions continue about whether and to what extent he will release his tax returns -- a topic raised at the Jan. 16 debate and given more steam when prominent Romney supporter and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie urged him to release them soon. Also, a Jan. 18 ABC News report added to the story by claiming that millions of dollars of Romney's wealth are held in the Cayman Islands, which the ABC News report calls "a notorious Caribbean tax haven." 

For Gingrich, an interview granted by Gingrich's former wife, Marianne, to ABC News took off before it even ran, with Matt Drudge claiming at the Drudge Report that the interview could cause serious damage to Gingrich's campaign -- a claim given power in the days before the "First in the South" primary by a released clip in which she says Gingrich had sought to have an open marriage.

Santorum, meanwhile, was to have joined Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and the Values Voter Bus at a Values Voter rally to take place in Charleston, S.C., earlier today. FRC is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, in large part due to its extensive "anti-gay propoganda."

All of that news will be fodder for tonight's scheduled debate. The CNN/Southern Republican Presidential Debate, to be hosted by CNN's John King, is to start at 8 p.m. tonight.

Follow @metroweekly

Metro Weekly

Gay men perhaps know West Hollywood-based filmmaker Ryan James Yezak for his music video tributes featuring nearly naked gay men lip-syncing songs like Katy Perry's "Peacock" and Kesha's "We R Who We R."

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year, however, Yezak unveiled a video titled "The Gay Rights Movement," which presents a collage of contemporary LGBT film and TV footage along with a plea asking viewers to help raise $50,000 for Second Class Citizens, that quickly went viral. Yezak's planned documentary, he writes, plans to address the "many areas in which gays, lesbians, & bisexuals do not have the same rights & opportunities as others in society."

In just three days, Yezak's video gained more than a million views on YouTube and raised almost double his goal, securing more than $96,600 in donations by this afternoon. Shared more than 120,000 times on Facebook and reposted on many LGBT blogs nationwide, it was a viral "success." Yezak's video, however, also captured the attention of LGBT bloggers Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend and Karen Ocamb of LGBT POV, who criticized Yezak's video for excluding lesbians, transgender people and people of color in his presentation of "the gay rights movement."

Spaulding noted:

"[Watching the video] You'd think lesbians are practically non-existent in the movement. And it's definitely "gay rights" only -- don't expect anything related to trans folk here either .... And people of color? Well, aside from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ... if Dan Choi hadn't been in the DADT-related clips, then the vid would have been a complete whitewash. It's kind of sad."

Ocamb wrote:

"If the LGBT movement for civil rights is constantly portrayed and perceived as rich, white and highly sexualized younger gay men -- what about the rest of us second class citizens who don't fit that mold? We're part of LGBT history and the movement, too, and have long struggled against invisibility both inside and outside the movement."

Yezak has not yet responded to multiple requests from Metro Weekly for comment. Metro Weekly examined the seven-minute video and made a count of the diversity of LGBT people featured in each frame. The count includes every person visible without counting the many people shown within large crowds.  

Today, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network announced that the group's executive director, Aubrey Sarvis, would be leaving the organization once a new executive director could be found. Sarvis led SLDN through the legislative repeal and implementation of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the law whose passage led to the start of the organization in 1993.

In a release, Sarvis said, "Working with the team at SLDN on behalf of our nation's LGBT service members has been the great honor of my life. But make no mistake -- there is much more to be done.

"While I will not be on the front lines in the same way I have since 2007, I will be there nonetheless, doing all I can to help us reach a day in this country when there is full equality and every qualified patriot who wishes to serve can do so without fear, discrimination or harassment," he said. "That day is coming sooner than many think."

According to the organization, SLDN's board of directors has hired an executive search firm, McCormack & Associates, which is based out of Palm Springs, Calif., to handle the process. A designated search committee of the board also has been named.

According to the position job description, which has been posted, SLDN's goals for the new executive director will include:

• Ongoing legislative and political advocacy on Capitol Hill and at the White House to ensure that the hard won victory of repeal is not limited or rolled back by a future Congress or Administration.
• Overseeing the implementation of open military service.
• Advocating in the courts, on Capitol Hill and at the White House for legally married service members to receive the same family recognition, support and benefits as their straight married peers.
• Calling on the White House and the Pentagon to prohibit harassment and discrimination of LGB service members and representing and defending those who may experience such treatment.
• Assisting veterans to correct or upgrade their discharge paperwork and removing barriers to future employment.
• Fighting for full LGBT equality in America's military.

In a statement, SLDN board co-chair April Heinze, who also chairs the board search committee, said, "The search for a new Executive Director comes at a critical moment in the fight for full LGBT equality in our armed forces. Repeal of the discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law, alone, is not enough. The fight for full equality marches forward -- especially for those legally married gay and lesbian service members who today do not receive the same recognition, support or benefits for their families as their straight, married peers. The board and staff at SLDN will not rest until we overcome these and the remaining inequalities for LGBT service members."

[Photo: Aubrey Sarvis with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Sept. 20, 2011. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

Read the full release below the jump.

[Image: Screen capture of Jon Huntsman Jr, with his wife Mary Kaye Huntsman, announcing the end of his presidential campaign on Jan. 16, 2011.]

Coming off his third-place "ticket to ride" finish in New Hampshire, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. announced today that he has ended his campaign for president and endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.

Criticizing the negative tone of the Republican primary, The Washington Post reports he said, "This race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks not worthy of the American people and not worthy off this critical time in American history." After news of his pending plans broke online on Sunday night, many people, including Daniel Strauss at The Hill, noted that Huntsman's attacks on Romney were scrubbed from his various online outlets.

"Despite our differences and the space between us on some of the issues," Huntsman said, Romney is the candidate to unite behind to defeat President Obama in November.

Huntsman, who had been polling at no higher than 5 percent in surveys in advance of the Jan. 21 primary in South Carolina, endorsed his former foe in South Carolina just one day after South Carolina's largest newspaper, The State, endorsed Huntsman over Romney.

Hunstman, as governor and then in the presidential race, had been a supporter of civil unions for same-sex couples, saying in a debate on Jan. 7, "I think there's such a thing as equality under the law."

This week, Tennessee State Rep. Richard Floyd (R) introduced a bill that would punish trans people with a class C misdemeanor for using a bathroom or dressing room outside of one matching the gender on their birth certificate.

However, Sen. Bo Watson (R) withdrew the Senate version of the bill on Jan. 12, stating "we have more pressing issues before us," signaling that Floyd's crusade may still fail to find enough support from his own party to move the bill forward -- despite the large Republican majorities in the state House and Senate.

In a News Channel 5 interview, Floyd said the bill  -- House Bill 2279 -- would protect people like Natalie Johnson, the Texas Macy's employee who contradicted store policy by refusing to allow a transgender woman from using a woman's dressing room. Macy's fired Johnson, who cited her religious beliefs for her discriminatory actions.

Floyd said, "I don't care for what reason, how depraved their mind is, how perverted their mind is, or for what reason they think a man has a right to go into a women's bathroom, or dressing room to try on clothes."

