A local organization today accused Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier of "abdicating" her responsibility to keep transgender people safe, but Lanier retorted that the LGBT community has failed to meet police halfway in their outreach efforts.

The back-and-forth between the DC Trans Coalition and the MPD happened today during an MPD oversight hearing held by the D.C. Council's Judiciary Committee hearing at the Wilson Building.

Jason Terry of the DC Trans Coalition (DCTC), the District's grassroots community organization of transgender and gender non-conforming people and their allies, testified before Councilmember Phil Mendelson's committee over longstanding concerns of the LGBT community, and, in particular, transgender individuals, concerning the MPD's response to and attempts to combat violence against members of the transgender community.

In his testimony, Terry said that the MPD, under Lanier, had "abdicated its responsibility to keep trans people in the District of Columbia safe." Terry addressed a variety of complaints that members of the LGBT community have repeatedly raised over the past few years, including the sufficiency of sensitivity training for Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (GLLU) affiliate officers, the closure rate for murders of transgender victims and the appearance of an inability to regularly track and provide updates on the development of crimes committed against transgender people.

DCTC also on Wednesday submitted a letter to Mayor Vincent Gray (D) regarding these issues and longstanding disagreements with MPD brass, asking Gray to either direct Lanier and other MPD officials to sit down with community activists in the presence of a neutral third party, or to use other mechanisms, such as having complaints of police bias reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

In his testimony, Terry reiterated the four major demands of DCTC: 1) updates on the status of violent crimes involving trans people, including seven unsolved homicides that have occurred within the last decade; 2) the reestablishment of the Biased Policing Task Force, with trans representation; 3) evidence of verifiable discipline taken against officers who violate departmental policy regarding trans people; and 4) a budget and timetable for ensuring all MPD officers receive training on interacting with trans people, using community-informed curriculum, over the next 18 months.

Terry noted that even in the course of providing sensitivity training to affiliate officers, trainees are able to evaluate or criticize the volunteer trainers, but there is no mechanism for trainers to evaluate trainees' performance. He also contrasted what are viewed as positive developments following community engagement of the U.S. Attorney's Office to bring D.C.'s legal system into compliance with the D.C. Human Rights Act's protections based on gender identity and expression with the lack of progress in MPD's engagement and willingness to work with the community over the same period.

Public Policy Polling new polling released today shows Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) having improved in a match-up against her closest possible Senate competitor, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) -- although the changes are within the margin of error and continue to show a nearly tied race between the two.

Baldwin went up two and Thompson down one from the last time PPP polled the race in October 2011 and had Thompson leading 46-44.

PPP, on favorability, however, calls Baldwin "extremely polarizing" with only 3 percent of Republicans viewing her favorably, whereas it says that Thompson's "crossover appeal is not what it once was," with 17 percent of Democrats viewing him favorably.

Tiffany Muller, vice president for political operations at the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said in a statement, "Tammy is talking about the issues most Wisconsin families really care about, so it's no surprise that her message is resonating with Wisconsin voters."

PPP also reports that "Baldwin would be a nominal favorite against either of the other Republican Senate candidates." In its new poll, Baldwin leads former Rep. Mark Neumann (R) 47-41 and state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R) 47-39.

The race comes following the announcement this past year by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) that he would not be seeking re-election.

READ more at PPP.

[Graphic: Two primaries -- in Arizona and Michigan -- are being held on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012. (Illustration by Aram Vartian.)]

Tonight, voters in Michigan and Arizona had a significant say in the selection of this year's Republican presidential nominee -- a say that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's wasn't expecting less than two months ago. Even more surprising is that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was his leading challenger going into the night, having secured more votes in the Iowa caucuses held on Jan. 3 and won several races since.

At the close of the polls, though, all the networks declared Romney the winner in Arizona and Michigan too close to call, down to a race between Santorum and Romney. A little more than an hour later, they called Michigan for Romney as well -- a state where Santorum had been leading recently until the race tightened up in the days before the primary. The outcome in Michigan, nonetheless was close, and Santorum could end up receiving nearly the same, if not more, delegates in the state as Romney.

Santorum attempted to give his speech before the results were called in Michigan, but ended up with all the cable networks calling Michigan for Romney while Santorum was speaking.

Less than 30 minutes later, Ann Romney began introducing her husband, who said from the Romney campaign headquarters in Novi, Michigan, "We didn't win by a lot, but we won by enough and that's all that counts."

The two remaining competitors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Texas Rep. Ron Paul gave their speeches for the evening before polls had closed in Michigan and Arizona -- and from outside of either state. Paul spoke from Virginia, and Gingrich spoke from Georgia.

GOProud co-founder and strategist Christopher Barron wrote before the polls closed, "If Rick Santorum wins tonight, Michigan may forever be known as the place the Republican Party went to die – a political Waterloo."

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said in a statement issued after the races were called, "Mitt Romney's victories in Arizona and Michigan reflect a tightening in the field and rejection of Rick Santorum's extreme views against gays, women and education. It remains unknown the actual delegate count from tonight, but any hopes by Santorum to take the race all the way to Tampa have been greatly diminished. Further, the outcome of two Romney wins tonight will yield greater donor support to the candidate as well as the RNC. Further, expect a greater voter turnout on Super Tuesday."

GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia said in a statement issued after the races were called, "These are big wins for Governor Romney.  Governor Romney continues to show strength all across the country – finishing in a virtual tie for first in Iowa, winning in New Hampshire, finishing second in South Carolina, winning in Florida, winning in Nevada, winning in Maine and now winning in both Arizona and Michigan."   

He added: "Governor Romney's wins tonight are particularly pivotal given the recent surge by former Senator Rick Santorum. It is clear that Governor Romney's message of economic hope and renewal has resonated with voters in both Michigan and Arizona."

[NOTE: This post was updated throughout the evening with the final update at 10:55 p.m.]

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) will not be seeking re-election, meaning the loss of one of the most pro-LGBT equality members of the Senate Republican caucus -- and talk of a possible pick-up for Democrats.

Snowe said in a statement, first reported by The Portland Press Herald, that "this was not an easy decision. My husband and I are in good health... I have no doubt I would have won re-election."

"[W]hat motivates me is producing results for those who have entrusted me to be their voice and their champion, and I am filled with that same sense of responsibility today as I was on my first day in the Maine House of Representatives. I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions," she said.

"Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail."

Snowe is one of the three Senate Republicans -- along with fellow Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R) and Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk (R), who is recovering from a stroke -- to co-sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper called the news a "loss," telling Metro Weekly, "Senator Olympia Snowe was a true statesman throughout her remarkable thirty-four year tenure representing Maine. Log Cabin Republicans are proud to call Senator Snowe longtime ally."

LCR deputy executive director Christian Berle has a personal connection to the senator and the state.

"As a former Snowe staffer and as a Mainer, I am in awe of her exemplary career and her tireless work as a Member of Congress. The Republican Party and the country were better for her service," he told Metro Weekly. "I look forward to seeing the next Olympia Snowe step forward to be a leader for a new generation."

Of her accomplishments regarding LGBT equality, Cooper noted, "She was one of the Republican voices in support of open service and voted for repeal of the failed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.  She also provided an example to her peers in her consistent support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We look forward to continuing the legacy and leadership of Senator Snowe by standing up for what is right."

As referenced by Cooper, Snowe voted for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010. She also voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act with the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009. She is not, however, a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Already being pushed for the seat is pro-LGBT equality House member Chellie Pingree (D), about whom Courage Campaign's Adam Bink said today, on his own behalf and not on behalf of his current organization: "I for one hope Rep. Chellie Pingree runs. I met her in the No On 1 [Maine marriage equality referendum] war room in '09 when she stopped in to wish us well and ask what she could do to help. She's also been a leader in the fight for a health care public option and on campaign finance reform for a long time."

Pingree, according to The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel, said that in coming days she will "consider how I can best serve the people of Maine." The state's other House member, Rep. Mike Michaud (D), is reported by Sun Journal reporter Steve Mistler to have said, "I'm seriously considering entering the race."

Snowe first won election to the Senate in 1994, when she won the seat formerly held by once-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D) after he announced his retirement.

UPDATE @ 7:55P: President Obama, via a statement, praised Snowe's service.

"For nearly four decades, Olympia Snowe has served the people of the great state of Maine. Elected to the state House in 1973, Olympia went on to be the first woman in American history to serve in both houses of a state legislature and both houses of Congress. From her unwavering support for our troops, to her efforts to reform Wall Street, to fighting for Maine's small businesses, Senator Snowe’s career demonstrates how much can be accomplished when leaders from both parties come together to do the right thing for the American people," he said in the statement. "Michelle and I join Mainers in thanking Senator Snowe for her service, and we wish her and her family all the best in the future."

READ Snowe's full statement below the jump.

This past week, in the midst of marriage equality votes in Maryland and a day after the heated back and forth on MSNBC’s Morning Joe between Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart about Christie's marriage equality bill veto – Metro Weekly spoke with MSNBC's Thomas Roberts about his upcoming appearance in D.C. as the emcee at the 20th Servicemembers Legal Defense Network dinner Saturday, March 3.

That interview with the out gay journalist is coming in this week's Metro Weekly on Thursday, March 1, but first, some straight talk – pun totally intended – from Roberts about President Obama, marriage equality, Christie and Capehart, and his colleague Joe Scarborough.

METRO WEEKLY: What do you think about Obama's "evolving" position on marriage equality?

THOMAS ROBERTS: I think "evolving" is an active word. I think that the work the administration has done to declare [the Defense of Marriage Act] to be unconstitutional, to enact this whole repeal in the military of the policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" – I think the handwriting is on the wall for what his evolution means.

MW: The word itself, "evolution," suggests that you are going to a place.

ROBERTS: We're all going somewhere.

MW: Presumably, he's not planning on evolving from supporting civil unions to supporting less.

ROBERTS: I think your question is better suited for President Obama than for me. He could probably explain better what he means by "evolving."

MW: [On Feb. 23], on your network Gov. Chris Christie claimed that he and Obama –

ROBERTS: Oh, God.

MW: Everybody's seen this, he said that he and Obama have the same position, and Jonathan Capehart almost fell over.

ROBERTS: It's not true. I think Jonathan did a great job yesterday in terms of being on our air and providing facts of what the case is. I'm not sure the governor liked that so much, but I think that that’s politics, what’s taking place. A lot of what you’re watching on the air is politics and people jockeying for position and jockeying for re-election or jockeying for where they're going in their own party, and sometimes they forget that they're actually talking about peoples' everyday lives, real people, everyday people are affected by that. Me.

I was watching on the couch at my mother's house in Baltimore, and I was – she said, "Give me your phone, you can't tweet anymore." Because in watching that conversation, I thought, "How interesting is this that here we are in the morning and I'm waking up in my home state of Maryland and they’re having this conversation on my network – and later that day in my home state of Maryland marriage equality passes."

MW: One of the things that I did see on Twitter was somebody saying, "I wonder if Christie has been challenged by an out gay journalist on this before?" – referring to Jonathan's questioning of him. It is an interesting question of whether or not there is a difference when somebody is questioned by an out gay journalist as opposed to it being someone else – and I think that was shown by the way that Joe Scarborough handled it, introducing the topic as a joke about Ron Paul and Mitt Romney not being able to kiss in the state anymore.

ROBERTS: Make out.

MW: Yeah, not being able to make out anymore.

ROBERTS: They were going to make out on the stage the night before – and that leads us into "Well, you can't do that in New Jersey."

MW: And Scarborough added, "Thanks to you, buddy."

ROBERTS: I didn't think it was the brightest of segues to get into a topic that affects so many across this country, that is so serious, that is a basic equality issue about a person's civil rights. And I was glad that Jonathan Capehart was there because I was sitting at home watching that. It's almost like having an all-male panel coming to talk to Congress about contraception, and there wasn't an LGBT voice on that panel that could talk back to Chris Christie. So, I was really proud that Jonathan Capehart was able to be there to raise the level of conversation and debate and represent the facts, but also to be there to ask the questions. But again, as someone who represents the LGBT community.

[Photo: Roberts (Photo by Michael Young.)]

Today, the Department of Justice announced that the lawyer who argued against the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in court this past December, Tony West, was being named to the No. 3 spot at Justice, with out gay DOJ lawyer Stuart Delery being promoted to take West's spot as the head of the Civil Division at DOJ.

In a news release, Attorney General Eric Holder praised the two attorneys, saying, "Tony and Stuart have served the department with professionalism, integrity and dedication, and both bring a wealth of experience to their new positions. I'm confident they will provide invaluable leadership and will play a critical role in furthering the department's key priorities and fulfilling its traditional missions."

West will be the acting associate attorney general, and Delery as acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Division. The Civil Division, according to DOJ, represents the United States, its departments and agencies, members of Congress, Cabinet officers, and other federal employees in any civil or criminal matter within its control. These include cases involving national policies and significant litigation that is "so massive and span[s] so many years that [it] would overwhelm the resources and infrastructure of any individual field office."

According to today's release, Delery came to the Department in January 2009 and had first served as chief of staff and counselor to the deputy attorney general. Later, Delery served as associate deputy attorney general, where he coordinated DOJ's preparation of the federal lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law. Since August 2010, Delery has served as senior counselor to Attorney General Holder, including serving as a member of the DOJ's Affordable Care Act litigation team.

Delery (pictured, left) and his partner, Richard Gervase, are raising two sons, as Metro Weekly reported in 2007. Gervase is a board member of Rainbow Families DC, an organization that supports and connects LGBT parents and prospective parents in the D.C. metropolitan area. Delery, prior to joining the Justice Department in January 2009, had been a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP. At Wilmer Hale, Delery had provided pro bono counsel to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network -- including in a case challenging the constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Cook v. Gates.

In the appeal of that case in 2006, for which Delery served as counsel of record, in arguing why DADT should be found unconstitutional, he wrote of the legal landscape after the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned all sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003:

"In overturning Bowers [v. Hardwick], the Court made clear that all adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in determining how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. Lawrence, moreover, was about more than sex. The decision's language and holding evince a clear concern not only with the privacy of the bedroom, but also more broadly with the equal legal dignity to which gay persons are constitutionally entitled. Taken together with Romer v. Evans, Lawrence means that the government may not demean the lives of gay persons by enacting laws that infringe their fundamental liberties or treat them as a separate, secondary class."

That, more or less, is now the position of the U.S. government, as enunciated by DOJ in several ongoing challenges to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of marriage. Those include a case brought by SLDN in which DOJ recently announced it would not be disputing the DOMA claims and West's argument in December 2011 to a federal trial court that decided this past week that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Then, in arguing that DOMA's federal definition of marriage should not force Karen Golinski -- a federal court employee -- to be denied equal health benefits to cover her wife, West told the court, "What is at issue is whether or not the federal government can use sexual orientation as the basis to grant health benefits to some legally married couples, yet deny them to others."

West, on behalf of DOJ, argued that the federal government cannot.

West will take on his new role upon the departure of Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, at which time Delery will take West's role.

[Photo: Delery (Photo via Findlaw.)]

During his 88th birthday celebration this past Saturday, Feb. 25, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe said "to hell with" British Prime Minister David Cameron over comments Cameron made at the October 2011 Commonwealth summit linking British foreign aid to the gay human rights records of recipient countries like Zimbabwe.

Mugabe's remarks come on the heels of a new constitutional draft just released by the country's parliamentary select committee co-chairmen last month. The draft contained no provisions to protect gay and lesbian rights, despite calls to do so from Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai this last October.

Though the committee is currently discussing sexual identity discrimination, the inclusion of protections in the final constitution seems unlikely as legislators say more voices oppose such measures rather than support them.

During his political opposition rallies last October, Tsvangirai criticized the Mugabe-led Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front for pursuing "issues which are not useful which do not bring bread and butter to the table." The country continues reeling from an economic and food crisis caused by governmental price controls and land confiscations as well as a nationwide drought and HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Zimbabwe currently outlaws same-sex acts and subjects gays and lesbians to incessant police harassment in form of arbitrary arrests, beatings, and even assassinations. African LGBT blog Behind the Mask has said that "Western pressure has even galvanized anti-gay sentiment in some areas" such as Zimbabwe, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda.