He then added that he would "stomp a mudhole" into any trans person who dared tried to enter a dressing room while his wife, daughters and granddaughters were changing, thus perpetuating the idea of a trans person as a bathroom predator.

Monica Roberts, a trans blogger who writes at TransGriot, points out that the language of the bill could affect androgynous and non-gender conforming cisgender people, too. She adds that the bill would affect not just Tennessee residents but any trans visitors who use an airport or interstate highway rest-stop bathroom while traveling through the state.

Marisa Richmond of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition said that in her organization's view, if enacted, the bill would be unconstitutional: "For any gender non-conforming, or gender variant person, we see this as a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures."

As the National Center for Transgender Equality estimates a national trans population between 1 to 1/4 percent, the bill could effect anywhere from 15,865 to 63,461 Tennesseans, in addition to those, as pointed out by Roberts, who could be impacted even if not trans.

READ the bill: HB2279.pdf

WATCH Floyd talk about his bill, as posted by Think Progress:

[Photo: Floyd]

The evangelical movement today took a stand to make it clear that, despite the cable TV talk that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has the Republican presidential nomination all but sealed up, they have not settled on the man former House Speaker Newt Gingrich refers to as the "Massachusetts moderate" for their pick for president.

Although Gingrich was their second-place pick, about 150 evangelical and religious right leaders today put forth former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum -- who nearly bested Romney in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 -- as their pick.

The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins noted to reporters today, though, that it took three ballots to reach a consensus on a candidate.

From Adele Stan at AlterNet:

Around 150 influentials in the religious right converged on the ranch of Paul Pressler, a retired justice of the Texas Court of Appeals and a director of the right-wing Salem Communications, to try to arrive at something close to a consensus on a candidate. It took three ballots to get to an agreement, if not a consensus, according to Perkins. The aim was to reach an agreement of two-thirds of those gathered at the Pressler ranch. Of 114 participants in the final ballot, 89 voted for Santorum, Perkins said.

In the end, it came down to a contest between Santorum and the better-funded and organized former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Perkins said, with Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Rick Perry -- both, ironically, of Texas -- being knocked off after the first ballot. The campaigns were permitted to have surrogates speak for them at the meeting, and Romney did indeed send a surrogate, which appeared to be little more than an exercise in politeness.

Slate's Dave Weigel, who reports the final vote for Santorum as 115 out of 150, adds:

Practically, what would it mean for the the next primary? "There is a hope and expectation that those represented by the constituency will make a difference in South Carolina," said Perkins.

The South Carolina primary is slated for Jan. 21.

Today, the Washington state senate filed a bill that would make The Evergreen State the seventh in the union to legalize marriage equality. But even though the bill may pass the Senate and eventually be signed into law, anti-LGBT opponents may still try and overturn it at the November ballot.

The senate bill (supported by Democratic state Gov. Christine Gregoire) has 23 sponsors including Republican Sens. Steve Litzow and Cheryl Pflug.

However, the bill does not yet have the votes needed to pass the senate—although Democratic Sens. Brian Hatfield, Jim Kastama and Paull Shin have all hinted that they might support it, despite their previous votes opposing rights for LGBT couples.

An October poll found that 55 percent of the state's independent and moderate voters support marriage equality. Catholics for Equality have also pointed out that Gregoire is the third Catholic governor in the U.S. to support marriage equality -- right alongside New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) -- and that recent polls show 63 to 71 percent of American Catholics supporting marriage for same-sex couples.

Though the proposed legislation would not force religious organizations to marry or recognize same-sex unions, anti-equality advocate Attorney Stephen Pidgeon has filed an initiative opposing the bill -- even as five of the state's most vocal leaders opposing marriage equality dropped out of an upcoming public debate on the issue.

State Sen. Ed Murray has cautioned voters that even if the bill passes in the legislature, it may still come up for a vote if Pidgeon and his ilk collect 241,153 voter signatures by July 6th.

"The rightwing will put it on the ballot," Murray told The Stranger. "We saw that with [2009's Referndum-71] ... HRC has seven full-time community organizers in seven districts in Washington state and they've hired a business lobbyist to work with businesses, and all of that has to be paid for. And the way to do that is by giving to Washington United for Marriage."

[Photo: Gregoire.]

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County) announced she is partnering with Del. Keiffer Mitchell, Jr. (D-Baltimore City) to co-host a town hall meeting on marriage equality, sponsored by the left-wing political advocacy group MoveOn.Org.

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 19 at 7 p.m. at the Silver Spring (Md.) Civic Building, located at One Veterans Plaza. Several Maryland organizations and coalitions have signed on to support and promote the town hall, including the organizations comprising the coalition Marylanders for Marriage Equality, Equality Maryland, Progressive Neighbors, the Montgomery County Young Democrats, the Young Democrats of Maryland and Maryland NOW.

Mizeur, one of eight out LGBT legislators in the Maryland General Assembly, has been an outspoken supporter of marriage equality. She told Metro Weekly that she selected the issue of marriage equality after MoveOn surveyed Marylanders, asking them to vote for their favorite progressive legislator.  Mizeur won, and MoveOn event organizers allowed her to pick the theme of the town hall.

Efforts are underway to pass a marriage equality bill during the 2012 legislative session, which started on Jan. 11 and runs for 90 days. In 2011, a marriage equality bill passed the State Senate on a 25-22 vote, but was essentially killed in the House of Delegates after Judiciary Chairman Del. Joseph Vallario, Jr. (D-Calvert, Prince George’s County) recommitted the bill to committee for further discussion.

Marriage equality advocates say they are hopeful that such a bill, which is being put forth as a priority by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), will be able to pass both houses of the General Assembly, after which O’Malley will sign it into law.

"I thought that it's going to be helful to combine the size and enthusiasm of the MoveOn.Org crowd with the size of our own list of supporters colllected by Marylanders for Marriage Equality," Mizeur said. "We have all pledged not to leave any stone unturned in passing this bill."

Mizeur said that, in addition to the grassroots benefits of organizing people to call their legislators, lobby for the bill's passage, and turn out voters to reject a possible referendum aimed at repealing the law should it pass, the meeting will allow the delegates an opportunity to air what really happened behind the scenes of the marriage equality fight during the 2011 legislative session.  

"This way, we can answer what happened, and do the retrospective together, but it also serves as a call to action," Mizeur said. 

[Photo: Mizeur.]

Responding to a report today in The Globe and Mail that "a [Canadian] Department of Justice lawyer says [a same-sex couple's] marriage is not legal in Canada since they could not have lawfully wed in Florida or England, where the two partners reside," concern quickly spread that Americans who married in Canada and have returned to the United States could have the validity of their marriages challenged. Several LGBT legal organizations issued a statement this afternoon, however, assuring people that "No one's marriage has been invalidated or is likely to be invalidated."

The groups added: "There is no reason to suggest that Canadian marriages of same-sex couples are in jeopardy ...."

The statement -- issued by Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Freedom to Marry -- notes:

The position taken by one government lawyer in a divorce is not itself precedential. No court has accepted this view and there is no reason to believe that either Canada’s courts or its Parliament would agree with this position, which no one has asserted before during the eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

[UPDATE FRIDAY @ 2P: The Globe and Mail reports:

All same sex marriages performed in Canada are legal and the law will be changed to ensure that divorce is readily available to non-residents who were married in the country, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says. ...

The situation has been “completely unfair to those affected.” Mr. Nicholson said. “I want to make it clear that in our government's view, these marriages are valid.”

The announcement appears to clear up a continuing source of controversy that erupted Thursday when The Globe and Mail reported a divorce case in Toronto where the Justice Department took the position that a same-sex marriage involving non-residents is not legal unless their home country recognizes it as such.]

Read the full release below the jump.

A recent hazing-related death at Florida A&M University has raised questions about both ongoing problems of hazing at the university and whether sexual orientation played a role in this particular incident.

On November 19th, as detailed by CNN, after the Florida A&M University football team lost its annual game against Bethune-Cookman University, 26-year-old FAMU drum major Robert Champion Jr. boarded a darkened bus running in his hotel parking lot. Inside the bus an estimated 30 fellow members of FAMU's Marching 100 marching band waited to rain blows upon him as he ran from one end of the bus to the other--an unsanctioned band initiation ritual known as "Crossing Bus C."

Soon after the ritual, Champion complained of thirst, weakness and blurry vision--he eventually collapsed. Though someone tried to revive him with cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Champion was already in shock from extensive internal bleeding in his back, shoulder and torso and had a temperature of 102.

He vomited during the CPR and the resuscitation even forced some vomit back into his lungs. Within an hour, as CBS News reported, Champion was dead.

In today's Metro Weekly, I lay out a path forward in "Absent Update" for President Obama's stalled evolution on marriage equality. Definitely go read that first, but, of note for the point of this post, I write in part:

[O]nce the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Ninth Circuit rules in Perry [v. Brown], and the dissatisfied party asks the Supreme Court to take the case, a problem -- LGBT supporters and allies' growing impatience that the president hasn't finished "evolving" – can become an opportunity.

As when the president announced – belatedly for some – the decision that he would no longer be defending [the Defense of Marriage Act] in the context of two lawsuits filed in trial courts within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the president could use the Proposition 8 appeal to lay out the legal and constitutional basis for completing his evolution on marriage equality.

By filing an amicus (friend of the court) brief supporting the plaintiffs who are challenging Proposition 8[.]

The process by which the Supreme Court accepts cases is called certiorari, and some further explanation about this portion of the process is helpful for those interested but not necessary for the purpose of the analysis set forth in "Absent Update."

When the Perry case is decided by the Ninth Circuit, the losing party almost certainly will seek certiorari, shortened to "cert" by lawyers and those familiar with the Supreme Court's workings. The party successful at the Ninth Circuit will have the opportunity to file a brief supporting or opposing that cert petition. Outside groups and individuals who are not party to the case can file amicus briefs at this stage.

Then, the justices meet and decide whether to hear the case. If four justices vote to grant cert, then the case will be accepted for appeal and another round of "merits" briefing begins with the parties and amicus filers. Then, oral arguments are scheduled and held. Then, the justices meet again to discuss and vote on the case. Then, opinions are written, circulated, edited or re-written, and -- at long last -- a decision (and other opinions) is handed down.

The United States (i.e., the Obama administration) -- through the Solicitor General's Office, which is a part of the Department of Justice -- can involve itself in this process at the cert or merits stage, and is sometimes even asked to do so by the justices themselves.

If Obama were to decide to support the plaintiffs who are challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the solicitor general could file a brief at the cert stage urging one of three paths, depending on the Ninth Circuit decision and the party seeking cert:

1. If the trial court decision finding Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional is upheld by the Ninth Circuit (either because the proponents are found to lack standing to appeal or on the merits), the Obama administration could argue that the Ninth Circuit was correct and that there is no need for the court to accept the appeal.
2. Or, assuming the same Ninth Circuit outcome, the administration could argue that the Ninth Circuit was correct and the decision should be affirmed by the Supreme Court so as to expand the ruling to apply across the country.
3. If, however, the Ninth Circuit decides that the trial court was incorrect and that Proposition 8 is constitutional, the solicitor general could urge the Supreme Court to accept the case and hold, once and for all, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

There are several drawbacks to all three of these options, most importantly the choice between options 1 and 2, which will doubtless be an interesting debate within the LGBT community and which the administration might wisely wish to avoid. Option 3 has less of a drawback, but it also is the least likely scenario imagined by legal scholars for the Ninth Circuit's outcome.

Accordingly, engaging at the merits stage -- assuming the Supreme Court accepts cert -- would appear to be the prime time for the administration to file a brief supporting the plaintiffs. The court will have, at that point, already declared its desire to decide the issue and, as such, the administration should weigh in on such an important case with its view.

This, however, raises the issue of timing. The Ninth Circuit has no timeline. It can rule when it wishes to do so. That said, the court has fast-tracked several elements of the appeal already, and the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the case, already has announced what its plans are for addressing media questions when the decision comes down.

Because of the length of the cert process, it's entirely possible that the decision to file a merits amicus brief will not come until after the election. As such, there's no reason why the president can't announce the completion of his evolution when the Ninth Circuit decision is issued by announcing his intention -- assuming it upholds the trial court decision striking down Proposition 8 -- to do all he can to ensure the ruling stands, including by filing an amicus brief in support of the decision should the Supreme Court accept the case.

Time is moving forward, and every day a greater majority of the American people believe that same-sex couples deserve the same rights to marriage as opposite-sex couples. The easiest path for Obama may be to wait until after the election, as some observers expect, to announce a completed evolution. That is safe, but it carries both the risk of losing the opportunity should he lose the election and losing the moment should the electorate and country continue to move at a breakneck pace to accept same-sex couples as a part of the American fabric deserving of the full recognition and protections of marriage.

The choice to finish evolving is President Obama's to make, but, in the meantime, the questions are not going to stop.

[Photo, above right: The Supreme Court of the United States building. (Photo by Chris Geidner.) Photo above left: President Obama at the White House's LGBT Pride Month Reception in 2011. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

The 2012 election season had winners besides former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Jan. 10. In Minnesota, Susan Allen won her special election to become the state's first Native American female in the legislature -- and, in doing so, also added another LGBT lawmaker's voice to the effort to defeat the pending marriage amendment in the state.

Winning the election for Minnesota House District 61B, the DFLer, according to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, also is the nation's first Native American lesbian lawmaker.

According to Allen's website, the lawyer, who has done significant working helping tribes with legal issues, plans to be a strong voice opposing this fall's marriage amendment in Minnesota.

"I am a passionate supporter of marriage equality. As a lesbian, I feel this inequality every day," she writes. "If elected, I will use my position as State Rep to speak loudly against the marriage amendment and in favor of equality for all Minnesota families. I will also use my 2012 reelection campaign as a vehicle to turn out voters against writing discrimination into our state constitution."

The Victory Fund, which supports out LGBT candidates, had endorsed Allen and celebrated the victory.