Mugabe, who has called gay people lower than pigs and instated violent punishments for his country's gay citizens, said during his birthday:

"We won't accept [gay rights in our charter]. There are other countries who have accepted that and put it in their constitutions. Please, young men and women, you don't have the freedom for men to marry men and women to marry women. You have the freedom for men to marry women. That's God's freedom. That's what created you and me."

But despite Mugabe's political hostility, a United Kingdom immigration court recently ruled against a Zimbabwean lesbian seeking asylum for her sexual identity, because: "the Gays and Lesbians Association of Zimbabwe (GALZ) which told a UK Border Agency fact finding mission that Zimbabwe is "not the worst place in the world to be gay or lesbian even though the President, government officials and church leaders have whipped up a climate of hysterical homophobia."

Zimbabwe's first-ever contestant for Mr. Gay World, Taurai Zhanje (pictured), also withdrew from the upcoming April competition citing "personal reasons" after receiving verbal attacks from his local community for participating in the international gay pageant.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission will soon release a study about discrimination against women based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The bill hasn't been signed yet, but opponents seeking to overturn Maryland's recently-passed marriage equality bill are already organizing in preparation for an expected referendum.

The marriage equality bill, scheduled to be signed into law by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) on Mar. 1, passed the Maryland Senate by a 25-22 vote one week after passing the House of Delegates by a similarly narrow 72-67 margin. Once signed, the bill would make Maryland the eighth state and ninth jurisdiction, including the District of Columbia, to recognize same-sex marriages.

In response, the Maryland Marriage Alliance, the chief organization opposing the bill, has asked supporters to request a petition to sign to force the measure onto the ballot. Their website states that petitions will be available in a few days. Other groups supporting a referendum to overturn the law include the Maryland Catholic Conference and a number of Maryland churches that oppose same-sex unions.

According to the Maryland State Board of Elections, for a referendum on a statewide law, those wishing to place it on the ballot must collect a number of signatures equal to 3 percent of the votes cast for governor in the preceding gubernatorial election by July 1. For 2012, that number is 55,736 signatures. Not more than half of all signatures may be from any one county or Baltimore City. Proponents of a referendum must submit more than one-third of the total number of signatures, or 18,579, by June 1.

Marylanders for Marriage Equality, a coalition comprised of community, religious and civic groups that support the marriage equality law, has also announced they will be organizing an educational and engagement campaign to convince voters to support the law at the ballot box. Both supporters and opponents of marriage equality are expected to spend millions of dollars on a referendum campaign.

A recent Washington Post poll released in January showed that 50 percent of Marylanders support the idea of same-sex couples obtaining a civil marriage license, with 44 percent opposed.

Despite that, on the referendum backers' site, they state, "Against the will of the overwhelming majority of the people of Maryland, the Legislature has voted to legalize same sex marriage. But the people of Maryland will have the final say on marriage as we have the right to referendum. Maryland Marriage Alliance has already filed to be the Official Referendum Proponents to allow the people to vote and restore marriage in Maryland."

Sultan Shakir, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, countered the Maryland Marriage Alliance's comments, saying in an statement, "We're fortunate to be riding a huge wave of momentum as we enter the referendum process. There is still a lot of work to do over the coming months, but we think voters will ultimately agree that all children, no matter who their parents are, should be protected under the law. Marriage equality is about building strong, stable families."

In a brief filing today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has announced that it is appealing this week's decision in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management finding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

The appeal sends the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which recently struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional under limited grounds.

According to today's filing:

Notice is hereby given that Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (the "House"), through counsel, respectfully appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the District Court's February 22, 2012 Order and final Judgment, both insofar as they grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the House's motion to dismiss.

The statutory basis for this appeal is 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The House hereby notifies the Clerk of Court pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 3-1 that it is exempt from submitting the filing fee for this appeal.

The filing also notes, "The Democratic Leader and the Democratic Whip decline to support the filing of this notice of appeal."

Golinski is represented in the challenge, in which she is seeking equal health benefits for her wife, by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White found on Feb. 22 that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to prevent Golinski from receiving equal benefits for her wife, violates Golinski's equal protection guarantee under the U.S. Constitution.

BLAG has retained outside counsel, led by Paul Clement at Bancroft PLLC, to represent it in the case, which it took up following the decision by the Department of Justice and President Obama to stop defending legal challenges to Section 3 of DOMA. DOJ has taken Golinski's side in this challenge, arguing that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Lambda Legal attorney Tara Borelli said in a statement, "We are confident Judge White's thorough and well-reasoned decision will stand the test of time. However they may recycle their failed arguments on appeal, the one thing we know is: DOMA is doomed, and efforts to extend this discriminatory law, while not unexpected, serve only to harm loving couples and families."

In a statement issued this afternoon, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said, "The District Court in Northern District of California flatly rejected the arguments of Speaker Boehner and his taxpayer-funded lawyers that insulted millions of Americans and their families. The court made it clear that there is no legitimate interest in denying a class of couples the rights and responsibilities guaranteed to married couples under state law."

Referencing Pelosi and other Democrats' stated concerns about the cost of supporting the GOP's defense, Hammill added, "Over the past year, the initial $500,000 in outside legal fees Speaker Boehner plans to spend has tripled to $1.5 million without any vote of the BLAG. That is a tremendous amount of taxpayer money expended, on a purely partisan basis, to defend discrimination. With progress on marriage equality coming from all corners of our country, Speaker Boehner would have been better served and saved taxpayers' money if he had more carefully reviewed the district court's ruling and had declined to file a notice of appeal."

A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on today's filing.

The Ninth Circuit has received the notice of appeal, and has docketed the case as Karen Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management et al., 12-15388.

READ the filing: Golinski-BLAG-NOA.pdf

The Maryland Senate passed HB 438, a bill legalizing marriage equality in the Free State, by a 25-22 margin after its third reading Thursday afternoon, sending the measure to Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) for his signature into law.

O'Malley, who has made the bill part of his 2012 legislative agenda, has vowed to sign the bill. Opponents have vowed to collect the more than 55,000 signatures needed for a referendum seeking to overturn the law, which would be placed on the 2012 ballot.

Legislative opponents had tried earlier Thursday morning to amend the bill, which would have forced it back to the House of Delegates for a second vote. The House previously passed the bill, 72-67, on Friday, Feb. 17.

When the Senate resumed its session at 4 p.m. Thursday, opponents continued offering amendments, including one that would have created a wider "conscience" exemption, which prompted Sen. David Brinkley (R-Frederick, Carroll counties) to launch into a filibuster where he read aloud a letter from a constituent claiming to be a constitutional lawyer detailing all the legal problems that could result from legalizing same-sex marriages. The letter echoed testimony that had been heard in January and February hearings held by both House and Senate committees.

Pro-LGBT rights group Equality Maryland later tweeted from that the letter was from Robin Fretwell Wilson, saying Wilson "claims neutrality, but only reps for anti-equality." The amendment in question failed, 17-30.

At one point, a vote on the full bill was taken, but was struck from the record when Sen. Edward Reilly (R-Anne Arundel Co.) asked to speak on the full bill by reading a letter from constitutional law scholars and professors at the University of Virginia who allegedly support same-sex marriage legislation, but have reservations about its legal ramifications. After several other filibusters by opponents, and several impassioned speeches by supporters of the bill, the measure finally passed.

In a statement, Sultan Shakir, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said, "We're fortunate to be riding a huge wave of momentum as we enter the referendum process. There is still a lot of work to do over the coming months, but we think voters will ultimately agree that all children, no matter who their parents are, should be protected under the law. Marriage equality is about building strong, stable families."

[Photo: The Maryland Senate vote board. (Photo courtesy of Equality Maryland via Twitter.)]

The Maryland Senate resumed debate today concerning amendments to HB 438, a bill to legalize marriage equality, just a day after opponents were able to postpone debate by having the bill laid over for one day.

In total, six amendments were offered and all were rejected. The Senate has currently adjourned until 4 p.m., when the body will consider the bill for a third time, after which a final vote is expected.

Senate Minority Whip Edward Reilly (R-Anne Arundel Co.), who had requested the lay over, had offered an amendment on Feb. 22 to change the effective date of the bill from Jan. 1, 2013 to Oct. 1, 2012. The bill's date had been changed to January in the House of Delegates to ensure narrow passage by a 72-67 margin in that chamber, specifically from Dels. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's Co.) and A. Wade Kach (R-Carroll, Baltimore counties). Reilly later withdrew his amendment changing the date.

Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's Co.) offered an amendment to change the bill's title from the "Civil Marriage Protection Act" to the "Marriage Redefinition Act." That amendment was defeated, 17-30, after Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery Co., pictured), speaking on behalf of the bill's supporters, objected to the title change.

Muse also offered a second amendment to the bill that would specifically not compel a religious institution or organization to provide services related to the solemnization, celebration or recognition of a same-sex marriage that violates the institution’s beliefs. The bill currently only says that it is not compelled to provide services related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Muse's second amendment also was rejected, 17-30.

A year ago today, the announcement about the Defense of Marriage Act came by way of a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation," Holder wrote, "the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

Three hundred and sixty four days later, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White agreed.

White -- who has served as a federal judge for the past decade after being nominated by then-President George W. Bush in 2002 -- issued his order and opinion finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in a case brought by Karen Golinski, a federal court employee seeking equal health insurance coverage for her wife.

The case, although not at issue in the initial Holder letter, has become a touchstone of sorts for the ongoing developments about the way the government is dealing with the 1996 law.

When Holder announced his and President Obama's decision, Boehner soon took action to defend the law. Convening the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- a five-member body of House leaders controlled by the Republican majority -- the body authorized the House counsel to defend the federal definition of marriage in ongoing challenges, including Golinski's case, in which she is represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

On July 1, 2011, the arguments sketched out in Holder's six-page letter were expanded to a 31-page filing in Golinski's case that laid out, in expansive terms, the U.S. government's "significant and regrettable role" in discrimination in America against gays and lesbians.

The filing did more than simply acknowledge the federal government's role in discrimination, it explained precisely what the federal government had done. Detailing specific instances of anti-gay and anti-lesbian discrimination, the brief described the 1950 Senate resolution seeking an "investigation" into "homosexuals and other sexual perverts" in government employment and President Dwight Eisenhower's executive order adding "sexual perversion" as a ground for "possible dismissal from government service." It also went on to detail the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Service in investigations seeking information about government employees suspected of such "perversion."

When oral arguments were held on Dec. 16, 2011, on the arguments advanced by Golinski, the Department of Justice and BLAG in her case, DOJ sent the head of the civil division, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, to argue its position. It was, a DOJ spokesperson said at the time, only the second time that West appeared in court as assistant attorney general to argue a case.

Speaking to White, West said at the hearing that "Congress gets to draw the lines [of which benefits it wants to give], but it can't draw those lines in a way that is arbitrary or discriminatory and disfavors a group which may be unpopular, which is what's happening with here with the Defense of Marriage Act."

West told White: "I think the question is squarely whether the federal government can use this classification to make determinations amongst otherwise similarly-situated legally married couples."

Acknowledging the couple's legal status, West said, "Ms. Golinski and her wife are already married. So, the only question is whether or not the federal government has a good reason to be able to make these distinctions, to draw these lines.

"And, we think the federal government does not," he concluded, according to the transcript of the hearing.

Less than 10 weeks later, White issued his opinion.

Addressing the arguments made in Golinski's case by BLAG, White wrote, "BLAG argues, but does not explain how denying marriage benefits only to same-sex couples will somehow make marriage between opposite-sex couples better. The proffered justification may derive from strongly-held religious or fundamentally traditional beliefs, but still does not provide a legally recognizable rational basis for sustaining a law that actively discriminates against legally married couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages."

Accordingly, as Holder told Boehner a year ago today, White concluded that exclusion of same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

"In this matter," White wrote, "the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse."

[Image: Screen capture of the Republican presidential debate on Feb. 22, 2012.]

The Republican presidential debate in Arizona on Wednesday night, Feb. 22, featured no direct mention of LGBT issues -- and one very coded reference by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R).

In the course of giving an answer about what he meant when he said he was "severely conservative" earlier in the campaign, Romney gave several red-meat conservative answers -- from abortion to immigration to adoption by gay couples.

However, when talking about adoption services that used to be offered by Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, he referred to placement in "homes where there was a mom and a dad on a preferential basis," avoiding any direct mention of the issue that Catholic Charities had: adoptions by same-sex couples.

In fact, the reference was so subtle, that The New York Times didn't even bother to mention it in the sentence that referenced the other two parts of Romney's answer in Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg's write-up of the debate:

Mr. Romney, who has struggled to win the trust of party activists, is under intense pressure to prove his conservative bona fides. He was asked about a recent statement that he was “severely conservative” when he was governor. He defined his meaning as “strict,” saying he empowered state police to enforce immigration laws, pushed English language immersion programs and “stood up and said I would stand on the side of life."

Of course, with even former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum saying that same-sex couples raising children are a family, maybe Romney wasn't sure how clearly he wanted to lay out that line of attack.

Romney had brought up the issue in a previous debate, incorrectly then relating the decision of Catholic Charities to stopping adoption services in the state to marriage equality there when it actually -- as Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders has detailed -- related to enforcement of the state's longstanding nondiscrimination law that previously had gone unchallenged by Catholic Charities.

This time, perhaps wanting to avoid misstating the facts, Romney didn't say the decision directly related to marriage equality, but he said that Catholic Charities "had to get out of that business" of providing adoption services -- which is only true insofar as they had to get "out of that business" if they wanted to stop following a law that they had been following without objection for more than a decade at the time that the Catholic bishops in the state raised the issue.

That vague mention, nonetheless, was as close as the candidates got to discussing LGBT issues on Wednesday night.

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued its order finding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- the federal definition of marriage -- is unconstitutional in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Karen Golinski's challenge to the denial of her request for equal health insurance benefits for her wife.

Golinski, a federal court employee, brought suit after her request was denied. She is represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Because President Obama and the Department of Justice have stopped defending Section 3 of DOMA in court challenges, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- led by House Republican leadership -- had opposed Golinski's request in court.

In part, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White today found that Section 3 of DOMA violates the equal protection rights of Golinski, finding that heightened scrutiny applies -- as urged by the DOJ -- and noting that it might not even pass rational basis -- the lowest -- legal scrutiny:

The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski.

Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review.

Later, he wrote:

The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

Finally:

The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage:

Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.

Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

In conclusion, White, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, finds and orders:

In this matter, the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse.

Accordingly, the Court issues a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, and those acting at their direction or on their behalf, from interfering with the enrollment of Ms. Golinski's wife in her family health benefits plan.

On July 8, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro reached similar decisions about the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States. Those cases are on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In a statement, Lambda Legal celebrated today's ruling.

"This ruling, the first to come after the Justice Department announced it would no longer defend this discriminatory statute in court, spells doom for DOMA," Tara Borelli, the lead Lambda Legal attorney on the case, said. "The Court recognized the clear fact that a law that denies one class of individuals the rights and benefits available to all others because of their sexual orientation violates the constitutional guarantee of equality embodied in the Fifth Amendment."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took aim at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the Republican leadership in a statement, saying, "In rejecting the arguments of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the court's ruling also reaffirmed a core belief of the majority of House Democrats: that the House is not united in this case; that the BLAG lawyers do not speak for Congress; and that BLAG's intervention remains a waste of taxpayer resources."

She continued: "The court made it clear that there is no legitimate federal interest in denying married gay and lesbian couples the legal security, rights, and responsibilities guaranteed to all married couples under state law."

A spokesman for Boehner did not immediately respond to a request from Metro Weekly for comment.

READ the ruling: GolinskiVOPM.pdf

This past week, Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) held a hearing titled, "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" in which religious figures spoke out against the federal mandate requiring health insurers to provide full contraception coverage for employees of religious-owned businesses.

During the two-day panel (which largely excluded women), Reverend William E. Lori represented the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group that has spearheaded a nationwide, election-year effort along with the Southern Baptist Convention and National Association of Evangelicals to oppose birth control, abortion, adoption by same-sex couples and marriage equality as government intrusions on constitutionally-protected religious freedoms.