Tiffany Muller, the Victory Fund's vice president for political operations, said in a statement, "We're thrilled for Susan and the remarkable progress her victory represents. This is our first win of 2012, and it's a fantastic way to start off what will be a very exciting year for LGBT candidates."

Allen will join two other out Minnesota lawmakers, Rep. Karen Clark (DFL) and Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL).

[Image: Screen capture of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaking to supporters after winning the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 10, 2011.]

Unlike the long night in Iowa, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was on stage declaring victory in the New Hampshire primary at 8:26 p.m., focused not on the other Republican challengers but instead "the disappointing record of a failed president."

The first non-incumbent Republican ever to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Romney sounded it.

Speaking about Americans' "unwavering conviction" that "we know it must be better and it will be better," Romney took the mantle of front-runner with his wife, Ann, and several of his sons behind him on stage in New Hampshire.

"We know that the future of this country is better than unemployment of 8 or 9 percent," Romney said. "The president has run out of ideas. Now he's running out of excuses."

Talking about people who are "dragged down by a resentment of success," Romney referenced the tactics used by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other primary opponents and said, "This is such a mistake for our party and our nation."

Of the coming general election, he continued to rail against Obama, "It's a choice about saving the soul of America."

With about two-thirds of precincts reporting, Romney had nearly 38 percent of the vote. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was coming in second with nearly 24 percent, and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman was coming in third with almost 17 percent of the vote.

Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum were withing votes of one another, fighting for fourth with less than than 10 percent of the vote. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer were garnering less than 1 percent of the vote.

When Paul took to the stage at 9 p.m., he noted the failure of coverage his campaign often receives and that it is called "dangerous," in his words, when it does get covered.

"We are dangerous -- to the status quo of the country," he responded, to loud applause. "And we will remain a danger to the Federal Reserve system as well."

After discussing getting out of wars, Paul shouted to the crowd, "What should the role of government be? The role of government should be simple: protection of liberty!"

At 9:30 p.m., Huntsman took to the stage, shouting, "I'd say third place is a ticket to ride, ladies and gentlemen!"

Calling America the "greatest nation that ever was," he said, "This is about economics, and this is about education, and this is going to play out across the ocean in countries where I've lived." He added that if problems at home are not addressed, "We will see the end of the American century by 2050."

The three first place finishers represent some moderate positions on LGBT issues, with Romney over the weekend saying, "I don't discriminate"; Paul having voted for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal; and Huntsman supporting civil unions.

Responding to a question from Metro Weekly about former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R)'s claim in New Hampshire on Jan. 9 that he and President Obama hold the same views about the right of same-sex couples to marry, White House press secretary Jay Carney initially parried today, saying, "I think ... you know very well what the president's views are on LGBT isses and civil rights. The President is very proud of this administration’s record on those issues."

When pressed by Metro Weekly that Santorum's comments were specifically in reference to marriage, Carney said, "I have no updates for you on the President’s position on same-sex marriage. I think that you know and others here know and understand his position broadly on LGBT issues is quite significantly different from that particular candidate's views."

Mediaite's Tommy Christopher later followed up by asking about a similar tweet over the weekend from Sarah Palin, who wrote that the president and GOP presidential candidates' views of the "definiton of marriage" were the same. Carney responded similarly, pointing Christopher to Obama's previous statements on the issue and saying of Obama's "evolving" position on marriage equality, "I have nothing for you on it."

Read the full transcript of both questions below the jump.

Think Progress's Igor Volsky captured part of today's questioning:

Noting that he often is told, "Santorum, quit trying to impose your morality on everyone else," former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum spent his time at the Derry-Salem Elks Club in New Hampshire this morning claiming that he and President Obama hold the same position on marriage equality -- but also explaining his conservative, anti-LGBT equality positions by using language more often used by equality advocates.

Although others have focused on the line about his position on marriage equality as compared to Obama's position, the other part of Santorum's discussion on the day before the Granite State's primary also was worthy of note.

Santorum, discussing the hardships faced by single parents, said at one point: "You have much higher rates of poverty and economic stress in single-parent families. Not because moms aren't doing the best they can. They're doing heroic work, but they're doing the work of two people and it's harder."

Not a mother and a father, but "two people." In making that statement, though likely just a shortcut of efficiency, Santorum actually exposed the problem with his argument about same-sex parenting.

As Jennifer Chrisler, the executive director of the Family Equality Council, told Metro Weekly, "To make really clear, the studies that are out there are comparing a single parent to a two-parent family. ... They're not [about same-sex parenting]."

Whatever the other potential critiques of Santorum's arguments about family and marriage -- which Chrisler points out include discussion of "how our government's policies value families ... in all shapes and sizes"  -- the first-line critique, underscored by Santorum's own language today, is that the studies to which Santorum is referring have been about "two people" raising a family and have never been about denigrating same-sex couples' families.

Santorum wasn't done, though. Later, discussing marriage itself, Santorum said, "The happiest people in America are who? People who are married, by far. ... Who are the economically most stable in America? People who are married. Right. Why? Because, you have two people, helping each other out, so it's less vulnerable than out there paddling alone."

In a 2009 issue brief, the Center for American Progress's Nico Sifra Quintana agreed, noting, "Marriage provides legal and economic security for many heterosexual couples. These benefits include access to partner health insurance, tax subsidies, Social Security benefits, and other economic safety nets." CAP, which was relying on a UCLA Williams Institute study for the underlying date, was making the point in support of marriage equality.

Although Santorum was referring to opposite-sex couples, he didn't say it. Santorum obviously and strongly opposes marriage equality, but, at least for a few moments today, he was talking about marriage as "two people, helping each other out" -- a line that hews more closely to an equality argument than it does a social conservative's argument against marriage equality.

[Image: New Hampshire primary field by Aram Vartian. ]

Watch the video, shot by EDGE's Mike Lavers:

President Obama had the 1996 Outlines survey, where, as a state Senate candidate, he had supported "same-sex marriages" but the White House was unwilling to discuss for the longest time. Now, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has found a Republican primary version of that: a flier that BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski reported was distributed by Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign that stated Romney "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference" and from which that the 2012 Romney presidential campaign is distancing itself.

As Romney never has supported marriage equality, that caveat likely would have been understood by voters at the time, and the underlying principle is not that different from his statement in the Meet the Press/Facebook debate this past weekend, "I don't discriminate. ... I made it very clear that in my view we should not discriminate in hiring policies, in legal policies," noting again his opposition to marriage equality.

He then added, "But, if people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays, or will in any way try and suggest that people that have a different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me."

Yet, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that the Romney campaign's chief spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, said the fliers weren't official campaign literature -- despite their "Paid for by the Romney for Governor Committee" tagline.

From The Huffington Post:

"I don't know where those pink flyers came from. I was the communications director on the 2002 campaign. I don't know who distributed them ... I never saw them and I was the communications director," Fehrnstrom said in the spin room after Sunday morning's GOP presidential debate here.

Fehrnstrom said he had no idea who had distributed the flyers. "I never saw them and I never approved them. I'm not quite sure where they came from."

The Obama campaign quickly pointed out the discrepancy, with campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt saying in a statement:

"After Mitt Romney claimed he'd be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Kennedy when he was running for office in Massachusetts, and one day after saying that gays should have 'full rights,' Romney's campaign today disavowed a flyer that simply said 'all citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.' What on that flyer does Mitt Romney disagree with? Does he not believe all Americans should have equal rights? Who is he trying to pander to now? This is why Americans will have trouble trusting Mitt Romney -- he doesn't keep his word."

[Images: New Hampshire primary field by Aram Vartian. Flier posted by BuzzFeed.]

This morning, all of New Jersey's Democratic members of the U.S. Congress -- including Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez -- urged their state legislative colleagues to pass marriage equality, where the Star-Ledger reports a marriage equality bill is expected to be introduced this week.

In the letter to the members of the New Jersey Senate and Assembly, which details prior testimony about the insufficiency of New Jersey's civil unions law, the federal lawmakers conclude, "The time has come to end discrimination in marriage. The marriage equality bill in the New Jersey legislature needs your support."

According to NBC-4 New York, the AP is reporting that "Democrats' priority for the new legislative session is to move the bill quickly through both houses of the Legislature and forward it to the governor, perhaps as early as next month."

Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who was in New Hampshire over the weekend stumping for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, ran in opposition to marriage equality in 2010 but has not specifically said he would veto the bill if it passes this session. In addition to signing or vetoing the bill, he also could let it become law without his signature. The Star-Ledger reports that over the weekend "[Christie] was not available for comment. His office declined comment Saturday and did not return a message Sunday."

The Star-Ledger goes on to talk with out gay New Jersey Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), who said, "Interestingly, the governor has been in three gay marriage states -- Iowa, Massachusetts and New Hampshire -- with Mitt Romney. Deep down, I think he thinks this is the right thing to do."

Regardless of the action he takes, Christie role as one of Romney's more prominent surrogates means the New Jersey marriage equality bill could be one more way in which marriage equality becomes an issue in the presidential campaign.

Regarding today's introduction of the marriage equality bill, Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein issued a statement, saying:

The world has changed since the legislature last debated a marriage equality bill in 2009. Today, states with a combined population of more than 35 million people have marriage equality. The freedom to marry is now a success story that has made entire parts of our nation fairer -- and no straight couple’s marriage has fallen apart because of it.      

The days are over when marriage equality was the third rail of American politics.  Today, in a state and nation that supports marriage equality, not standing up for equality is the third rail for prejudice.

Regarding Christie, NBC-4 New York reports, "Goldstein said he doesn't believe there are any circumstances under which Christie, a national GOP figure who is often talked about as a future presidential prospect, would sign a gay marriage bill."

Freedom to Marry's national campaign director, Marc Solomon, said in a statement regarding the news:

Freedom to Marry is proud to partner with Garden State Equality and New Jersey's tremendous legislative leaders, Senate President Sweeney and House Speaker Oliver, as we work together to make New Jersey the next state to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. What New Jersey's legislative leaders are telling us clearly today is that the Garden State values its gay and lesbian citizens fully, and does not accept treating same-sex couples and their families as second class citizens, as it presently does with civil unions.

Marriage matters for same-sex couples and their families, both because it says we're a family through thick and thin in a way that nothing else does, and because it provides a critical safety-net of protections that civil unions do not.

READ the congressional delegation letter: Marriage Equality Delegation.pdf

[Photos: Lautenberg (left), Menendez (right). (Photos courtesy of respective Senate web sites.)]

[Image: Screen capture of ABC/Yahoo! GOP presidential debate.]

Tonight, the remaining Republican would-be presidential candidates met for one of two debates before the Jan. 10 primary election in New Hampshire -- but a short constitutional law primer is necessary to understand what was really going on when the candidates were asked about contraception, marriage and adoption.

When asked by George Stephanopoulos about whether he believes a state should be able to ban contraception, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney responded: "I can't imagine a state banning contraception" and added that, if he were governor when a state tried to do so, "I would totally and completely oppose it."

That wasn't enough for Stephanopoulos, who asked if Romney believed states had the right to do so. Pushed, Romney said that there is a process -- constitutional amendment -- for disagreement with Supreme Court decisions.

Romney then volunteered that stopping same-sex marriage is a situation where "we should have a federal amendment."

Pushed again for an answer to the question by Stephanopoulos, who mentioned that the Supreme Court had decided the issue in Griswold v. Connecticut, Romney finally said, "I don't believe they decided that correctly." He added quickly that he also believes that Roe v. Wade, a case that built upon Griswold, was incorrectly decided.

The question led to a more-than-10-minute discussion, with several follow-up questions about LGBT issues, from marriage to adoption.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul discussed the Fourth Amendment and the PATRIOT Act, which former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was not the issue involved in Griswold. Where Romney avoided the discussion, Santorum went full-speed ahead, talking about how the Griswold court found the personal privacy right through "penumbras" -- a reference to the Supreme Court's opinion by Justice William O. Douglas, where he explained the privacy right the court was describing:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Of that, Santorum said, "It created a right through bootstrapping ... I believe it should be overturned."

In addition to Roe, the Griswold opinion had renewed relevance because it provided the constitutional basis for Lawrence v. Texas, which ended sodomy laws in the country in 2003. Lawrence, then formed the basis for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which allowed for same-sex couples to marry in the state where Romney was governor.

That path, with which Romney is very familiar, is why Romney quickly moved from the question asked to discussion of same-sex couples and the debate over their right to marry.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich raised the question of religious organizations like Catholic Charities and whether they should be forced to recognize such marriages. Romney jumped on to that issue, referencing what he said was the fact that Catholic Charities had to stop offering adoption in Massachusetts following the passage of marriage equality there. [For more on this issue, read Laura Kiritsy's post at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is based in Massachusetts and represented Goodridge.]

In providing the closest thing to a defense of LGBT equality, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said, "I think there's such a thing as equality under the law." He went on to detail his support for civil unions, calling himself a "traditionalist" for the reason why he does not support marriage equality.

Gingrich, in the course of discussing the issue, specifically discussed "the sacrament of marriage," not government marriage license. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry returned to the topic when another question was raised, he made the attack more directly, referencing what he calls President Obama's "war on religion." Among the bases for reaching that conclusion, Perry said, was the fact that Obama's Department of Justice has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

A follow-up question to Santorum about same-sex couples adopting children led to an odd exchange in which Santorum quickly responded by saying, "This isn't a federal issue, it's a state issue." He then, even more quickly, differentiated that from marriage, which he said was a federal issue because the country needed a single definition of marriage. Finally, he said the question was irrelevant because if the Federal Marriage Amendment passes then there would be "no gay couples." No follow-up question was asked regarding the fact that many states allow unmarried second-parent adoption.

[Image: New Hampshire primary field by Aram Vartian.]

Follow @metroweekly

Get Poliglot in your inbox. Join our mailing list.

Metro Weekly

The national understanding of rape, as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's data collection program, now includes what Vice President Joseph Biden called a "long-awaited change to the definition of rape" that will include men who are raped, victims who are too drunk to consent, oral penetration without consent and other changes that will make the definition more expansive.