Reuters contributor Stephanie Simon recently reported that the Conference-led group will employ a D.C. lobbyist with a history of litigating religious liberty cases; TV, radio and social media marketing; and pastors and priests willing to speak from the pulpit to help build public opposition to such laws.

In recent years, Catholic-led adoption agencies in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., have faced questions about their continued operation because of requirements that they provide equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation. In Illinois, several Catholic bishops called the cut in taxpayer funds there "a war on religion." 

But Cardozo School of Law constitutional scholar Marci Hamilton says that "religious freedom must take a back seat to secular laws ... when religious institution[s accept] taxpayer money to do [public] work."

Simon also notes that "the wider theme of defending individual freedoms against government intrusion ... is expected to play prominently in the November election."

Indeed, the call for protections of religious conscience has grown over the years amid such cases as the ones involving Lisa Miller, the ex-gay woman who kidnapped her lesbian ex's daughter; Julea Ward, the evangelical Christian counseling student kicked out of her graduate program for refusing to counsel gay patients about their relationships; and the United Methodist-affiliated Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association found guilty of violating state public accommodations laws after denying a lesbian couple use of their facility.

However, Simon adds that NARAL Pro-Choice America and the 30 member organizations of the Coalition to Protect Women's Health Care have already started counter-opposition in the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Wisconsin.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll issued last week showed 58 percent of all American Catholics support the federal policy requiring mandatory contraceptive coverage. During his piece on Issa's hearing, National Public Radio's Rob Stein mentioned the concern that church-supported religious exemptions could allow health care workers to refuse care in any situation to which they morally object.

The Maryland Senate has postponed debate over a bill to bring marriage equality to the Free State, allowing opponents extra time to determine a strategy and draft amendments to the bill in hopes of postponing its passage in the upper chamber.

The bill, HB 438, passed the House of Delegates on a narrow 72-67 vote last Friday and passed out of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Tuesday by a margin of 7-4. All three Republicans on the committee, and Sen. Norman Stone, Jr. (D-Baltimore Co.), a longtime opponent of marriage equality, voted against the bill.

Senate Minority Whip Edward Reilly (R-Anne Arundel Co.) offered an amendment that would change the date when the bill takes effect from Jan. 1, 2013 to October 1, 2012. If such a change was adopted, it would force the bill, once passed by the Senate, to go back to the House. 

The bill's advocates would rather avoid a second House vote because of the close margin of victory, as well as fears that they might lose delegates on the issue. Two delegates, A. Wade Kach (R-Carroll, Baltimore counties) and Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's Co.) voted in favor of it after amendments were adopted changing the effective date to Jan. 1, 2013; making the bill not severable, meaning if one part is found unconstitutional, the whole bill will be found to be; and preventing any same-sex marriages from occurring before litigation surrounding the referendum process has concluded.

Reilly also asked Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George’s counties) to "lay over" the bill by delaying debate until Thursday. Under the rules of the Maryland Senate, a senator may make a motion to postpone the consideration of a bill with pending amendments for one day or one hour, but only one senator can ask the bill to be laid over one time. Miller agreed to allow the bill to be laid over until Thursday, Feb. 23.

The delay allows opponents of the bill to regroup and consider a strategy by which they would offer multiple amendments in an attempt to derail the bill or make its progress through the legislature more difficult. But Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery Co.), the state's only openly gay senator, told Metro Weekly on Tuesday that such procedural moves were expected from opponents.

However, Madaleno said he was confident supporters of the bill would be able to defeat the amendments and pass the measure by the end of the week. No senator who voted for last year's marriage equality bill, which passed 25-21, has indicated they are considering switching their vote, meaning eventual passage is expected. If passed by the Senate, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has vowed to sign it into law.

The proponents of Proposition 8 have filed the necessary paperwork today asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the three-judge panel's decision on Feb. 7 in Perry v. Brown that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The lead attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8 told Metro Weekly earlier today that they would be filing such a motion. After the judges receiving a full briefing from the parties as to whether the matter should be reheard, all active circuit judges will vote as to whether an en banc rehearing should be held.

If a majority vote in the affirmative, the chief judge of the circuit, Alex Kozinski, and 10 other randomly selected circuit judges will hear the appeal.

The move almost guarantees that the U.S. Supreme Court will not consider the case before this November's presidential election.

In the summary of the argument filed today seeking en banc review, the lawyers for the proponents state:

The panel majority erred in breaking with the uniform and binding precedent upholding the constitutionality of laws adopting the traditional definition of marriage, and the Court, sitting en banc, should rehear this profoundly important case.

The primary argument brought forth by the proponents in today's filing is that Romer v. Evans, the case used by the three-judge panel to hold that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, was misapplied here.

The panel majority concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans directly "governs" and "controls" this case because it struck down a "remarkably similar" constitutional amendment—Colorado's Amendment 2. This conclusion, however, rests on a patently implausible reading of Romer.

Specifically, the proponents argue that the "root of the panel majority's error" was its determination that the timing of the enactment of the provisions -- Amendment 2 in Colorado and Proposition 8 in California -- was relevant to the provisions' constitutionality. The panel opinion found it relevant that the ability of same-sex couples to marry in California was taken away by the enactment of Proposition 8. Of that, today the proponents argue:

[I]n declaring a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court not only overturned the statutory will of the People in Proposition 22, it also refused to defer its decision until the constitutional will of the People could be expressed on Proposition 8 at the ballot. And that decision, according to the panel majority in this case, rendered the will of the People irrelevant in any event; for once the California Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the People of California were powerless, as a matter of federal constitutional law, to exercise their reserved right to [amend their state constitution.]

Then, the proponents argue: "Putting aside the red herring of its timing, it is plain that Proposition 8 differs sharply from Amendment 2 in every material respect." Writing about the narrow scope of Proposition 8, the lawyers for the proponents write:

The panel majority, however, turns Proposition 8's virtue into its vice, reasoning that its narrowness "makes it even more suspect" than Amendment 2. This assertion simply cannot be reconciled with Romer. A critical part of the Romer Court's reasoning was that Amendment 2's "sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects."

Later they add: "Proposition 8 does not single out a 'named class' for disparate treatment. Rather, it simply preserves the definition of marriage that has prevailed throughout human history."

In a streak of populism, the proponents state, "To its credit, the panel was unwilling to join the Plaintiffs and the district court in defaming the People of California by attributing their support for traditional marriage to "a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group,'" one of the holdings of the Supreme Court about Amendment 2 in Romer.

The proponents' lawyers go on to address how they view the panel opinion as ignoring certain Supreme Court precedent that they view as contrary to the Feb. 7 decision, including rulings on whether states' decisions to "do 'more' than the Fourteenth Amendment requires" can later be rescinded and whether the "traditional definition of marriage" as between one man and one woman is constitutional.

Additionally, the proponents argue that the panel, like U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker below, was wrong to find that Proposition 8 lacked a rational basis -- from "responsible procreation" or "childbearing" to "proceeding cautiously when considering a fundamental change to the very definition of a vitally important social institution."

Finally, the proponents continued their quest to have Walker's trial court decision vacated because, as they argue today:

Unbeknownst to the parties, at all times while presiding over and entering judgment in this case, former Judge Walker, like Plaintiffs, was a "resident[] of California ... involved in [a] long-term ... relationship with [an] individual[] of the same sex."

They argue: "Judge Walker effectively conferred upon himself and his partner the right to marry."

Other parties now will have time to respond to today's filing.

READ the proponents' filing: ProponentsEnBanc.pdf

The Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted largely along party lines Tuesday, Feb. 21, in favor of HB 438 (pdf), a bill to legalize marriage equality. The bill, supported by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), is now expected to go before the full Senate for a vote on Wednesday, Feb. 22.

Seven of the eight Democrats on the committee, including Chairman Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery Co.) and Vice-Chair Lisa Gladden (D-Baltimore City), voted to approve the bill. All three Republicans on the committee and Sen. Norman Stone, Jr. (D-Baltimore Co.) voted against the measure. No amendments to the bill were adopted by the committee.

The committee's actions come just four days after the House of Delegates narrowly passed the bill on a 72-67 vote after adopting two amendments, including one by Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's Co.) that prevents any same-sex marriages from occurring before litigation surrounding the referendum process has concluded. The other amendment, by Del. A. Wade Kach (R-Carroll, Baltimore Cos.) makes the bill take effect on Jan. 1, 2013, rather than on Oct. 1, 2012, as the legislation originally proposed.

Out gay Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery Co.), a strong supporter of marriage equality, tweeted that the bill would come to the Senate floor for a full vote Wednesday, where passage is expected. Opponents have vowed to seek a referendum placing the measure on the ballot during the 2012 presidential election in hopes of repealing it.

Last year, a marriage equality bill passed the full Senate, 25-21, but was sent back to committee after proponents realized they did not have enough votes to pass it in the House. This year, bolstered by support from and intense lobbying of legislators by O'Malley, who has made its passage part of his 2012 legislative agenda, the bill was able to garner the votes necessary for passage. No senators who voted in favor of last year's bill have indicated they are considering switching their votes.

Following passage by the committee, the pro-equality coalition, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, released a statement praising the vote.

"We're grateful to the members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee -- particularly chairman Brian Frosh -- who today approved the Civil Marriage Protection Act," said Ezekiel Jackson, political organizer of 1199 SEIU, one of the member groups of the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition. "Members who support the bill understand that this is about making all Maryland families stronger -- that it's about protecting them equally under the law while preserving cherished religious freedoms."

Equality Maryland, another organization in the coalition, noted in a tweet that Stone, who voted against last year's bill in committee and on the floor, was one of seven senators, all Democrats, who voted against repealing a Maryland state law that had banned interracial marriage in 1967.

[UPDATE: The specifics of House amendments were clarified.]

Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8, tells Metro Weekly that the proponents of the California marriage amendment will be asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review the three-judge panel decision issued on Feb. 7 holding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

[UPDATE @ 7P: READ Metro Weekly's report on today's filing, "Prop 8 Proponents: Ninth Circuit Was Wrong, Should Reconsider Case."]

Although Cooper, of Cooper and Kirk PLLC, told Metro Weekly the filing has not yet been made, the filing is expected later today as today is the deadline for the filing to seek en banc review.

The move almost guarantees that the U.S. Supreme Court will not consider the case before this November's presidential election.

Usually, en banc review involves all of the active judges on the court, but the Ninth Circuit -- due to the more than 20 active judges on the circuit -- has adopted a unique "limited en banc" procedure in which all the active Ninth Circuit judges vote whether en banc consideration will be given but only 11 judges hear the en banc consideration. That will be the request made by today's filing by the proponents.

If a majority of the court's judges support en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal, which can involve briefing and oral arguments.

After that decision is reached, theoretically, a party dissatisfied with an en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit can ask for the entire panel of Ninth Circuit judges to review the en banc panel's decision, but the court has not agreed to do so since adopting the "limited en banc" procedure.

After en banc consideration, the unsuccessful party could then petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. At that point, the parties submit written arguments explaining to the court why the justices should or should not hear the case. Then, if four of the nine justices agree to hear the case, another round of briefing occurs, with the parties and outside organizations and individuals arguing the merits of the case to the justices. Oral arguments are then set and held at the Supreme Court, and some time later a decision is handed down.

[Image, above: Screen shot from ABC News's This Week on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2012. Image, below: Gibbs.]

The question of whether marriage equality will be a part of the Democratic Party platform this year was placed to the Obama campaign squarely today. The response: "I don't know."

ABC News's Jake Tapper, guest hosting This Week, today asked former White House press secretary for President Obama and senior campaign advisor Robert Gibbs the question. Citing Metro Weekly's exclusive report about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)'s support for the plank's inclusion, Tapper asked whether, in the context of Obama's "evolving" thoughts on marriage equality, the platform would include such a plank.

Gibbs: "I don't know the answer to that."

In answering, he said that he hadn't spoken with Obama on the issue and focused in on opposing employment discrimination, but he said, more broadly, that people shouldn't be judged based on their sexual orientation when "applying for a job or doing anything."

Left unstated is whether "getting married" is a part of Gibbs's "anything."

The exchange was at the end of the interview before a commercial break, so Tapper had no chance to ask a follow-up question right then and there.

The full platform plank, proposed on Feb. 13 by Freedom to Marry, states: "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples."

Since Pelosi's announcement, made in response to a question asked about the plank by Metro Weekly, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus also announced their support for the plank.

The platform -- a detailed statement of the party's positions that will be finalized at the Democratic National Convention to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina, this September -- has never included language in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Obama, opposed marriage equality in the 2008 campaign. He said in December 2010, as referenced today by Tapper, that his position on marriage equality was "evolving" but that he still "struggle[s]" with it. Obama's current White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said this past week of Obama's position, "You know his position, where it stands now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don't have much to add on that."

Obama currently supports much of the Freedom to Marry plank language -- outside of the marriage equality language itself. He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and, as Carney and Gibbs have said repeatedly, opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples" such as California's Proposition 8.

Gibbs's response to Tapper today marks the first on-the-record response from the Obama campaign on the issue of the platform plank. Metro Weekly had made several requests previously for comment about the platform plank to the campaign.

READ the exchange between Tapper and Gibbs:

TAPPER: Very quickly -- we have about 20 seconds left -- Nancy Pelosi came out and said she supports a plank in the Democratic Party's official platform that would say, quote, "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation with equal respect, responsibilities and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry."

I know the president says he's, quote, unquote, "still evolving" on this issue. Will there be a same-sex marriage plank in the Democratic Party platform this summer?

GIBBS: Jake, I don't know the answer to that. And I don't know -- I haven't talked to the president at all recently on this issue.

I think we all look to and want to live in a world where, if you're applying for a job or doing anything, you're not judged on your sexual orientation. You shouldn't be. And I think living in a society where that doesn't happen is a society we all want to live.

WATCH the exchange (at 7:50 in the interview):

The Phoenix New Times published an article dated Feb. 16 detailing a relationship gone sour between conservative Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu (R), who is running for Congress in Arizona's 4th District and has made a name for himself as what the article calls an immigration hawk, and an immigrant from Mexico, who the article claims Babeu threatened with deportation because the man threatened to reveal the soured relationship. 

[UPDATE @ 2:50P: At a news conference held today to address the allegations, Babeu denied the allegegation about the threat -- and came out.

He said, "All these allegations ... are absolutely completely false ... except for the issues that refer to me as being gay, because I am gay."

Later in the news conference, he said, "At no time did I or anyone who represents me threaten deportation."

He says that he, on the other hand, has faced threats of being outed back for 20 years, including while in the military. "It's almost as if there is a relief today ... to not be threatened," he said.

Babeu's chief deputy sheriff calls the matter of him being gay "not very important," and he adds, "I'm proud that this man is my sheriff." 

Several other members of the sheriff's office and community members also spoke at the news conference in support of Babeu, with many noting that Babeu's sexual orientation was unimportant to them.]

From the New Times article:

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu — who became the face of Arizona border security nationally after he started stridently opposing illegal immigration — threatened his Mexican ex-lover with deportation when the man refused to promise never to disclose their years-long relationship, the former boyfriend and his lawyer tell New Times.

Today, the Arizona Republic followed up on the New Times piece, in which Babeu denied that he threatened the man identified as Jose but acknowledged that they knew each other and the sheriff "had seen [Jose] on a personal level." Asked to expand, he said:

"My personal life is exactly that."

The New Times article reported that Babeu had maintained an adam4adam profile while dating Jose, which led to Jose setting up a fake profile to determine that Babeu was cheating on him. The article reports that the two had first met years ago on gay.com and that Jose later worked on the web site and similar web-based aspects in Babeu's campaigns.

The article notes, "Babeu's presence on the national stage reached a new high in May 2010, when he was featured in U.S. Senator John McCain's 'complete the danged fence' TV ad. Babeu's inclusion was meant to bolster the senator's credibility on border security during a heated Republican primary race against former Congressman J.D. Hayworth."

Notably, the story could reach beyond Babeu. On the last page of the extensive article, it details a connection between Babeu and out gay state Rep. Matt Heinz (D), who recently announced that he was going to run for the U.S. House seat from which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) resigned.