Until today, the Uniform Crime Report definition of rape -- the FBI's standard used for most national criminal justice programs -- was limited to the traditional definition of rape "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will."

In a conference call with reporters today, White House Senior Advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett said that data collected based on that definition "does not present an accurate picture of rape in this country. Without an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the problem, how can we effectively solve the problem?"

The new definition -- "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim" -- will allow for a more accurate count, although administration officials were unwilling to speculate on the level of numerical change that would result from the change.

According to Department of Justice Director of the Office on Violence Against Women Susan B. Carbon, "It encompasses a far greater range of victims and of circumstances of what we know as rape."

In addition to including men who are raped, Carbon said today, "Because many rapes are facilitated as we know by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of his or her ingestion of drugs or alcohol."

Human Rights Campaign spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz told Metro Weekly, "This change will result in more comprehensive and accurate reporting of sexual assaults and will give law enforcement and the public a better understanding of how these crimes impact individuals across lines of gender, gender identity and sexual orientation."

The change, formally approved by FBI Director Robert Mueller on Dec. 21, 2011, was raised by Biden at a cabinet meeting in July 2011, according to White House Advisor on Violence Against Women Lynn Rosenthal. The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

"The data are used to measure crime," Carbon noted, "and it's the only national crime collection system that we have in the country that really gives us this comprehensive understanding."

Most local law enforcement agencies, according to Rosenthal, already use some sort of expanded definition of rape and were supportive of today's change. Today's change does not impact the definition of rape under state law, but rather the types of rape that will be reported to the UCR.

Carbon discussed the financial impact of today's announcement, saying, "UCR data also inform important decisions about resource allocation across the country. For example, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant formula program uses UCR data to allocate federal funds to state and local governments. Inaccurate reporting of rapes meant that policymakers could not make truly informed decisions about how to utilize funding."

David Cuthbertson, the assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, said that the full implementation of today's change will take a while to be realized.

"As the record systems are changed, it will take several years before the full impact of the definition change will be seen in the statistics," he said. "I think you will see the increase in reporting begin rather quickly if those systems are changed quickly, and over a period of several years, you will see the statistics gain until it reaches a level that we believe all the data is being collected."

Of the larger impact of today's announcement, Rosenthal said, "It is about more than a definition. How we talk about rape and how we count it makes a difference in how we view it."

The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of four Michigan public employees and their partners, sued Michigan Gov. Richard Snyder (R) today to stop enforcement of the state's new law that prohibits some public entities from offering health coverage to their employees' domestic partners, arguing that the law is the "the result and expression of discriminatory animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and families."

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, argues that "[c]ategorically eliminating the possibility of receiving family health coverage for lesbian and gay public employees' domestic partners -- while leaving other family members, including opposite-sex spouses, eligible to receive family coverage -- discriminates against the Public Employee Plaintiffs by treating them differently from other similarly situated public employees."

The lawsuit claims that the new law, which Snyder signed into law on Dec. 22, 2011, violates both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to the ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan, attorneys from the Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, are representing the plaintiffs in the challenge to the new law. The lawsuit references the employees and their respective domestic partners as two independently impacted groups in the complaint.

The plaintiffs include Theresa Bassett, a middle school math teacher in Ann Arbor, and her wife, Carol Kennedy; Peter Ways, also a middle school teacher in Ann Arbor, and his partner, Joe Breakey; Doak Bloss, who works and the health equity and social justice coordinator for Ingham County, and his partner, Gerardo Ascheri; and JoLinda Jach, a systems analyst for the City of Kalamazoo, and her partner, Barbara Ramber, who has glaucoma and arthritis and "lost her health insurance coverage through the City of Kalamazoo as of January 1, 2012."

As the complaint in Bassett v. Snyder details, "The Public Employee Plaintiffs will lose family health insurance coverage for their committed domestic partners, and all of the Domestic Partner Plaintiffs will lose their present health insurance coverage, or have already lost their coverage."

The executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, Kary L. Moss, said in a news release announcing the challenge, "Although justified by the governor as a cost-cutting measure, the numbers don't hold up. The reality is that the legislation was intended to disenfranchise LGBT families. When a key policy priority has been to attract top talent and resources to the state, our elected officials have sent a clear message that Michigan is out of step with the kinds of public policies that attract talent and grow our economy."

The lawsuit lays out how the current situation stems from restrictions on employee benefits following the adoption of the 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment stating that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." Courts in Michigan interpreted that language as prohibiting public entities from offering domestic partner benefits, which resulted in several public entities' insurance plans including an "other qualified adult" provision that allowed coverage for people -- including domestic partners -- that "was not predicated on an agreement establishing or affirming a particular type of relationship."

The new law challenged today restricted even that "other qualified adult" coverage, prohibiting some public employers from offering health insurance benefits to people who "share a residence with a public employee and who are not married to the employee, dependents of the employee as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, or potential heirs of the employee as defined by Michigan intestate succession laws."

Supporters of the law argued that the act was needed because, as legislative analysis put it, because public employers "found ways around the law that is now a part of the Michigan Constitution, by avoiding the clearly prohibited language barring health benefits for same-sex partners." The complaint presents a mirror image of that argument, however, claiming, "The Act singles out lesbian and gay public employees and categorically denies them, and only them, the ability to obtain employee health insurance benefits for their closest family members -- the partners with whom they share their lives."

Despite the law's impact, its reach does not appear to include two areas of public employees in the state: university and civil service employees. In a statement released by Snyder when he signed the bill in December 2011, he explained his view that the law did not apply to "university employees or state employees under civil service" due to the state constitution's provision setting the Civil Service Commission's authority and state Supreme Court precedent regarding the "constitutional autonomy of universities."

READ the complaint: bassettcomplaint.pdf

WUSA9.com is reporting that Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. (D-Ward 5) is going to resign from office sometime this week, sources close to the councilmember tell the CBS affiliate television station. 

Thomas, a two-term councilmember, came under scrutiny when faced with allegations that he had misused $300,000 earmarked for youth sports programs for personal expenses, including trips, golf outings, an SUV and a motorcycle.

After being sued by D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan, Thomas agreed to repay the $300,000 in six installments but did not admit guilt for his alleged actions. He has since made the first payment, but, as of the close of business on Tuesday, failed to make the second payment. Thomas did not appear at a previously scheduled legislative meeting at council chambers at the Wilson Building this morning.

Associates of the councilman say he is working on a plea agreement and is expected to plead guilty to at least one felony, possibly more, and receive a two- to three-year sentence.

In his previous runs for the Council, Thomas earned a good amount of support from members of the LGBT community, especially after he voted to approve marriage equality in 2010 despite pressure from some residents and pastors from his socially conservative ward.

In the end, though, the appearance of impropriety outweighed whatever good will he had built up among his ward’s LGBT residents.

“I have a concern with the ethical situation and what I think is a lack of moral compass, and sort of what is a nonchalant attitude about it,” Ward 5 resident Kerry Neal said. “A number of people have just had it with him personally, as well as with the political structure that just allows him to run roughshod over other issues.”

“I think it’s a good thing for the District, for the neighborhood,” gay Ward 5 resident Vincent Villano said upon hearing reports of Thomas’s expected resignation. “We really need people in office who actually work on behalf of D.C. residents. I think it’s a good thing he’s stepping down. I think it’s a good things he’s serving time.”

Both Lateefah Williams, president of the Washington, D.C. Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, and Robert Turner, president of the D.C. chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, said they were not commenting at this time but would issue statements if and when Thomas resigned.

According to D.C. municipal regulations, once the Board of Elections and Ethics certifies that a seat is vacant, a special election is held on the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days after the vacancy becomes effective.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decided to grant deferred action on the immigration case of Anthony John Makk, an Australian who is married to American Bradford Wells and had been denied a marriage-based green card, according to a news release issued this afternoon by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The move, Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls says, means "Bradford and Anthony can now rest assured that, for at least the foreseeable future, they will remain here together in the United States."

According to Pelosi's release, she spoke today to Makk and Wells, who live in San Francisco, and informed them of the decision. Following reporting about the case in August, she had intervened seeking action to keep Makk, who potentially faced deportation, in the country.

Pelosi said in a statement, "The positive resolution of Anthony's immigration petition is a personal victory for Bradford and Anthony, and keeps this loving couple together."

Noting the broader implications of their case, she said, "Anthony would have faced deportation because of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, even though he has lived in the United States for more than 20 years, has no criminal history, has never lived here illegally and is the primary caregiver to his husband. The Obama Administration's recent efforts to prioritize immigration enforcement for the removal of criminals and others who pose a threat to national security helped pave the way for today's good news."

The "recent efforts" referenced by Pelosi include changes announced by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in August 2011 aimed at moving prosecutorial discretion exercised by immigration enforcement officials from an "ad hoc" system to a system focused on the "highest priorities" that will "eliminate the lowest priority cases" -- including, a senior administration official said, same-sex couples where one partner is facing deportation.

After a 5 percent showing in the Iowa caucuses, which were won by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced today that she is ending her bid for the Republican presidential nomination. According to CBS News:

"Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so I have decided to stand aside," [Bachmann] said at a hastily-arranged news conference here.

"I have no regrets," she added. "None whatsoever. We never compromised our principles." She said she "looks forward to the next chapter in God's plan."

Bachmann did not endorse another candidate.

Bachmann, who opposes LGBT equality measures and supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, was asked on the morning of the Iowa caucuses about a particularly jarring comment regarding gay people that she had made earlier in her career. Asked by CNN's Soledad O'Brien about her 2004 comments that being gay was "part of Satan," Bachmann initially called it a "bizarre thing to bring up."

When O'Brien countered that she disagreed, Bachmann answered only indirectly, saying, "It's a gotcha question coming way out of the past. I stand very strong for marriage between one man and one woman. I believe in protecting human life from conception until natural death. I believe in the family, I believe in religious liberty and for people to practice their faith freely. That's important."

Earlier, Bachmann had succeeded in winning the Ames, Iowa, straw poll, in August 2011, garnering 4,823 votes out of a total 16,892 votes cast there.

Less than five months later, though, Bachmann received only 6,073 votes in the Iowa caucuses -- despite the fact that there were 122,255 votes cast there. With more than 100,000 more votes cast, Bachmann had only picked up an additional 1,250 votes.

About 12 hours after learning those results, Bachmann ended her campaign.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney eked out a remarkably narrow win at the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 to advance his presidential ambitions -- providing space, though, for come-from-behind second place finisher and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to claim some of the success in the first-in-the-nation GOP contest.

The Republican voters in Iowa selected Romney as the state's pick for the 2012 Republican presidential primary nominee, garnering about one-quarter of the votes cast with 30,015 votes. The counting of more than 120,000 votes took until nearly 2:30 a.m. Eastern Time, with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum coming in an almost unimaginably close second -- eight votes less than Romney, according to a late-night Iowa Republican Party announcement -- following a year of debates, changed front-runners by the month, countless TV ads and more.

Romney took to his stage last of all the GOP candidates, speaking a little before 11:40 p.m. Jan. 3 Central Time after being introduced to the crowd by his wife, Ann, who called him "the next president of the United States" -- despite not yet knowing whether he'd even won the Iowa Republican caucuses.

With Romney and Santorum nearly tied in recent polling, the results tonight were not altogether unexpected. Although Texas Rep. Ron Paul had been tied in the recent polling with the two victors, his early pairing with with Romney and Santorum eventually lost force as he fell behind and came in a clear third, capturing about 21 percent of the caucus votes.

Garnering just 10 percent of the vote in Iowa, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced to his fans about 11 p.m. Jan. 3 that he is returning to Texas "to determine whether there is a path forward for me in this race."

Romney began his speech by briefly congratulating Santorum for his strong finish, noting that both spoke before either knew the victor of the Iowa caucuses. He quickly, however, talked about how "all three of us" -- referring to Santorum, Paul and himself -- would be continuing the campaign to defeat Obama.

Although Romney has said he "does not believe in discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation," it is not clear whether he would support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make such discrimination illegal. He does oppose marriage equality, however, although he has been questioned about same-sex marriages performed under his watch as governor of Massachusetts.

On Jan. 3, however, he did not reference social issues or even, aside from the brief mention at the beginning, his primary opponents. He focused on Obama and his "failure[s]."

He said, "We are an opportunity land," noting about successful immigrants and others, "They didn't make us poorer by being successful, they made us better." Of Obama, he contrasted his view with the president by saying, "He wants to make us an entitlement society."

Romney ended with a reference to the Jan. 10 New Hampshire primary, where he has had a substantial lead in the polls, saying: "On to New Hampshire. Let's get that job done."

Santorum, who traveled to all 99 counties in Iowa and only picked up traction in the polls there in recent days, began his speech well past 11 p.m. Jan. 3 -- yet before he knew Romney had won -- by saying, "Game on."

The former Pennsylvania senator, who traveled to all 99 counties in Iowa, has expressed his anti-LGBT views -- long established -- throughout this campaign, having recently told NBC's Chuck Todd that he believes current same-sex couples who are legally married would have their marriages declared "invalid" if a federal marriage amendment that he supports were to be added to the U.S. Constitution.

Santorum spent parts of his speech tonight talking about his biography and other Republican candidates, but he then spoke for a portion of his speech about jobs, the economy and the GOP campaign against Obama. Unlike most of his primary opponents, he mentioned his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion in his remarks.

Santorum concluded tonight by looking to the future, saying, "We are off to New Hampshire because the message I shared with you tonight is not an Iowa message ... it is a message that will resonate throughout this land. With your help and God's grace, we will have another fun night a week from now."

Paul took took the stage at his campaign's election night party at a few minutes past 10 p.m. Jan. 3, saying his campaign was "one of three" to have its ticket punched to pass out of Iowa -- but then added that his campaign is "one of two that can run a national campaign and raise [the needed] money," an attack on the Santorum campaign's organization.