The New Times reports:

Openly gay Tucson state Representative Matt Heinz was one of two Democratic lawmakers who broke ranks with the party in March 2011 and voted to give Babeu $5 million to combat border violence. Other lawmakers opposed the measure, in part, because Babeu's county is at least 70 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. The measure finally was pared down to $1.7 million and passed by the Legislature.

About a week after Heinz's nod to Babeu, the sheriff spent the night at Heinz's home, text messages that Jose shared with New Times show.

"I'm at Mat Heinz and his boyfriend for dinner & ice cream . . . we are going out to bar and . . . to their house. [Am] staying over," Babeu texted to Jose at 1:04 a.m. last April 2.

UPDATE @ 2:20P: Talking Points Memo reports that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign released a statement announcing that Babeu "has stepped down from his volunteer position with the campaign so he can focus on the allegations against him."

UPDATE @ 6P: Watch Babeu's news conference: 

Sheriff Paul Babeu Press Conference from Paul Babeu on Vimeo.

[Photo: Screen capture of Babeu at today's news conference.]

WATCH Babeu defending Arizona's anti-immigrant bill, S.B. 1070, at CPAC this past week:

By Justin Snow, reporting from Annapolis.

Gathering in the hall outside the chamber of the Maryland House of Delegates, supporters of marriage equality beamed with excitement on Friday evening. After nearly two hours of debate, the Maryland House of Delegates voted 72-67 to pass the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012, all but ensuring the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Free State.

It was a major achievement for supporters, who faced disappointment last year when similar legislation was sent back to committee after extensive debate on the House floor. At the time, supporters believed they were only two or three votes shy of the 71 needed for passage.

Choking back tears, Carrie Evans, the executive director of the leading LGBT equality organization in the state, Equality Maryland, said it was hard not to become emotional thinking about how hard everyone had worked. Evans became executive director last fall and has been in Annapolis daily lobbying legislators for their votes.

Evans said she expects quick passage of the bill in the state Senate as soon as next week. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Md.) has vowed to sign the legislation when it reaches his desk.

O'Malley made a similar vow last year, but took a much more hands-on approach this year, making the bill one of his key legislative priorities and placing his chief legislative officer, Joseph Bryce, in a lead role in the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition.

Sultan Shakir, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition, said in a statement, "Today's vote is a huge step forward for all of us working to make marriage equality a reality in Maryland. There's a lot of work left to do, but momentum continues to grow -- and quickly."

Part of that work involves the likely referendum effort that would follow O'Malley's promised signing of the bill, should the Senate pass it. Opponents have vowed a referendum on the legislation and likely will have little trouble securing the more than 50,000 signatures necessary to place the issue before voters on the 2012 ballot. Both sides have anticipated a multi-million dollar campaign to ensue if the referendum is on the ballot.

This night, however, was about celebrating a job well done.

Speaking to reporters after the session, O'Malley said that the issue was about the dignity of every citizen.

"Our leaders that we elect are moving us forward as one people with care for one another, with love for one another, with understanding and respect for one another," he said.

On Twitter, O'Malley wrote, "Today, the House of Delegates voted for human dignity. Love is an unalienable right. At its heart, their votes were votes for Maryland's children."

Looking forward, he added: "Now, as the Senate prepares to vote, all of us are needed & we're prepared to redouble our efforts."

O'Malley was joined outside the chamber by House Speaker Michael Busch (D- Anne Arundel), who has presided over the House for nearly a decade and played an integral role in the bill's passage.

"To be a part of this historic event is significant," an emotional Busch said. "This is the right thing to do," he added, "I'm convinced in my heart."

The bill's passage in the House came after a relatively civil debate. Although Democrats remained divided on the issue, with those representing largely religious African-American districts in Prince George’s County and Baltimore City voting against the bill, two Republican delegates -- Bob Costa (R-Anne Arundel) and Wade Kach (R-Baltimore County) -- broke with their party to vote in favor.

One Democrat who changed her vote in favor of the bill was Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's). Last year, Alston was a cosponsor of the bill but voted against it after negative reaction from her constituents. Although Alston voted against the bill in committee again this year, she voted for the bill on the House floor after an amendment she proposed was adopted. Alston's amendment forbids same-sex marriages from taking place as long as litigation is pending over referendum petitions.

A Democrat opposing the bill both last year and this year is Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery), who had run on a platform that included support for marriage equality but enraged activists in 2011 by opposing the bill when it was being considered. Although advocates had been pushing for him to support the bill this year, he voted "nay" tonight.

Chuck Wolfe, the president of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which works to elect out LGBT candidates, noted the role of out lawmakers in a statement.

"We're very proud of the gay and lesbian delegates whose leadership has been crucial in this debate," he said. "Maryland's lawmakers understand better the necessity of legal marriage for all couples because they serve alongside gays and lesbians whose loving, committed relationships reflect their own."

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery), one of seven out LGBT delegates, said she didn't know for sure if the bill would pass until Alston confirmed her support on the House floor. A practicing Catholic, Mizeur lowered her head in prayer when she entered the chamber earlier in the afternoon.

"Love makes a family but it's marriage that protects it," Mizeur said after the vote. "Every LGBT family in this state is going to go to bed tonight easier knowing that the state’s behind them."

[Photo: Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) speaks with reporters following the House passage of the state's marriage equality bill. (Photo by Justin Snow.)]

Justin Snow is a freelance writer and investigative reporting intern for MarylandReporter.com. Follow him on Twitter at @journosnow.

[CLARIFICATION AND UPDATE: The initially reported "yes" vote count was 71, but, as had happened in New Jersey, a lawmaker in support of the law had a technological glitch that prevented the "yes" vote from being counted. This post was expanded and updated, with the final update at 11 p.m.]

The Associated Press reports that, as expected, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has vetoed the bill passed on Thursday, Feb. 16, that would have allowed for same-sex couples to marry in the state.

State legislators have until January 2014 to secure two-thirds veto-proof majorities needed in each chamber to turn the bill into law.

Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein, anticipating today's expected veto, issued a lengthy statement this morning. In part, he wrote:

As I have said before, where we agree with them on the issues, Governor Christie and his Administration have 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.
 
And that's precisely why Governor Christie’s veto of the marriage equality bill will hurt so badly.

It's why I chose not to waste a breath in pleading with the Governor not to veto -- and have put Garden State Equality immediately to work to achieve an override. The great news is, we have until the end of the legislative session, in January 2014, to do it.  
 
That doesn't obviate the pain of the Governor's veto.  Because I do know him, I also know he is not some anti-LGBT nut. He is no Rick Santorum. Frankly, I don't think Chris Christie has an anti-gay bone in his body, however much I cannot say the same about his impending veto. His veto will be a brutally anti-gay act, pure and simple.

Read the full statement below the jump.

The Department of Justice sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) today stating that the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments would not be defending the government's laws preventing equal treatment for servicemembers who have same-sex spouses, a decision confirmed by Metro Weekly that was first reported by Talking Points Memo's Ryan Reilly.

A White House spokesman tells Metro Weekly the decision is "consistent" with President Obama's determination, made a year ago, that the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

The move by Attorney General Eric Holder comes in the context of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's lawsuit in McLaughlin v. Panetta, which asserts that several statutes impacting such benefits are unconstitutional themselves or are unconstitutional as interpreted in light of DOMA. Metro Weekly reported on Thursday, Feb. 16, that the parties to the case had agreed a day earlier to a 60-day delay in the government's deadline for filing a response to the lawsuit.

"The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans' benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans," Holder wrote. "Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA."

SLDN legal director David McKean tells Metro Weekly, "We're very pleased that the attorney general has decided not to defend DOMA in the military context. We're also delighted that, for the first time, the attorney general has said that separate definitions that apply to military veterans are also unconstitutional and will not defend them."

The letter sent to Boehner is required by 28 U.S.C. 530D, which states the Justice Department must inform Congress whenever it determines to "refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute."

Holder sent a similar letter to Boehner on Feb. 23, 2011, alerting the House leader that he and President Obama had decided that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional when subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny, which they explained they believed was merited when laws such as DOMA's Section 3 classified people based on their sexual orientation. Such action violates, they told Boehner, the Constitution's equal protection guarantee. The cases involved in the 2011 letter -- Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management -- were not in a military context.

Because of this decision, Holder wrote then that DOJ would no longer be defending Section 3 of DOMA when it was challenged in court. Boehner and other Republican leaders who constitute the majority of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, intervened to defend DOMA in several cases where DOJ was no longer going to defend DOMA -- including Gill and Massachusetts. All of the appellate briefs have been filed in the cases, and the parties are awaiting the First Circuit's announcement of when oral arguments will be held.

McLaughlin raises challenges involving several provisions of U.S. law providing for servicemembers and veterans benefits that SLDN's attorneys argue are unconstitutionally impacted by DOMA and two additional statutes -- 38 U.S.C. 101(3) and 38 U.S.C. 101(31) -- that, even independent of DOMA, SLDN argues also should be found to be unconstitutional. Today, Holder reaffirmed the DOJ's position as to DOMA itself and told Boehner that the other two provisions also "violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."

Asked by Metro Weekly if Obama agreed with today's decision -- specifically regarding the additional statutes noted by Holder as no longer being defended by DOJ -- White House spokesman Shin Inouye tells Metro Weekly, "The Department of Justice's notification to Congress today is consistent with the President's earlier determination that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional."

As for the impact of today's decision on the plaintiffs in the case, McKean says, "This is a big step for all the plaintiffs and a big step for the case."

SLDN does presume that BLAG, based on earlier filing in the case, will defend DOMA and the other statutes. "We expect that, at the appropriate time, that BLAG will move to intervene," McKean says.

Nathaniel Frank, a scholar whose book, Unfriendly Fire, laid out the case against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," tells Metro Weekly of today's decision, "The administration's admirable decision reflects a growing consensus among experts that there is no legal basis for holding two separate and unequal standards for same-sex and different-sex military couples. Likewise, there are no social or military rationales for such arbitrary distinctions."

Frank, who is a visiting scholar at Columbia University's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, adds: "All uniformed personnel make great sacrifices for the rest of us, and they have all earned the protections for their families that we have rightly promised them. Politicians who continue to defend the indefensible will, I think, quickly be left behind by history."

READ the letter: Boehner 2-17-12.pdf

[NOTE: This post was updated and expanded, with the final update at 6:15 p.m.]

The New Jersey General Assembly has passed the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act by a vote of 42-33, according to The New York Times and the Star-Ledger in New Jersey. The Assembly was 12 votes shy of the 54 votes required for a veto-proof majority, which is expected to be needed because Gov. Chris Christie (R) has said he will veto the bill.

Garden State Equality Chair Steven Goldstein said in a statement, "Since Stonewall, we have been on a 40-year journey toward our freedom. Today, the legislature has brought us to the edge of the promised land. We know the Governor won't let us enter, but we finally behold the view of our dreams and we will never turn back."

While debating the issue prior to the vote, assembly members expressed personal sentiment toward the measure. Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-34th) recalled her childhood years, growing up in a time when interracial marriage was against the law. 

"When I was 3 years old couples of different ethnic persuasion were legally barred from getting married," she said. "We cannot single out any one group of people and deem them to be undeserving of the same legal protections that everyone else has."

On Feb. 14, Christie labeled the Senate's performance as "a good bunch of theater," and said that he expected the bill would pass through the Assembly. "It would be awfully embarrassing if they didn't have enough votes in the assembly to pass it, after they made it day one," he said. "I'm assuming they will have the votes to pass it."

When the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 24-16 on Monday, they were only 3 votes short of the 27 votes that would have been necessary for the protection.

If Christie vetoes the bill as expected, state legislators will have until January 2014 to secure two-thirds veto-proof majorities needed in each chamber to turn the bill into law. Christie also has said that he supports a marriage equality referendum being placed on the ballot this November.

Pro-marriage equality organizations are already geared up to fight Christie's veto, and to ensure that same-sex couples will have the right to marry in the future. 

"Sadly, Governor Chris Christie has planted his feet on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the majority for marriage in New Jersey and nationwide," Evan Wolfson, founder and President of Freedom to Marry said today in a statement. "If the governor sticks with his threat of a veto, Freedom to Marry will work throughout the entire remainder of the legislative session ... to override the veto and do right by these families."  

Despite Christie's expected veto, Lambda Legal executive director Kevin Cathcart says that his organization will continue to fight for New Jersey's same-sex couples in the courts. "We believe there are many paths to justice," he said in a statement. "and Lambda Legal continues to fight for marriage equality in the courts on behalf of seven same-sex couples, Garden State Equality, and all families in New Jersey."

[CORRECTION: The Star-Ledger and New York Times reported that the vote was 42-33, although the vote called by the clerk and announced in organizations' initial news releases was 41-33. Freedom to Marry tweeted that a member's voting button had stuck and that was the reason for the confusion about the vote tally.]

In a growing sign that the Democratic Party could face a significant question this summer over whether it will include marriage equality as a plank in the party's national platform, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced their support for such a plank today.

The co-chairs, Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), released a joint statement announcing that they had signed on to Freedom to Marry's proposed platform language supporting marriage equality one day after Metro Weekly reported that a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced her support for the provision.

Pelosi's spokesman, Drew Hammill, had replied to a request from Metro Weekly about whether the Democratic leader supported the language by stating that she did.

In today's statement, provided to Metro Weekly, Grijalva and Ellison write, "We the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus support the efforts by Freedom to Marry and agree that it is time for the Democratic Party to respect all families in the party platform."

Freedom to Marry's proposed plank states: "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples."

In today's statement, Grijalva and Ellison -- who worked in conjunction with Freedom to Marry and Progressive Congress on the announcement -- write, "Democrats overwhelmingly support the freedom to marry, with polls showing as much as 70 percent support. The Democratic Party is positioned to stand with the majority of Americans, and the super-majority of the party faithful, and help make a real difference for families across the country."

The platform -- a detailed statement of the party's positions that will be finalized at the Democratic National Convention to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina, this September -- has never included language in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry. And the leader of the party, President Obama, opposed marriage equality in the 2008 campaign. He said in December 2010 that his position on marriage equality was "evolving" but that he still "struggle[s]" with it. His press secretary, Jay Carney, said this past week of Obama's position, "You know his position, where it stands now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don't have much to add on that."

Obama currently supports much of the Freedom to Marry plank language -- outside of the marriage equality language itself. He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples" such as California's Proposition 8. After repeated requests by Metro Weekly, including today, the Obama campaign still has not commented on the proposed platform language.

READ the joint letter: CPCltr.pdf

In Washington this past week and New York this past year, Republican lawmakers came out in support of marriage equality to help the bills pass. As the vote in Maryland on the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012 approaches, a similar pattern is appearing in Annapolis -- with three state lawmakers now announced in support of the bill.

On Feb. 14, Del. Bob Costa (R-Anne Arundel County) voted for the bill in committee, saying, "I represent constituents and not a party."

Today, Del. Wade Kach (R-Baltimore County) announced that he would be supporting the Civil Marriage Protection Act. Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the coalition working to pass the bill, issued a statement.

Carrie Evans of Equality Maryland said, "Delegate Kach wants make all Maryland families stronger -- and to ensure all children are protected equally under the law. His support, like Delegate Costa's earlier this week, underscores how marriage equality is not a partisan issue. Thousands of families in his district and all over the state thank Del. Kach."

Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Carroll, Howard counties) was the sole Republican supporting marriage equality last year and, according to Marylanders for Marriage Equality, reaffirmed his unwavering support at a rally in Lawyer's Mall on Monday evening.

Today, the House recessed until 5:30 p.m., at which time a second reading of the bill is expected and any amendments could be offered. The final vote on the bill could come as early as Friday, Feb. 17.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the LGBT military legal advocacy group, agreed to delay its challenge to military policies that the organization says discriminate against servicemembers with same-sex spouses so that a federal appeals court can resolve two pending federal appeals challenging the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Wednesday, Feb. 15, U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns, a federal trial judge in Massachusetts, granted a 60-day additional delay in the SLDN case, giving the government until Apr. 28 to respond to the lawsuit filed by SLDN back in October 2011.

The move in McLaughlin v. Panetta came a day after SLDN and the Department of Justice, which represents the government defendants in the case, filed a motion with the court in which both parties agreed that they were interested in the delay.