When Gingrich took to his stage a little past 10:15 p.m. Jan. 3, he praised Santorum's campaign, saying, "He waged a great, positive campaign." But then, Gingrich added, "I wish I could say that for all the candidates."

Although Perry sounded a retreat following his showing in Iowa, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was fiery in her rhetoric, stating that the party needed to nominate a "fearless conservative, with no compromises on his record" and suggesting that she would be continuing forward despite garnering only 5 percent of the vote in Iowa. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman did not campaign in Iowa, but has spent significant time in New Hampshire in recent months.

In a news release, GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia said of the results, "Tonight, we congratulate Governor Romney and Congressman Paul on their strong showings in the Iowa caucuses. It is clear that the message of economic renewal and limited government is resonating with Republican voters."

Santorum was not mentioned in the GOProud release. When asked about Santorum's results, GOProud chief strategist Christopher Barron told Metro Weekly, "Santorum isn't a national candidate. He isn't even appearing on the ballot in several places. Rick Santorum's success in Iowa essentially ends the campaigns of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich -- the only realistic alternatives to Mitt Romney. All in all tonight is a very good night for Mitt Romney."

Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper went directly after Santorum in his organization's response, saying, "Log Cabin Republicans are confident that ultimately our party will select the candidate with the best chance to win the White House. Rick Santorum is not that candidate."

Cooper said, "Of the candidates who participated in the Iowa caucuses, Governor Mitt Romney was one of the best on issues affecting LGBT Americans. By contrast, Senator Santorum rose by appealing to a uniquely socially conservative electorate."

Explaining the path forward for GOP victory, Cooper said, "The divisive social issue politics which helped Santorum's campaign in Iowa will only hurt him in New Hampshire and beyond as voters learn more about his record. Winning the White House will require the politics of addition, not division."

A week before tonight's caucuses, a CNN/Time poll asked 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.

In 2008, however, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a conservative Southern Baptist minister, won the Iowa caucuses. Santorum's unexpectedly strong showing in the 2012 caucuses showed the continued force that social conservatives play in the Iowa caucuses, even if some -- like Paul, Barron and Cooper -- question Santorum's ability to succeed across the nation.

Santorum's name had become a punchline during his low points early in the campaign due to Dan Savage's dissatisfaction with Santorum's views on homosexuality back in 2003, as the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. Santorum told an Associated Press reporter at that time, "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Savage then associated his name on Google, with the help of others, with "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex," as detailed early in Santorum's presidential campaign by Mother Jones.

[Source: Talking Points Memo.]

With about one-third of the votes counted in tonight's Iowa caucuses, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum are locked -- within votes of one another -- in a three-way tie.

UPDATE @ 10:50P: Still too close to call, but Romney and Santorum have taken a lead over Paul. From Talking Points Memo:

More to come ...

Kyrsten Sinema, an out bi woman who has been endorsed by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund in past state legislative races, announced today that she will be running for Congress in the new 9th congressional district in Arizona. Sinema, who would be the first out bi member of Congress, is running in part against, as she says in her launch ad, "the governor [Republican Jan Brewer] and her regressive policies."

On Sinema's Facebook page, the state senator first elected to the state House in 2004 wrote, "I've decided to run for Congress because we need to wake up Washington! I will fight for the forgotten middle class and stand up to a system that is rigged against them."

Because of state law, Sinema will have to resign from the state Senate to run for Congress. Sinema, according to a Roll Call article from June 2011, had been considering this run for a significant period of time.

According to the Roll Call article, Sinema also has experience in LGBT politics, having "raised $2.5 million in 2006 to help defeat an effort to ban same-sex marriages in Arizona."

Watch her announcement video:

It's hours until the Iowa caucuses today, but the only LGBT news thus far today out of Iowa was Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann's terse exchange with CNN's Soledad O'Brien. Asked by O'Brien this morning about her 2004 comments that being gay was "part of Satan," Bachmann initially called it a "bizarre thing to bring up."

When O'Brien countered that she disagreed, Bachmann answered only indirectly, saying, "It's a gotcha question coming way out of the past. I stand very strong for marriage between one man and one woman. I believe in protecting human life from conception until natural death. I believe in the family, I believe in religious liberty and for people to practice their faith freely. That's important."

She continued: "It's also important we get rid of Obamacare."

Despite the skirmish, recent polling places Bachmann at less than 10 percent of the expected caucus vote tonight, which would leave her in sixth place.

In the Public Policy Polling poll taken from Dec. 31, 2011, through Jan. 1, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum were within 2 percent of one another in the poll, which had a 2.7 percent margin of error. All three candidates polled more than double Bachmann, with Paul at 20, Romney at 19 and Santorum at 18. In fourth, with 14 percent, is former House Speaker and Georgia Rep. Newt Gingrich. Teaxas Gov. Rick Perry, with 10 percent is polling two percentage points more than Bachmann's 8 percent -- within the margin of error. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is polling at 4 percent, while, according to the PPP polling, former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer -- who has not participated in most Republican debates -- polled at 2 percent.

For live-blogging about tonight's caucuses, due to begin at 7 p.m. Central Time, be sure to follow here at Poliglot and on Twitter at Metro Weekly and from Chris Geidner.

A day before the Iowa caucuses, The Atlantic's Molly Ball covers the "Santorum surge," writing of former Sen. Rick Santorum:

Santorum, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul appear locked in a tight battle for the top spot on Tuesday. Late polling shows each hovering above 20 percent, within the margin of error. Assuming it's close, it probably matters little who places where, though one would always rather be in first than in third. But for Santorum, who lacks both Romney's air of political privilege and Paul's cultlike following, the attention and validation are especially sweet. They may even be too sweet; his confidence could easily become hubris. Already, he's talking a big game about New Hampshire, where a recently released poll showed him at 3 percent.

Santorum is one of the strongest opponents of LGBT equality in the Republican field, having recently told NBC's Chuck Todd that he believes current same-sex couples who are legally married would have their marriages declared "invalid" if a federal marriage amendment that he supports were to be added to the U.S. Constitution.

Of Santorum's uptick in the polls and what a win would mean for LGBT equality, Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper tells Metro Weekly, "Rick Santorum is not expected to win the Iowa caucus. Further, his views on LGBT Americans are so out of step with most voters that FOX News asked Santorum today if he was out of touch when it came to matters of one's sexual orientation and would such views limit his success."

He added, "Issues that unite voters around a candidate and win a general election are the bread and butter variety relating to economic growth and job creation. Divisive tactics on social issues have a diminishing return and no longer work for the long game."

And GOProud chief strategist Christopher Barron told Metro Weekly, "A Santorum win means nothing for 'LGBT equality.' A Santorum win would be, however, great news for Mitt Romney."

Explaining, he noted, "Santorum has no money and no organization outside of Iowa and won't even appear on the ballot in several states. A win by Santorum will expedite Mitt Romney's path to the nomination, which is good news for Americans -- gay and straight -- living in the failed Obama economy and bad news for this President's re-election chances."

Look for more coverage of the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, Jan. 3, at Metro Weekly.