Referring to the two cases on appeal, the parties' lawyers wrote, "The parties recognize that this case raises issues that overlap with those raised in Massachusetts v. [Department of Health and Human Services], No. 10-2204, and Gill v. [Office of Personnel Management], No. 10-2207, which are currently pending before the Court of Appeals. Resolution of those consolidated appeals will significantly impact the resolution of this case."

Gill, brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Massachusetts, brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), both challenge the constitutionality of the federal marriage definition, Section 3 of DOMA outside of the military context. In both cases, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, on July 8, 2010, found Section 3 to be unconstitutional.

The government appealed the cases in October 2010. But, on Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced, in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), that he and President Obama had decided that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional when subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny, which they explained they believed was merited when laws such as DOMA's Section 3 classified people based on their sexual orientation. Such action violates, they told Boehner, the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

Because of this decision, Holder wrote that DOJ would no longer be defending Section 3 of DOMA when it was challenged in court. Boehner and other Republican leaders who constitute the majority of the Bi-Partisan Legal Advisory Group, intervened to defend DOMA in several cases where DOJ was no longer going to defend DOMA -- including Gill and Massachusetts. All of the appellate briefs have been filed in the cases, and the parties are awaiting the First Circuit's announcement of when oral arguments will be held.

Although McLaughlin challenges two military-specific statutes and DOMA and could potentially involve other issues relating to the military-specific context, a First Circuit ruling -- affirming or reversing Tauro's decisions in Gill and Massachusetts -- would have a consequential impact on McLaughlin. And, on Nov. 18, 2011, BLAG told the court in McLaughlin that it may seek to intervene in the case, "depending on decisions to be made by the Justice Department, hopefully within the next several weeks."

Speaking with Metro Weekly on Feb. 15 about the decision to seek a delay in McLaughlin, SLDN legal director David McKean said of the agreed-upon action to delay the government's deadline for responding to the lawsuit, "Essentially, the Gill and Massachusetts cases haven't been scheduled for oral argument yet, and both of us [SLDN and DOJ] want to see where that's going, what the timeline for that will be, and so, we decided it would be in both of our best interests to see what that schedule is ... and when we might expect a decision from the First Circuit."

If the First Circuit rules in the Gill or Massachusetts cases before a trial court decision is reached in McLaughlin, then Stearns will have to abide by the First Circuit precedent that will have been set in those cases. As it stands now, Stearns is not bound by the trial decisions issued by Tauro in the cases.

Moreover, because the government has not yet had to file an answer declaring its position in the McLaughlin challenge, it appears that no action has been taken -- by BLAG or the court -- to follow up on BLAG's Nov. 18, 2011, filing about possibly seeking to intervene in the case.

Of the SLDN strategy behind delaying a case that it had previously been pushing forward quickly, McKean told Metro Weekly only, "We want our case to move as quickly as we can -- as safely as we can."

Although requests for comment from DOJ and BLAG were submitted overnight via email, no responses were immediately available from spokespeople representing either entity.

READ the joint request for delay: Joint 60-Day Stay Motion.pdf

[Photo: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis, left, speaks at a news conference on Oct. 27, 2011, announcing the organization's filing of a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, as several of the lawsuit's plaintiffs wait to speak. (Photo courtesy of SLDN.)]

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) signed a statewide marriage equality bill into law this Monday, Feb. 13. The same day, the New Jersey Senate passed a marriage equality bill by a 24 to 16 vote. But both bills will continue to face political opposition, leaving both states' same-sex couples uncertain about their marriage prospects.

Also this week, the Colorado legislature has begun hearings on a bill to extend more rights currently extended to opposite-sex couples to the state's same-sex civil unions.

Oopponents of Washington's new marriage equality law have begun collecting the 120,577 signatures required by June 6 to get Referendum 74 on the ballot in November. An initiative seeking to restrict marriage equality also could be on the ballot.

Referendum 74 would ask voters to approve or reject the new marriage equality law. The iniative -- Initiative 1192 -- was filed last month by state attorney general candidate Stephen Pidgeon (R) and would ask voters to restrict the state's marriage statute to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. There is, however, little to no organizing regarding Pidgeon's effort, according to organizers in the state.

If Pidgeon's initiative and Referendum 74 make the ballot, marriage equality supporters will have to vote "no" on 1192 and "approve" on 74 — potentially confusing pro-equality voters. In response, local activist Steven Puvogel has begun the Decline to Sign campaign to discourage support of both Referendum 74 and Initiative 1192.

However, if Referendum 74 fails to collect enough signatures by June 6th, same-sex couples could begin marrying soon after.

Gregoire sent New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) a personal letter on Jan. 31, inviting him to discuss her personal journey towards supporting marriage equality as a Catholic. According to Think Progress, however, Governor Christie has not yet responded to the letter.

On Feb. 13, the New Jersey Senate passed the marriage equality bill 24 to 16, with Republican senators Jennifer Beck and Diane Allen voting for it and Democratic senators Jeff Van Drew and Ron Rice voting against it.

On Feb. 14, though, Governor Christie called the vote "a good bunch of theater" saying that the Senate will not secure the 27 votes needed to override his promised veto.

Though the New Jersey Assembly is expected pass the bill tomorrow , it would need 54 "yes" votes and the support of at least five Republicans to override a veto in the House. It also would need three more supporters in the Senate. If Christie were to veto the bill, as expected, state legislators will still have until January 2014 to secure the two-thirds veto-proof majorities needed in each chamber to turn the bill into law.

While a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released Feb. 14 found that 54 percent of New Jersey residents support marriage equality, 53 percent also support a voter referendum on the issue, something which Christie has endorsed in opposition to State Senate President Steve Sweeney (D). A Kean University/NJ Speaks poll from last week also found that residents support marriage equality by 57 percent.

A 2012 Williams Institute study found that legalized marriage equality could add 1,400 new jobs and $102.5 million to the state's yearly wedding and tourism-related business sales as well as $7.2 million to the state’s yearly gross receipt tax revenues.

[CORRECTION: It will take 54 "yes" votes in the new Jersey Assembly to override an expected veto by Gov. Chris Christie (R), should the bill pass. This story originally stated an incorrect number of needed votes.]

In an email to One iowa's supporters, outgoing executive director Troy Price announced that he was leaving the organization to work for President Obama's reelection:

I am writing to you today with mixed emotions to announce my departure from One Iowa. I have been offered and accepted a position as Political Director with the Obama for America campaign. This was not an easy decision, or one that I made lightly, but I could not turn down the opportunity to help re-elect the President and move our country forward.

The Obama campaign confirmed to Metro Weekly that Price would be working on the campaign in Iowa.

Of note in his goodbye email was his mention of the ongoing effort to preserve marriage equality in the state. He wrote, "We have a great plan to preserve equality, led by our new Why Marriage Matters Iowa campaign."

Obama opposed marriage equality in the 2008 campaign. He said in December 2010 that his position on marriage equality was "evolving" but that he still "struggle[s]" with it. His White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said this past week of Obama's position, "You know his position, where it stands now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don't have much to add on that."

Obama, Carney said, opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples" -- which would appear to include efforts, thus far unsuccessful, to overturn marriage equality in Iowa by constitutional amendment.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports the 2012 Democratic Party platform including, for the first time, language in full support of marriage equality, her spokesman told Metro Weekly on Tuesday evening, Feb. 14.

The former House speaker's support for the move comes in response to Freedom to Marry's announcement on Feb. 13 that it was launching a campaign to ask the Democrats, as the group put it, to "Say I Do" to including such a marriage equality plank in the party's platform.

The platform, a detailed statement of the party's positions that will be finalized at the Democratic National Convention this September, has never included language in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry. And the leader of the party, President Obama, opposed marriage equality in the 2008 campaign. He said in December 2010 that his position on marriage equality was "evolving" but that he still "struggle[s]" with it. His press secretary, Jay Carney, said this past week of Obama's position, "You know his position, where it stands now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don't have much to add on that."

Freedom to Marry's proposed platform plank would aggressively support marriage equality. The Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Stonewall Democrats all support the inclusion of a marriage equality plank, with leaders of NGLTF and Stonewall Democrats endorsing the specific Freedom to Marry language.

The proposed plank states: "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples."

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill tells Metro Weekly, "Leader Pelosi supports this language."

Obama currently supports much of the Freedom to Marry plank language -- outside of the marriage equality language itself. He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples." After several requests by Metro Weekly, however, the Obama campaign is yet to provide specific comment on the proposed platform language.

Freedom to Marry president Evan Wolfson was happy to have Pelosi backing the proposed language.

"Freedom to Marry is proud to have Leader Pelosi joining our call to put the Democratic Party squarely on record in support of the freedom to marry as part of the national platform. A wide majority of Democrats and Independents support the freedom to marry, and standing up for all families is not just the right thing to do, it's the right to do politically," Wolfson writes to Metro Weekly. "I hope more people will quickly join Leader Pelosi by signing Freedom to Marry's 'Democrats: Say I Do' petition so together we can get the party, and the country, where the majority of Americans already are."

Among other prominent Democratic supporters of marriage equality is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who Obama chose in 2011 to serve as the chair of the Democratic National Committee.

The marriage equality bill in Maryland -- the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012 -- will be sent to the full House for a vote, following committees' passage of the bill tonight.

According to The Capital of Annapolis:

The House Judiciary and Health and Government Operations committees voted 25-18 to send the same-sex marriage bill to the floor for all 141 delegates to vote on the bill. One delegate did not vote.

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) issued a statement on the vote:

"Today's vote on the Civil Marriage Protection Act is a significant step forward for the passage of this bill in Maryland. Together, we will continue our work to ensure that our State protects religious freedom and provides equal protection under the law for all Marylanders."

Additionally, The Capital reports that the bill now has Republican support in the House, with Del. Bob Costa (R-Anne Arundel County) coming out in support of the bill and voting for it in committee.

"I think it's not a state function to decide who can marry," Costa said before the committee meeting.

Costa acknowledged his vote may hurt him within his party.

"I do what I believe is right for the people. I don't think that matters. I represent constituents and not a party," he said.

To that end, Kevin Nix, the spokesman for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, told Metro Weekly, "Today's committee vote got us one step closer to making all Maryland families stronger. It was good to see some bipartisanship."

It was not yet clear whether the bill had majority support of the full House, which did not approve the bill in the previous session. 

The House committees heard testimony on the bill on Feb. 10.

A similar bill passed the Maryland Senate in 2011 by a vote of 25-21, but was sent back to committee after supporters failed to gain the votes necessary for passage in the House of Delegates.

[Photo: Costa.]

[Image: Screen capture of Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill sponsor David Bahati's appearance on MSNBC.]

As the Associated Press claims that Uganda's newly re-introduced Anti-Homosexuality Bill (AHB) directly conflicts with the President Yoweri Museveni's foreign policy agenda, today Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin reported that the bill is so broadly worded that it could incriminate any clothed individuals who accidentally touch.

The AHB seeks to punish any promotion, abetting or practice of homosexuality with steep fines, life imprisonment and even death. But according to Burroway -- who has been tracking Uganda's anti-LGBT atmosphere for years -- writes that the law's definition of "aggravated homosexuality" is broad to the point of absurdity:

...the new definitions provided by the proposed legislation would greatly open the possibility for conviction to just about anyone who has simply bumped into or brushed up against an accuser with an axe to grind.

Look again at Clause 2, 1.c. A person, under this clause, can be sent to a Ugandan prison for life for merely "touching" someone, which under the definition provided under the first clause which includes touching "any part of the body" "with anything else" (a finger? a foot? a ten foot pole?) "through anything."

All of which means that someone can "commit homosexuality" even if they are fully clothed and there is no actual skin-to-skin contact. All that is required is "touching" with the perceived "intention" of committing the act of homosexuality, and that act, in turn, is defined as any same-sex "sexual act", which itself is broadened so as to "not necessarily culminate in intercourse."

The aggravated homosexuality section also adds extra punishments if the offender has HIV or provides any stupefying "drug, matter or thing" to their "victim."

Even though Bahati himself has vowed to remove the death penalty from the final version, local activists report that the newly republished bill still contains it.

Neverthless, the bill also contains a broad view of what constitutes a "homosexual offense," using discriminatory language to vilify gays as promiscuous, pedophilic predators.

[Image: Screen capture of Gov. Christine Gregoire (D-Wash.)'s speech upon signing the state's marriage equality bill on Feb. 13, 2012.]

Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) has signed same-sex marriage bill into law, completing the final stage on the road to marriage equality in the Evergreen State. The bill, concerning civil marriage and domestic partnerships, was signed today during a ceremony in Olympia, Wash.

Gregoire emotionally thanked those whose efforts helped pave the way to her signing the bill into law, and promised that, if brought to a referendum vote in November, Washingtonians would allow the bill to pass. 

"We in this state stand proudly for equality. ... Marriage equality is right for our state, and our time is now.  The time is today," she said to the assembled crowd of supporters.

This past week, the House approved the marriage equality bill by a bipartisan vote of 55 to 43, following the earlier Senate vote in approval on Feb. 1. The state, pending an effort to force a referendum vote on the bill, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex couples to marry. 

According to a New York Times article, Washington was "among 30 states that have passed laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, but it has steadily expanded rights for gay couples since 2006, the year it approved a wide-ranging gay rights bill. In 2007, it approved rights for domestic partners. In 2009 it passed a so-called everything-but-marriage bill." Now it adds full marriage equality to its lengthy pro-gay resume.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese praised the achievement in a news release, saying, "Today is a historic day in Washington State, and it’s reflective of the growing support for marriage equality we’re seeing across the nation – regardless of one’s religion or background."

Lacey All, chair of Washington United for Marriage, said in a statement from the coalition, "We thank Gov. Gregoire for her tremendous leadership in passing this landmark legislation. From her moving remarks endorsing the legislation to her unwavering courage and commitment throughout the legislative process, the Governor has been a key ally in forming the bipartisan coalition that passed this bill."

Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG released a statement about the States accomplishment, saying, "Congratulations and many thanks to the Washington State Legislature, and Governor Gregoire, for passing the marriage equality act, and signing it into law. PFLAG Regional Director Kathy Reim and chapter members across Washington worked closely with many local partner organizations to educate legislators and communities about the critical need for marriage equality. Their leadership truly changed hearts and minds across the state."

Despite praise from pro-equality groups, the bill's passage is not welcomed by all. Opponents of the measure have said they will seek to collect the 120,557 signatures needed to reverse the decision by placing a referendum or an initiative on the ballot this November. The passage of the state's comprehensive domestic partnership law in 2009 led to Referendum 71, in which voters approved the domestic partnership law that year.

Today, Freedom to Marry announced in a news release that it will be pushing the Democratic Party to adopt full marriage equality in its 2012 party platform -- despite that the position is not held by the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama. Freedom to Marry's position is supported by other LGBT organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Stonewall Democrats.

The proposed platform plank is:

"We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples."

HRC vice president for communications Fred Sainz told Metro Weekly, "HRC supports the inclusion of marriage equality in the party's platform. Like we have in past years, we will ask to testify before the Platform Committee and urge them to do so." Sainz noted that HRC has been testifying to seek inclusion of LGBT equality language in the Democratic Party platform since 1996, although, when asked to clarify HRC's position to the platform committee on marriage equality, he stated, "This is the first time that the issue will be raised proactively."

Freedom to Marry president Evan Wolfson said in a statement, "The Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans. It's now time for the national party to be true to its values and its voters and go unequivocally on record for the freedom to marry."

Rea Carey, executive director of NGLTF, told Metro Weekly in a statement, "As an organization that fights for the full equality of LGBT people and our families, and for recognition of our full humanity, the Task Force supports such a proposed plank for the Democratic platform."

She added, "We'd also hope to see the same plank be proposed to the Republican Party. While those running for president from the Republican Party have been offensively anti-LGBT, more and more Republicans are voicing their support for our families and for our right to marry. Both parties should be called to the same standards."

Stonewall Democrats executive director Jerame Davis also supports the platform plank, telling Metro Weekly, "As a founding member of the Respect for Marriage Coalition, NSD supports the marriage equality plank proposed by Freedom to Marry."

Contrary to Carey, however, he said, "Unlike the Republican Party platform, which will likely include a plank calling for a federal marriage amendment, the Democratic Party platform has been affirming and inclusive of LGBT Americans for years. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats nationwide support marriage equality and an even larger majority supports the overturning of the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. We believe it's time the Party platform reflects the values of the majority of Democrats and we will be encouraging the over 400 LGBT delegates expected at the Democratic National Convention this summer to support this plank as well."

In 2008, the relevant portion of the Democratic Party platform read:

We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.

A spokesperson from the Obama campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The New Jerey State Senate has passed marriage equality by a vote of 24-16.

The bill, which was expected to pass through the Senate, must now make it through the state Assembly on Thursday. Passage could have a significant impact on the state. According to the 2010 Census, per the Williams Institute, there are an estimated 16,875 same-sex couples in New Jersey, of whom 4,447 identify as spouses.

Although the bill is expected to make its way to the desk of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), Christie has pledged to veto the legislation. Today's vote is three shy of the 27 votes that would be needed to override Christie's expected veto.

The state already allows same-sex civil unions, but if Christie were to sign the bill or the legislature were to override his expected veto, the Garden State would join New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex couples to marry. Washington state's governor, Chris Gregoire (D), is to sign that state's marriage equality bill into law later today.

Govenor Christie has said he believes that the issue should be put to a vote in the general elections this November, being placed on the ballot as a referendum.

[Photo: The scene at the Maryland House of Delegates joint committee hearing on Feb. 10, 2012. (Photo by John Riley.)]

Like Rocky Balboa, marriage equality is back for another round of fighting.

Supporters and opponents of a bill legalizing same-sex nuptials clashed once more at a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Health and Government Operations committees on Friday, Feb. 10, as the lower chamber considered the bill.

A similar bill passed the Maryland Senate in 2011 by a vote of 25-21, but was sent back to committee after supporters failed to gain the votes necessary for passage in the House of Delegates.

Friday's hearing featured many familiar faces, as many of the witnesses had previously testified at a similar hearing held by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 31. The committee members at Friday's hearings also were not strangers to those on both sides of the issue.

Some of the committee members -- Delegates Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's Co.), Jill Carter (D-Baltimore City) and Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery Co.) -- made headlines last year when they wavered on their support for the measure under pressure and intense lobbying by opponents of marriage equality. Carter eventually voted for the bill in committee. Several other members of the two committees have either been vocal advocates of the bill, such as Delegates Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel, Prince George's counties) and Keiffer Mitchell, Jr. (D-Baltimore City) or opponents of the bill, such as Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel Co.) and Neil Parrott (R-Washington Co.).

The hearing kicked off with testimony from O'Malley and two ministers, Rev. Delman Coates and Rev. Donte Hickman, who spoke in favor of marriage equality.

Coates told members of the two committees that people's personal beliefs and religious views on homosexuality should not be a factor influencing whether gay and lesbian couples get equal recognition under the law.

"Public policy has never been predicated on public consensus or personal preferences," Coates said.

Coates also went further, saying that adultery, divorce, out-of-wedlock children and abortion, also are violations of the tenets of some religions.

"If gays and lesbians are denied for this reason, why are heterosexuals who engage in adultery, divorce, having children outside of marriage and abortion not denied?" he asked.

[Photo: Contractors, Obama for America staff and attendees of Feb. 9, 2012, fundraiser for President Obama's re-election work and mill around outside the D.C. home where the president had spoken earlier in the evening. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Tim Gill, one of the most significant funders in the LGBT movement and a host of the Thursday night, Feb. 9, fundraiser for President Obama's re-election campaign that was expected to have raised more than $1.4 million for the effort, is a big fan of the president, telling Metro Weekly that it always is "such a joy to listen to" Obama.

A $35,800-per-person joy.

Forty people -- including another host committee member and the first out LGBT ambassador, James Hormel -- were willing to pay that price for the opportunity to talk with Obama in a no-press-allowed question-and-answer session at the home of Karen Dixon and Dr. Nan Schaffer north of Dupont Circle in the Kalorama neighborhood of the District. Although a White House press corps pool reporter attended Obama's opening remarks and the White House later released a transcript of them, no media was allowed in the room during the question-and-answer session and no transcript was provided of that latter portion of the event. Metro Weekly exclusively spoke with about a dozen of the attendees outside the event, a group consisting of several prominent LGBT advocates and business people, about the evening.

Laura Ricketts, the first openly LGBT owner of a major-league baseball team -- Obama's home team, the Chicago Cubs -- introduced the president inside the home at the fundraiser, telling the group that the night was "to show the president that the LGBT community stands strongly behind his re-election."

"What you hear when you hear Obama speak you really hear his authenticity, his thoughtfulness and just his genuine compassion for gay people, the entire American people and the American dream," Gill said outside the event. "So, it makes me realize more than anything else that he's the person that has to be our next president."

That said, Gill also was still looking at this term, talking with Metro Weekly about the chances that Obama would sign an executive order in his first term that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Noting that the Republican-led House is almost certain not to bring up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- which would prohibit most private employers from discriminating on those bases -- in this Congress, Gill said of the proposed executive order, "I think certainly we need that order, lacking ENDA. Whether we'll manage to get that before the election, that seems a little dicey, but I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed."

Elizabeth Birch, the former head of the Human Rights Campaign, was even less certain. She told Metro Weekly bluntly, "I don't know if it will happen. I would imagine that there's not a lot that's going to happen until after the election."

What's more, she suggested that it mightn't even be the most strategic move, saying, "Executive orders are great, but they can have wobbly legs. I want us to be able to marshal all of our energy and focus and resources, and get real laws passed."

Of Obama's judgment on selecting the time for action, she added, "He has a really good meter in terms of knowing when he has amassed enough political capital to get the best, most durable thing done."

Terry Bean, an Oregonian who is one of the co-founders of HRC and was leaving the fundraiser with Birch, agreed, saying, "I prefer, as the president seems to, long-term solutions rather than temporary solutions. If the president had done what some in the community wanted him to do, which was a stop-loss order on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' it never would have passed Congress."

Another notable HRC board member, Bruce Bastian -- the Utah resident who spent $1 million to fight Proposition 8 -- said the final call on the executive order proposal was with Obama: "That's on his desk."

For Bastian, though, the night -- and his aim -- was focused on re-electing Obama.

"He really understands the pressure and the discrimination that we all face every day. And I really think he's trying to pick and choose the things he can do. He's done a lot, he's done a lot of things that people don't give him credit for, but little things that matter," he told Metro Weekly. "I think, if we can just get him re-elected, I think we'll see a lot, lot more."

New Yorker Marjorie Hill, the chief executive officer of Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), said that it's about more than solely LGBT-specific issues. She noted, specifically, "The president has shown unprecedented leadership on HIV and AIDS, including the National AIDS strategy, so I'm very pleased."

When Obama did speak at the event that will benefit both Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee, several attendees, unsurprisingly, said that the president didn't tell the small audience of any new initiative or policy position. According to the transcript provided of the opening remarks, Obama said, "[T]he work that we've done with respect to the LGBT community, I think, is just profoundly American and is at the heart of who we are."

Obama touted that work -- from regulatory changes to the legislative repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- and then told the audience: "There [are] still areas where fairness is not the rule."

One issue that is front and center for several attendees: marriage equality.

Paul Smith -- the Jenner & Block law firm partner who successfully argued to the Supreme Court that state sodomy laws should be found unconstitutional in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas -- noted the difference of opinion but took a pragmatic tone on the issue.

"We had the little tension about the marriage issue," Smith told Metro Weekly, "but everybody said, 'Look, come on, we got President Obama and we've got them.' Give me a break. That's what it is about." As Bastian put it, "We wouldn't go back four years, we'd go back decades if Santorum won. I mean, the LGBT community -- decades."

Joy Tomchin, a former board member of GMHC in New York City, was glad to be down in D.C. for the event and "thought [Obama] was great," but told Metro Weekly that she was here on a bit of a mission.

"I wanted to hear more about gay marriage, and I can’t get him to talk about it -- in New York or Washington," she said, noting, "I heckled him in New York."

She did. On June 23, 2011, when Obama traveled to New York City's Broadway and gave a speech at an LGBT-focused re-election fundraiser as the New York legislature was considering whether to pass marriage equality in the Empire State, it was Tomchin who shouted out: "What about marriage?"

There has been much commentary in the past two days about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's opinion affirming the trial court decision that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, from The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and The American Prospect's E.J. Graff to Jason Mazzone and Rick Hasen to Orin Kerr and Eugene Volokh.

Only one, thus far, has submitted his or her thoughts directly to the court.

Enter Robert Allgeyer.

With a subject line of, "Your ruling in Perry vs. Brown is unworthy of compliance or respect," Robert Allgeyer's Feb. 7 letter to the court was posted to the Ninth Circuit's docket of the case today.

He began: "Lately, I have wondered at why so many persons in government, and in higher education, make no sense. It seems to me that perhaps you are suffering from brain damage. I am graciously assuming that you were not bribed or threatened by 'progressive' activists, but of course this is not clear."

In addition to questioning whether a "life of depravity," "a lifetime of mind-altering drugs," "inbreeding" or "having attended the kind of elitist college that asks about your mom and dad on the application form (snicker)" caused the brain damage, Allgeyer expresses great concern about "toxins from mold infestation" being the real cause.

Finally, in case the brain damage is genetic, he urges, "As a precaution, I urge you and all of your relatives to voluntarily practice birth control and abortion to the greatest extent allowable by law."

Thank you, Robert Allgeyer, for your thoughts on this important issue.

READ Allgeyer's letter: Allgeyer.pdf

Follow @metroweekly

Get Poliglot in your inbox. Join our mailing list.

While the Washington state House passed a Senate-approved state marriage equality bill that will soon be signed into law by Governor Christine Gregoire (D), three out LGBT Illinois state representatives -- Kelly Cassidy (D), Greg Harris (D) and Deb Mell (D) -- introduced the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act to legalize marriage equality in Illinois.

The Illinois bill would amend the 2011 Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act to grant the state's currently existing civil unions the legal designation of marriages with "the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law."

Currently, Illinois enforces the 2010 Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which specifies valid marriages as only those between a man and a woman.

Although the state has civil unions granting same-sex couples such rights as shared employment benefits, co-adoption privileges, and medical decision making among others, Bernard Cherkasov, executive director of the Equality Illinois statewide LGBT equality organization, said in a news release today:

"In following experiences of thousands of couples in civil unions over the past year, we confirmed what we always suspected to be true: that creating a separate institution to provide substantially the same rights did not add up to full equality under the law.

"A pharmacist who denied prescription pick-up to the patient's civil union partner didn't think it's the same thing as marriage. A coroner who refused to issue a death certificate to civil union partner survivor did not think that civil unions are the same as marriage. Tax preparers, estate planners, employers and employees do not think that civil unions are the same as marriage.

"Separate is not equal."

Rep. Harris first introduced the marriage equality bill on February 22, 2007 and then again on January 14, 2009, but both times it died in committee.

Though state legislators eventually legalized civil unions with a 61-52 House vote where five Republican votes helped the bill pass despite 12 Democrat nays. Only one Republican Senator, Dan Rutherford supported the Senate bill which passed in a 32-24 vote.

Cherkasov warns that the marriage equality bill is not a slam-dunk and that advocates will have to reach out their elected officials and fellow voters to compel legislators to pass the bill.

A 2010 poll of Illinoisans found that two-thirds favored legal recognition of gay couples the majority were split over their preference for civil unions and marriage.

However, shifting national attitudes in favor of marriage equality and the 2010 U.S. Census results showing 32,469 gay and lesbian couples living in Illinois could have positively affected public opinion in favor of marriage equality since the state's civil unions began.

Follow @metroweekly

Today, White House press secretary Jay Carney spent a significant amount of the White House press briefing defending the Health and Human Services Department's decision regarding requiring health plans -- including some offered by religious-backed entities -- to include contraception coverage against criticism from religious advocates and adherents, congressional Republicans and Republican presidential candidates by saying the decision was about ensuring that "women hav[e] access to important health care services no matter where they work."

Carney avoided, however, answering a question posed to him by Metro Weekly about President Obama's views on marriage equality -- which Carney said on Feb. 7 "involve[] his faith" -- and whether Obama has based "other decisions about providing protections and civil responsibilities" on his faith.

Carney responded that the statement was nothing new, saying, "I am in no way going further than anything the President himself has said about his views on this issue."

The response, however, said nothing about the implication in Carney's Feb. 7 statement, which was that faith informed Obama's views on whether civil marriage equality, sought by many advocates and allies, should be extended to same-sex couples.

The decision, though obviously not Obama's alone, does have an impact on the access LGBT people and their families have to many government services. And, while the religious exemption for places of worship in the HHS decision shows the administration in that situation allowing an exception based on faith to a generally applicable rule, Obama's marriage position, as it stands, is one of allowing faith to create the generally applicable rule -- regardless of the access to important services that such a view might deny LGBT people.

As detailed in a recent report from the Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council and Center for American Progress, access to important services -- health care and otherwise -- is regularly denied by the federal government to families headed by same-sex couples because of marital prohibitions on same-sex couples and, in jurisdictions where same-sex couples can marry, the Defense of Marriage Act.

As the report noted as to childcare and early child education assistance such as Head Start, for example, "Due to DOMA, even same-sex couples who are married in their state will not be recognized as such for these federal programs."

The president has said that he is "evolving" on the question of marriage equality, and Carney reiterated on Feb. 7 of Obama's view, "[A]s he said, and I won't go beyond that, his views are evolving. But I don't have an end point to announce to you or a date certain to tell you that he'll have [something] to say about that issue."

* * *

Here's the full question and answer from today:

     Q    Yesterday, regarding the President's position on the right of same-sex couples to marry, you said that this is a process that involves his faith. What other decisions about providing protections and civil responsibilities has the President based upon a decision on his faith?

     MR. CARNEY:  I want to be clear -- and I appreciate the question -- that I was simply referring to statements the President had made in the past about this issue.  And it's not about -- I don't want to -- I am in no way going further than anything the President himself has said about his views on this issue.  And I want to be clear, and thank you for the opportunity to be clear on this.

     What I want to add about yesterday is that, as you know, the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. He believes strongly that protections should not be taken away from committed gay and lesbian couples who want to take care of their families.

     And while we don't comment on specific litigation, that is his general position on this, as I think you know and have reported on.

[Image: Screen capture of White House press secretary Jay Carney at the Feb. 7, 2012, White House press briefing.]

The so-called "conscience clause" bill that would allow private child placement agencies to discriminate against prospective adoptive or foster parents based on sexual orientation, family status and a number of other factors continued its march toward becoming state law as Republicans held fast against amendments to the bill during its second reading in the Virginia Senate.  

The bill, Senate Bill 349, was introduced by Sen. Jeff McWaters (R-Virginia Beach) and would codify into law that private child placement agencies are not required to place children with prospective adoptive or foster parents if doing so is in violation of that agency's written or moral convictions or policies, even if they receive state tax dollars.

The bill also prevents the denial of any application for or renewal of a license, or any grant, contract, or participation in a government program, for any agency because of moral or religious objections, and prevents those agencies from being sued because of their refusal to perform any placement based on such objections. 

The bill cements into law a 5-1 decision by the State Board of Social Services in December that allows state-licenses private adoption and foster care agencies to deny prospective parents based on sexual orientation, religion, age of the prospective parents, gender, disability, family status and even political beliefs.

Under Virginia law, only single people, regardless of sexual orientation, and opposite-sex legally-married couples are able to adopt, while same-sex couples cannot. With the passage of SB 349, if a single gay or lesbian person wishes to become an adoptive or foster parent, they will be limited to using a smaller number of placement agencies that do not object on religious or moral grounds.

The bill is expected to be read during the Thursday, Feb. 9, session and passed by the full Senate. A similar bill with identical language previously passed the House of Delegates by a 71-28 margin, with one delegate not voting. Once the bill is passed by both chambers, it will go to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who has indicated he will sign it into law.

LGBT allies in the Senate, all Democrats, offered up to 18 amendments to the bill, all of which were rejected.

[Photo: The CNN newsroom a little past 1 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012. (Photo via John King on Twitter.)]

About 12 hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit paved the way, pending appeal, for same-sex couples to be able once again to marry in California, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) -- one of the most clear opponents of LGBT equality remaining in the Republican presidential primary -- was announced the winner of his third primary or caucus of Tuesday, Feb. 7, when the Colorado caucuses were called for him.

A man who gained LGBT activists' ire during his time in the Senate for his "man on dog" comments used to dismiss same-sex couples' marriages in an AP interview in 2003, Santorum was the late-night winner in Colorado, as well as the victor in the Minnesota caucuses and the nonbinding primary held in Missouri.

Although former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) remains in the lead in delegates, and is still the frontrunner to secure the nomination, the results shake up the race, will continue to cause headaches for the Romney team and breathes new life into Santorum's effort.

In his victory speech on Tuesday night in Missouri -- given before the Colorado results were known -- Santorum said, "This is about a country that believes in god-given rights, and a constitution that's limited to protect those rights."

Although he didn't mention it specifically, the broad terms Santorum used would appear to apply to his earlier criticism of the Ninth Circuit ruling, in which he tweeted, "7 [million] Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage."

Santorum's key line of his speech, though, was more of an attack on Romney, saying, "I do care about -- not 99 percent, not 95 percent -- I care about the very rich & the very poor, 100 percent of America." He also, though, made a strong statement of his aggressive intentions for the ongoing primary race: "I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."

R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, was dismissive of Santorum's victories, telling Metro Weekly, "The divisive Rick Santorum is not capable of winning a general election and will not be the Republican nominee."

Cooper added: "As former RNC chairman Governor Haley Barbour has observed, 'Purity is the enemy of victory.' The ability to secure the vote of the general electorate is necessary to succeeding as the Republican nominee."

In newspaper coverage of the states' outcomes, the Minnesota StarTribune reported:

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum won decisively in Minnesota's GOP caucuses on Tuesday, clobbering rival Mitt Romney in a state Romney had won easily just four years ago.

With most of the Minnesota vote in, Santorum won 45 percent of the GOP straw poll, followed by Ron Paul at 27 percent. Romney placed a distant third, while Newt Gingrich placed last.

From Missouri's Columbia Daily Tribune:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum easily won Missouri's nonbinding Republican presidential primary Tuesday, claiming momentum in his challenge against national front-runner Mitt Romney even though the victory won't earn him any delegates.

And, finally, from Colorado's Denver Post, where the results were first announced about 1 a.m. Eastern Time:

Colorado's race see-sawed throughout the night until 11 p.m. [Central Time], when Colorado GOP Chair Ryan Call declared Santorum the winner. But the race was a near tie.

"This is a major upset," said Denver-based political analyst Floyd Ciruli. "Definitely, there is a new story now."

The next outcome comes in Maine. Maine's nonbinding presidential straw poll has been taking place at Maine Republican Party municipal caucuses, and the results of the straw poll will be made public on Saturday, Feb. 11. The Arizona and Michigan primaries are slated for Feb. 28.

Thanks to The Village Voice's Steven Thrasher, you have the ability to hear me talk about today's Proposition 8 decision, in addition to reading about it. Enjoy!

Although neither candidate supports marriage equality, today's decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Perry v. Brown striking down California's Proposition 8 gave the campaign of President Obama and his most likely general election challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), a chance to spar a bit on LGBT equality issues.

Although White House press secretary Jay Carney initially said, "I'm not going to comment on litigation -- and particularly, as here, where we are not a party to it," at today's press briefing, he continued, "[T]he president's position on these issues, writ large, are well known. He's long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples."

Asked if it is inconsistent for Obama to take such a position on a measure that relates to marriage when Obama is "evolving" on but does not support marriage equality, Carney said that he had "no update" as to the president's views on marriage equality.

Carney added, though, that in this situation, "These are proactive, deliberate efforts to deny benefits and to be discriminatory."

Romney, to put it gently, disagreed.

In a statement, he said, "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values.

Of the presidential implications, Romney added, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

To that, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt tweeted, "Romney, who said he'd do more for gay rights than Sen. [Edward] Kennedy, condemned the court decision overturning divisive & discriminatory Prop 8."

Kennedy, who died in August 2009, had been a strong supporter of marriage equality. In 2006, while successfully opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment -- which Romney supports -- Kennedy said, "It is wrong for our civil laws to deny any American the basic right to be part of a family, to have loved ones with whom to build a secure future and share life's joys and tears, and to be free from the stain of bigotry and discrimination."

Romney's opponents for the Republican presidential nomination who are more to the right of him on LGBT equality issues, unsurprisingly, opposed today's ruling. On Twitter, both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) criticized the ruling.

Gingrich tweeted, "Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy." He then linked to that platform in his campaign.

Later, Santorum tweeted, "7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage."

It did not appear that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) issued any statement on the ruling.

One of the lawyers fighting Proposition 8 said that today's decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Perry v. Brown striking down the initiative makes it "somewhat less likely" that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear an appeal of the case, while his co-counsel was more ambitious, suggesting that the ruling could have a ripple effect of advancing marriage equality in Georgia and Arkansas.

On a conference call organized by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the case, attorney David Boies told reporters, "I think the grounds do make it somewhat less likely that the Supreme Court will take it."

Ted Olson, Boies's co-counsel in the case, was not pushing nuance today, savoring victory in the case that has become a dedicated cause for him: "This is a very significant milepost on the way to equality in this country."

In his view of the ruling, Olson said, "The district court earlier and the Ninth Circuit today ringingly reaffirmed the right to equality, the fundamental right to marriage and the fact that it cannot be denied to citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation or the basis of their sex."

The decision was, on its face, based on more narrow legal grounds than those put forth by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in his trial court decision striking down the law in August 2010. The appeals court affirmed the trial court decision by finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional for the reasons established by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down Colorado's Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans.

In Romer, Colorado voters adopted an amendment prohibiting state and local entities from passing sexual orientation protections. The U.S. Supreme Court struck Colorado's Amendment 2 down as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because the amendment's aim, as the Ninth Circuit stated today, was "not to further a proper legislative end but to make [LGB people] unequal to everyone else."

Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt then wrote for the court: "Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2."

"With a precedent like Romer that so squarely fits," Boies asserted that the outcome in the Ninth Circuit's opinion was solid. To that end, Boies added: "The [Supreme] Court might not want to take this issue on on those facts and might want to wait for a case that raises the more general issue."

University of California-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen noted that Boies's sentiment also had relevance even if the Supreme Court does, eventually, accept review of the Perry case because Justice Anthony Kennedy, who many think would be the swing vote in Supreme Court consideration of the case, wrote the Romer opinion.

"Notably, Judge Reinhardt does not hold there is a right to same sex marriage, only that [California] had no rational reason to take away the label of marriage for use by gay and lesbian couples after the state had had already given it," Hasen writes. "By crafting the argument in this way, and making the case that the only reason for passing Prop. 8 was anti-gay animus, Judge Reinhardt has given Justice Kennedy a way to decide the case without embracing a major holding recognizing a right to same sex marriage generally."

Despite the narrow scope on the face of the opinion, Boies conceded somewhat to Olson's more ambitious stance, saying, "The reasoning of the case is reasoning that clearly would support a national right to marriage equality."

Responding to a question about how Reinhardt's opinion stated that it was a limited one reaching only the Romer question about taking away a right based on animus and not the broader question of marriage equality, Olson was incredulous: "Judges say that all the time. They're not reaching more than what they have to. But the reasoning [applies to other cases]."

Specifically, Olson pointed to the Supreme Court's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws in the country as unconstitutional. Despite the fact that Kennedy, who wrote Lawrence's majority opinion as well, said Lawrence did not relate to marriage, Olson noted that Justice Anthony Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case, "At the end of [Kennedy's majority] opinion -- after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence -- the Court says that the present case 'does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.' Do not believe it."

Olson said of today's decision: "I will say the same thing here. Our opponents are going to say, 'That didn't decide what goes on in Georgia. That didn't decide what goes on in Arkansas.' But we're talking about the fundamental right of individuals to enjoy the relationship of marriage. This decision talks in terms of how important and fundamental that is."

When the question of the videotapes of the trial were raised on the call, Boies took things to a less professorial place, suggesting that the Dustin Lance Black play about the trial, titled simply 8, could be more effective a presentation to the public than the tapes because of the performer playing Boies at the Los Angeles premiere of the show on March 3.

"They may find George Clooney a lot more interesting than watching David Boies," he said with a chuckle.

[Photo: Ted Olson, center, and David Boies, right, answer questions by audience members selected by David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, on Wednesday, May 18, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[NOTE: This post was expanded and updated, with the last update at 2 p.m.]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today affirmed the August 2010 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that California's 2008 amendment banning same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional, deciding the case on narrow grounds relating to the facts of the amendment's impact, which the court notes was to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."

Same-sex couples cannot begin marrying in California today, however, as the court also kept in place its stay halting enforcement of the unconstitutionality decision for the time being.

The case, Perry v. Brown, was brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights and featured a contrasting team of lawyers -- the conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Boies -- who waged a high-stakes trial in January 2010 and a high-profile public campaign to advance the cause of marriage equality.

[DON'T MISS METRO WEEKLY'S FULL PROP 8 COVERAGE:

• Obama's Press Secretaries and Romney (and the Others) Talk About Prop 8, With Very Different Takes

• Olson and Boies Talk About Their Prop 8 Victory, With Slightly Differing Takes

• The Village Voice's Thrasher and Geidner Talk About Prop 8]

In today's decision, Judge Stephen Reinhardt writes for the court:

We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

Specifically, he wrote, "Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

As to the standing question -- whether the proponents had a right to asppeal the decision -- the court held that it was California's decision to make. "It is their prerogative, as independent sovereigns, to decide for themselves who may assert their interests and under what circumstances, and to bestow that authority accordingly." California, the court noted, decided that initiative proponents have such a right.

The court also denied the proponents' request that the trial court decision be vacated because Walker, the proponents asserted, should have recused himself because he is gay and had a long-term partner to whom he was not married.

The narrow legal grounds on which the court decided to affirm Walker's decision about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 were those established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans -- referenced as a possibility by Metro Weekly earlier today.

[UPDATE: THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS RULED - "BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Proposition 8 on Narrow Grounds."]

Although the path to get here is a winding one -- and although the details are important -- today's coming decision in the challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights in Perry v. Brown likely will be confusing.

Here are five key questions to help getting through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's opinion:

1. Did the appeals court avoid ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?

Today's decision could avoid addressing the constitutionality if it finds either that: (1) now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-term partner to whom he was not married or (2) the proponents of Proposition 8 -- the only ones appealing the ruling -- lack standing to bring the appeal.

2. Is Proposition 8 upheld or struck down?

This is the easy one -- but it's also the most important one. The court will be deciding whether to affirm or reverse the trial court decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. That decision, by now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, struck down Proposition 8 on the grounds that it unconstitutionally infringed on both due process and equal protection rights.

3. How does the court resolve the constitutional question?

If the court affirms Walker's ruling, it doesn't need to use his reasoning. The court could rule in any of a number of ways. It could affirm Walker's ruling and reasoning that Proposition 8 violates the due process "fundamental" right of marriage and the equal protection of the laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation (and/or sex). It could choose to affirm on one but not both of those grounds. Or, it could affirm on an alternative ground not considered by Walker. The most likely of these alternative grounds would be to apply the reasoning of Romer v. Evans, in which the Supreme Court struck down an anti-LGB amendment in Colorado because the court determined it was based only in animus and furthered no legitimate governmental end.

4. What sort of stay of the court's decision is issued, if any?

The court -- as it did when Walker's ruling was appealed to it -- is likely to issue a stay of its decision pending any appeal decision. Watch for this, as it will mean that, regardless of today's ruling, marriages will not begin in California in the coming days.

5. Watch for a statement that the losing party is bringing an appeal.

Although today's opinion will be important, it is almost certain that it will be appealed -- either to the full Ninth Circuit for reconsideration (called en banc consideration) or to the U.S. Supreme Court. In either situation, the court needs to choose to accept the appeal. But, the decision as to whether the losing party goes first for en banc review or proceeds directly to the Supreme Court could expand or shorten the timeline until this case reaches its final resolution.

Follow @metroweekly

Opinionated? Take our latest Metro Weekly poll. Win free movie passes!

Calling Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill "manifestly inconsistent with Uganda's international human rights obligations," a U.S. State Department spokeswoman tells Metro Weekly it continues to oppose the legislation, which lawmakers in Uganda are reportedly planning to reintroduce.

Box Turtle Bulletin reported the possible reintroduction on Feb. 6. The bill was first considered in 2009 and, if passed, would greatly enhance the country's laws against homosexuals and allies.

In a statement provided to Metro Weekly, State Department spokesperson Hilary Fuller Renner wrote, "Our message is unchanged:  The Department of State opposes the anti-homosexuality bill, which we view as manifestly inconsistent with Uganda's international human rights obligations. We call on the Ugandan government to reinforce its respect for the human rights of all individuals, including LGBT individuals."

Although the bill in question has yet to be released, a 2009 version proposes 18 clauses that attempt to constrain the country's gay community. Ugandans found guilty of homosexuality would face fines, lifetime imprisonment or death.

According to its original text, the bill's objectives are to "provide for marriage in Uganda as that contracted only between a man and a woman; to prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family; to prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; and, to prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality."

Of U.S. action opposing the bill, Renner stated, "We remain attuned to the possibility that Parliament could take action on the Bahati bill, and we continue to raise these concerns with senior Ugandan officials."

Renner also noted that a number of Ugandan government institutions have already spoken out against further criminalization of homosexuality, stating that the Uganda Human Rights Commission said the Bahati bill violates Uganda's constitution and international law in 2010. Renner added that Uganda's judiciary has repeatedly supported the rights of all Ugandan citizens, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The State Department also notes that during Uganda's recent Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the country agreed to "take immediate concrete steps to stop discrimination and assaults against LGBT persons."

It was in December 2011 the Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made headlines proclaiming the importance of ending LGBT discrimination in a global address. In relevant part, she said, "Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people."

Joe Corcoran contributed to this report.

[Photo: Secretary Clinton (Photo courtesy of State Department web site.)]

During the Feb. 2 New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the state marriage equality bill, Greg Quinlan president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX, pictured right) testified against the bill by saying that homosexuals, with therapy, can convert into heterosexuals -- a notion discredited by the American Psychological Association.

Nevertheless, Quinlan and his practices have found dissemination through Maryland's Montgomery County school system, Super Bowl XLVI commentator David Tyree and various religious and media figures around the world -- even as evidence builds of the harm these programs inflict on young Americans.

During his testimony, Quinlan said in part:

"Homosexuality is not immutable. People do change. People have a right of self-determination. They can choose to change from being gay to straight. Why can't they choose to change from being straight to gay? People do it all the time. There are many ex-gays. Anne Heche, to name one. Sinead O'Connor. And myself."

As such, Quinlan continues to champion a practice denounced by the American Psychological Association as harmful to gay-identified people and responsible for discrimination and violence against gays.

PFOX itself came under scrutiny last week for distributing ex-gay literature to Maryland high schoolers, something Montgomery County Public Schools spokesperson Dana Tofig says the school system must allow due to PFOX's status as a registered 501(c)3 nonprofit.

Gay conversion therapy has found unlikely national supporters over the past years, including two figures highlighted by the Feb. 5 National Football League Super Bowl game.

Regular CNN contributor Rowland Martin (pictured left) found the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation calling for his termination in light of a tweet questioned by advocates and others that he made in response to a Super Bowl ad for the H&M David Beckham underwear line. GLAAD also mentioned Martin's ongoing record of homophobic comments, some of which include support for his wife's "successful" ex-gay therapy work.

Former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree -- who provided NBC Super Bowl pre-show analysis yesterday -- publicly tweeted his loving support for "former homosexuals" earlier last year, around the same time that he emerged as a spokesperson for the National Organization For Marriage -- saying that gay marriage in New York would lead to "anarchy."

But more directly religous supporters of the therapy also have made headlines more recently.

This past week, the Maine Catholic Diocese of Portland announced an expansion of its ex-gay "Courage" ministry purportingconversion via a celibate 12-step program.

At the same time, former Canterbury Archbishop Reverend Lord Carey recieved criticism for supporting the professional reinstatement of Lesley Pilkington, a Brish therapist barred from practice for using ex-gay therapy; both the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have called ex-gay therapy "absurd." 

Finally, also outside the U.S., LGBT Rights United Arab Emirates denounced a recently released six-minute video entitled "Be Yourself," which depicts an effeminate man "turned straight" by adopting masculine gestures, shortened hair, nails and a lower voice.

Both at home and abroad, the fact that, as its site says, "since 1974, the American Psychological Association (APA) has opposed stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and violence on the basis of sexual orientation and has taken a leadership role in supporting the equal rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals," efforts to "change" LGB people remain an ongoing practice and a regular source of public commentary.

Quick on the heels of Metro Weekly's exclusive reporting this weekend and on Feb. 6 about a proposed executive order to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity employment discrimination among federal contractors, The Washington Post editorial page has come out in favor of such an executive order and The New York Times op-ed page features supportive discussion of the issue today.

In part, the Post editorial board wrote:

President Clinton issued an executive order to protect federal government employees from discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion and sexual orientation.

Executive orders have also been used as far back as the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt to advance fairness in the employment polices of federal contractors. In the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the executive order that obligates contractors to adopt nondiscriminatory employment practices.

Mr. Obama could amend that order or issue a new one to order federal contractors not to discriminate in their workplaces on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. He would have the vast majority of Americans on his side ....

Mr. Obama deserves credit for his efforts to eliminate "don't ask, don't tell," which prevented gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. He has rightly criticized the Defense of Marriage Act for withholding from same-sex couples federal benefits and responsibilities enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts. He should continue on this path by issuing an executive order that makes clear that there should be no room for discrimination in the American workplace.

And, in The New York Times, University of Massachusetts-Amherst economics professor Lee Badgett -- who serves as the research director for the Williams Institute -- wrote an opinion piece relating to the executive order and her new study that was reported about on Feb. 6 by Metro Weekly. She wrote in part:

Why should taxpayer money be used to buy goods and services from companies that permit discrimination based on a worker’s sexual orientation or gender identity?

Making sure taxpayer dollars don’t support companies that discriminate does not require an act of Congress. By issuing an executive order, President Obama can — and should — make nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity a requirement for doing business with the American public. ...

In the past, executive orders setting standards for contractors have not only put an American ideal of equal opportunity into practice; they have also helped show employers that ending discrimination is good for business. Employers who act out of bias waste valuable training and often pass over the best person for the job. In the case of gay and transgender workers, workplace discrimination comes with an added cost to employers, leading other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers to fear disclosure and contributing to stress, illness and lower productivity. ...

Requiring federal contractors not to discriminate against workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity lets the American public win twice — as taxpayers and as workers. New research of mine shows that by issuing an executive order, President Obama could cover more than 16 million additional workers against discrimination. Following the legacy of almost every president since World War II and the lead of most of the nation’s top companies, the president should once again put our government on the side of equal opportunity for all.

Read them both for more.

[Image: Screen capture of HRC's homepage celebrating Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein's support for marriage equality.]

LGBT grassroots activists, calling themselves the Queer Occupy Wall Street Caucus, united outside of New York City's Waldorf-Astoria hotel on Feb. 4 to demonstrate against a Human Rights Campaign gala honoring, among others, global investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs for its commitment to LGBT equality. 

According to a release sent out by the Queer OWS Caucus, they stated, "You do not speak for us." The activists, who came from a variety of grassroots organizations, pushed three points: to condemn HRC for honoring Sachs, to call upon the organization to seek full equality by 2014 and to demand HRC improve its transparency. According to the statement, chants included, "Hey, hey, HRC. Where is our equality?" and "Everyone pays their tax - Everyone but Goldman Sachs."

Goldman Sachs, however, was acknowledged by HRC in 2011 as the "Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality," and today, Goldman Sachs' chief executive officer and chairman Lloyd Blankfein, became the first major business leader to join the group's national media campaign in support of same-sex marriage.

HRC released a video statement on its You Tube page featuring Blankfein's marriage equality endorsement.  "America's corporations learned long ago, that equality is just good business and is the right thing to do,” he said in the video. "Join me, and the majority of Americans, who support marriage equality."

Despite this, the Queer OWS activists marched, signs in hand, over the weekend. According to the statement from Queer OWS, a solidarity event was held simultaneously in San Francisco at the Harvey Milk Camera Shop, now an HRC boutique, and petitions were started online demanding HRC withdraw the award given to Sachs.

According to Time Out New York, HRC's response came from spokesman Paul Guequierre: "We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone's opinion counts." 

[UPDATE: THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS RULED - "BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Proposition 8 on Narrow Grounds."]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's public information office expects a ruling on Tuesday, Feb. 7 by 10 a.m. Pacific/1 p.m. Eastern Time in the Perry v. Brown case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The long anticipated appeals court ruling is expected to address three issues: (1) whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-time partner with whom he was not married; (2) whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the state defendants chose to do so; and (3) whether, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and equal protection rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

What's the background?

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled, in a 4-3 decision, that California's Constitution prohibited the state from discriminating against same-sex couples in the state's marriage laws. By mid-June, couples began marrying -- although the future of same-sex marriage in the state already was headed to the November ballot.

Then, after about 18,000 same-sex couples had married in the state, on Nov. 4, 2008, the voters of the state of California elected Barack Obama president -- but also voted to pass Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to add, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This created an upending of an otherwise joyous night for progressives, which was borne out by protests across the state -- and country -- in the weeks that followed.

With the vote, though, the marriages came to a halt. An attempt to have the initiative thrown out under state law, brought by the organizations who had supported the original lawsuit, was unsuccessful. The May 2009 ruling of the California Supreme Court upholding the amendment as valid, however, galvanized, once again, opponents of Proposition 8.

What's this case?

The same day that the California Supreme Court ruled, word came that, very quietly, the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, with help from the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, had a few days earlier filed the lawsuit in federal court that all of the LGBT legal organizations had been avoiding: a direct, federal challenge to a state ban on marriage equality.

The challenge was not just any challenge, of course. It was not only that two of the leading national law firms were serving as the lawyers for plaintiffs Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo -- because big law firms had been helping the LGBT legal groups with cases for years. It was, instead, the lead lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies, who made the headlines. The sparring partners in Bush v. Gore had come together to press the case for marriage equality.

The organization formed to bring the challenge -- the American Foundation for Equal Rights -- was an unknown entity until the day of the filing, and its leader, Chad Griffin, had -- also quietly -- pulled together the support of his PR firm, the Olson/Boies team and some Hollywood heavyweights gay and straight, including Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and director Rob Reiner.

The headlines continued, but the case also moved forward quickly, with the proponents of Proposition 8 moving to intervene in the case to defend Proposition 8. Walker allowed this, noting at the time that this made sense considering that neither then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor then-Attorney General Jerry Brown were going to defend the initiative at trial. In January 2010, a three-week trial was held, with closing arguments held in June 2010.

What was the trial court's decision?

On Aug. 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker held that Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process of law, which protects "fundamental" rights -- including marriage.

Regarding equal protection, he found that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." He concluded, "Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Regarding due process, he noted that marriage has been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a fundamental right that he found was defined as "the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household." He went on to discuss past marriage restrictions, including racial ones, then concluded, "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

What happened in the appeal thus far?

The state defendants -- then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown -- decided not to appeal Walker's decision. The proponents of Proposition 8, however, did appeal.

The appeals court first heard oral arguments on the appeal on Dec. 6, 2010, at which time the issues of the proponents' standing to bring the appeal and the underlying constitutionality of the initiative amending California's constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying were considered by the three-judge panel hearing the appeal.

The three judges are Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee known for being one of the most unabashedly liberal of judges in the appellate courts; Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, President Clinton's first nominee to the Ninth Circuit; and Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative Bush appointee who attended Brigham Young University for both undergraduate and law school education and previously served as the head of the Idaho Republican Party.

Those judges, on Jan. 4, 2011, sent a certified question to the California Supreme Court, asking it to answer two questions about California state law: (1) whether "the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity" or (2) whether they have "the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity." The California Supreme Court accepted the certified question, heard arguments on the matter on Sept. 6, 2011, and decided that the proponents would have "the authority to assert the State's interest" under state law.

The Ninth Circuit then sought additional briefing on that matter, which the parties submitted to the court. The court also heard oral arguments on Dec. 8, 2011, about whether Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case.

What will happen on Tuesday and beyond?

On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit is expected to rule on the questions of Walker's recusal and the proponents' standing. The court, if it holds that recusal was not necessary and that the proponents do have standing, will address the constitutionality of Proposition 8. As the public information office is not the court's judges, its words are not law, but today's notice does gloss over the standing question, which would make it appear that the court is likely to find that the proponents do have standing -- which was to be expected in light of the California Supreme Court's decision on that matter.

[UPDATE @ 5:30P: As the Ninth Circuit previously had issued a stay of the trial court's judgment pending appeal, there is no reason to think that the court's opinion -- should it affirm the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 -- will take effect immediately. The judges almost certainly will issue a stay of their decision to allow the proponents to decide whether they will appeal such a decision.]

At that point, any party dissatisfied with the ruling could seek en banc review, which would require all the active Ninth Circuit judges to vote whether en banc consideration will be given. If a majority supports en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal.

Then further review by the full Ninth Circuit -- referred to as "super en banc" consideration -- or a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case could follow.

With the senior policy advisor for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) telling Metro Weekly on Feb. 4 that timing is key for President Obama to take action to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, questions about the specifics of the proposed executive order -- on which the White House is not commenting -- matter.

Beyond the questions of if and when Obama will sign such an executive order, a review of a Jan. 13 memo sent to Frank about the proposal -- reported about exclusively by Metro Weekly on Feb. 4 -- shows three additional important questions that leading advocates are asking: whether such an executive order could be challenged in court; whether domestic partner benefits should be required by such an executive order; and how affirmative action, required in other areas of an existing federal contractor executive order, should be addressed.

The position on all three of these questions taken in the Jan. 13 memo, sent to Frank from the Center for American Progress and Williams Institute, is particularly relevant because LGBT advocates involved in discussions about the proposal point to the Williams Institute and CAP as the "lead" organizations on the issue. Frank's senior policy advisor, Diego Sanchez, also pointed to Freedom to Work's Tico Almeida as a leading force on the issue. Others involved in various efforts to advance the issue, according to advocates, include the Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Transgender Equality, ACLU and Lambda Legal.

In a new report released today from the Williams Institute, University of Massachusetts-Amherst economics professor Lee Badgett, who serves as the research director of the Williams Institute, looks at the impact of the proposed executive order. The report concludes that, should such a prohibition be implemented, "11 million additional employees would gain protection against sexual orientation discrimination and 16 million employees would be protected against gender identity discrimination."

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY: Faced with the question of whether the president authorized to provide such protections, the Jan. 13 memo concludes yes -- with a caveat.

"It is well within the president's legal authority to issue either an amended or a new executive order to require that federal contractors not discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Further, courts are generally reluctant to overturn executive orders," the memo states. It goes on, however, to note that there is not any Supreme Court case establishing unequivocally the constitutionality of such nondiscrimination orders -- meaning that a contractor wishing to challenge it could do so.

Such a contractor could argue either that the executive order does not advance government procurement "economy and efficiency" or that it conflicts with an existing law like the Defense of Marriage Act. The memo calls the latter challenge "not particularly strong" and argues that an executive order "should withstand legal scrutiny" if challenged as to the former.

Beyond the question of the underlying authority to issue the executive order, two specific questions about the scope of the order are raised in the CAP-Williams memo: domestic partnership benefits and affirmative action.

PARTNER BENEFITS: As to domestic partnership benefits, Badgett's new report, "The Impact of Extending Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Requirements to Federal Contractors," looks into the impact of including a requirement in such an executive order that federal contractors offer domestic partner benefits to employees -- an area addressed in a memo sent to Frank from the Center for American Progress and Williams Institute in mid-January.

According to the report, "We also estimate that requiring federal contractors to offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners of employees would expand such coverage to companies that employ 14-15 million people." The report notes, though, it found that "only 40,000 to 136,000 of these employees would sign up a same-sex partner for coverage, and they would be spread out across tens of thousands of federal contractors."

Although the White House remains silent about the status of a proposed executive order to ban LGBT discrimination among federal contractors, some of D.C.'s leading LGBT advocates and lawmakers have been meeting to strengthen the case for and work out the details of the proposal, Metro Weekly has learned.

In mid-January, the House's longtime lead sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) received a lengthy memo from leading LGBT advocates and researchers laying out the case for why President Obama should take action now by executive order to protect LGBT employees who work for federal contractors from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.

On Jan. 13, those advocates met with Diego Sanchez, Frank's senior policy advisor, to discuss the proposal in depth, presenting him with the memo, which, in addition to describing the nondiscrimination proposal, details that the executive order could require contractors to provide domestic partner benefits for their employees.

Two of the organizations represented at the meeting — the Center for American Progress and the Williams Institute — wrote the lengthy memo, marked "confidential" and obtained by Metro Weekly, to Frank. The memo recommends to Frank that Obama should take such action, in part, because it would "be a strong precedent for congressional passage of ENDA."

The 12-page memorandum — which Sanchez confirmed to Metro Weekly was read by Frank — lays out the case for the executive order proposal, from ongoing discrimination faced by LGBT people to the fact that ENDA will not pass in the current Congress. It goes on to detail the specific methods that could be employed to issue the protections — from expansion of an existing executive order addressing federal contractor discrimination to a new executive order that specifically would address only sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

Sanchez, who led the Jan. 13 meeting, tells Metro Weekly, that the meeting was held at the request of Freedom to Work founder Tico Almeida, who served as the lead counsel for ENDA in the House from 2007 through 2010.

Of the memo, Sanchez notes, "Part of what was in the memo was about the timing: allowing six months for the Department of Labor to write the recommended regulations and allow for the public comment period, so everyone in the country would be able to weigh in.

"There has to be time enough to do the regulations," Sanchez says, making the case for quick executive action in light of this November's presidential election. "You can't just have the executive order; you have to have the regulations."

The co-authorship, the Williams Institute’s Brad Sears says, is because Williams has focused on the research being conducted in regards to the proposal while CAP has been focused on the policy aspects. Of their work, Sears tells Metro Weekly, "Our aim really has been to do a series of research projects measuring the kind of impact an executive order would have for federal contractors."

Specifically, he notes that the research addresses how many people is the executive order would cover, what the experience of other jurisdictions is with similar policies and what the economic impact of these policies would be.

At the Jan. 13 meeting with Frank's senior legislative assistant, Diego Sanchez, the attendees included Almeida, Georgetown Law professor Nan Hunter, who serves as the legal scholarship director for the Williams Institute; and three CAP officials: executive vice president Winnie Stachelberg, LGBT research and communications project director Jeff Krehely and LGBT Progress special assistant Crosby Burns. Sears participated by telephone.

Krehely tells Metro Weekly, "We are often asked to brief Hill offices on our research and this is one of those examples. Given how much Barney has done on ENDA … and given the realities of the House, I’d imagine he’s looking at ways to get the ball a little — not all the way — down the field. I don’t think it would be surprising to people to think that Barney would be interested this proposal."

Almeida says that he has "briefed numerous Capitol Hill offices both on the House side and the Senate side … about the proposed executive order for federal contractors.

"I'm now sufficiently confident" that it will be signed, Almeida tells Metro Weekly. "When he does, we want our Capitol Hill allies to be fully briefed ... to be strong advocates for the wonderful thing the president will have done at that point."

The memo provides evidence of workplace discrimination faced by LGBT people and details the limited states that have nondiscrimination measures, then concluding that "ENDA ... is needed to bring uniform protections to all American workers." Because of the current congressional make-up, however, the memo pushes for executive action "[i]n the interim," adding that "[t]he pattern of executive orders prohibiting forms of discrimination prior to Congressional enactment of a broader statute provides strong precedent for the president requiring sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination compliance prior to the passage of ENDA."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

- Chris Geidner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

The court went on to detail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ the opinion: 1117255.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q:  Are you against civil unions for gays?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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