The ongoing dispute between the House Republican and Democratic leadership over the defense of federal laws banning recognition of same-sex married couples reached a new level today as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) claimed that a planned filing by the lawyers representing the House Republicans to oppose equal veterans benefits to a same-sex married couple would "clearly exceed[]" the authority given in 2011 to the House's general counsel.

In a planned court filing obtained by Metro Weekly that is expected to be filed on Monday, April 2, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- which is controlled by a 3-2 House Republican leadership majority -- will be asking the court to intervene in the case of Tracey Cooper-Harris and her wife, Maggie, who are suing the federal government for equal veterans benefits in a cased backed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

According to the letter sent by Pelosi and Hoyer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) today, the pair stated that they "strongly object" to the intervention and believe that it "clearly exceeds the scope of the original BLAG authorization."

Christine Sun, the deputy legal director at SPLC, tells Metro Weekly, "It's shameful that House Republicans would rather spend taxpayer money to defend discrimination than honor our gay and lesbian veterans."

The Cooper-Harris lawsuit -- like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's McLaughlin v. Panetta lawsuit -- raises claims based on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and two specific provisions of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, which relate to veterans benefits and independently define "spouse" as only pertaining to opposite-sex spouses.

It is the defense of those provisions in Title 38 that Pelosi and Hoyer claim fall outside the scope of the original authorization given on March 9, 2011. At that time, the five members of BLAG voted 3-2 along party lines to recommend that the House general counsel "take such steps as he considers appropriate ... to protect the interests of the House in litigation in which the Attorney General has ceased to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act."

[UPDATE @ 11:45A SATURDAY: Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck tells Metro Weekly this morning, "It was determined through consultations with each office -- the process used to make such decisions regularly under then-Speaker Pelosi -- that a majority of the BLAG believes the constitutionality of this statute, which the Attorney General described as 'identical in material respect to the language of Section 3 of DOMA,' should be determined by the judicial branch, not through a unilateral decree of the President."

In other words, though no formal vote was held, Buck states that a majority of BLAG decided to expand the DOMA defense into including statutes like those in Title 38 that are essentially the same as DOMA.]

In explaining the lawsuit on its website, SPLC states, "Tracey Cooper-Harris served for 12 years in the U.S. Army and received multiple commendations. But because she's in a marriage with a person of the same sex, the government refuses to grant her the same disability benefits as heterosexual veterans."

Once informed of the planned intervention, Pelosi and Hoyer wrote to Boehner with their concerns, writing, "As members of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who were not consulted prior to this unwise decision, we strongly object to spending taxpayer money to intervene in this case against a decorated veteran, Tracey Cooper-Harris, and her spouse, Maggie Cooper-Harris. This decision clearly exceeds the scope of the original BLAG authorization, with which we initially disagreed."

Describing the specifics of the case and the claim by SPLC's lawyers that the denial of equal benefits is unconstitutional, Pelosi and Hoyer write: "We agree, and note that the U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that Section 3 of DOMA -- as well as the definitional portions in Title 38 dealing with military and veterans' benefits -- 'cannot be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law.' We applaud the decision of the Attorney General against defending indefensible discrimination."

In its planned filing, however, BLAG argues that DOMA and the relevant provisions of Title 38 -- which deal with veterans benefits -- are constitutional.

Specifically, in the planned filing, BLAG's lawyers state, "Section 101(3), (31) of Title 38 of the United States Code is consistent with, and does not violate, the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- as well as every other provision of the U.S. Constitution."

Pelosi and Hoyer have criticized the past DOMA defense by BLAG, but this is the first time that BLAG is planning to take action to defend a law other than DOMA in conjunction with these cases.

A spokesman for Boehner did not respond to a request for comment on Friday evening.

READ the full Pelosi/Hoyer letter below the jump.

In a development reported earlier today by The Huffington Post's Sam Stein, documents provided to Metro Weekly and other LGBT entities show that Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC contributed $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage in 2008.

One of 50 donations listed on NOM's 2008 IRS Form 990, the donation is listed only as having come from Free and Strong America from a Post Office box located in Belmont, Massachusetts. As Stein noted, however, the Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act 2008 report filed by a Romney PAC of the same name organized in the state, which has lax campaign finance laws, shows the NOM contribution as having come from that entity. Stein reports that the Romney campaign confirmed the contribution.

The donation, given on October 14, 2008, according to the Alabama PAC report, was about three weeks before Election Day, as Romney was serving as a surrogate speaker for the McCain presidential campaign and as NOM was focused almost exclusively on the upcoming California vote on Proposition 8.

There appears to be significant overlap between the NOM 2008 Form 990-reported contributions and donations to the Proposition 8 campaign previously listed at the Fred Karger-supported Californians Against Hate "California Dishonor Roll." The Romney PAC donation, however, does not appear on the California list.

The Free and Strong America - Alabama PAC report also lists an administrative expense immediately above the NOM contribution and listed as occurring on the same date for $601.87 to Peter Flaherty, who was recently profiled in The New York Times as Romney's "liaison to the Republican Party's right wing."

According to FollowTheMoney.org, a watchdog organization that identitifies itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization revealing the influence of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy in all 50 states, Romney has registered PACs in at least four states besides Alabama: Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and South Carolina. According to a February report from the site, "These PACs -- called Commonwealth PAC, or Free and Strong America PAC, with some state PACs switching between the two names -- have been contributing to state-level candidates since 2004, when Romney was the governor of Massachusetts."

The questions about Romney's use of the Alabama PAC were referenced in Alabama media this past summer, with one report noting, "Romney's Alabama PAC collected $456,750 last year [in 2010] from 41 individual donors. Some of the checks were less than $5,000, but others were huge. One South Dakota household, for example, gave two checks of $35,000 each, on the same day. Under federal limits, Romney would have needed 92 donors to generate that amount."

READ the NOM Form 990 from 2008: NOM 2008 990.pdf

Another day, another poll showing Marylanders divided over the issue of marriage equality.

With the state's recently passed marriage equality law likely headed to referendum on the November ballot, opponents of marriage equality are touting a new poll by the independent firm OpinionWorks and reported by The Washington Post showing that 43 percent of registered voters in Maryland would vote to make same-sex marriage illegal, while 40 percent would vote to make it legal.

That same poll shows 11 percent of voters have no opinion or are not going to vote in November's election, and 5 percent are planning to vote but are not sure of how they are going to vote.

The poll contradicts other poll findings that also show Marylanders closely divided, but give the edge to marriage equality supporters. A Washington Post poll from January of 1,064 Maryland adults found that 50 percent of Maryland adults supported marriage equality, compared to 44 percent who opposed it. 

Similarly, a March poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, that asked 600 Maryland voters about a possible referendum, found that 52 percent of voters would vote to uphold the marriage equality law, while 44 percent would vote to overturn it.

The referendum measure, which will ask voters if they want to approve or reject the marriage equality law, will appear on the November ballot along with the presidential election, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) re-election, and a measure to repeal a state version of the DREAM Act that extends college tuition breaks to undocumented immigrants who graduate from state high schools, provide tax returns going back five years and complete two years of higher education or military service.

Due to the confluence of those events, Maryland's Attorney General, Doug Gansler (D), warned marriage equality supporters as early as October of last year that they would face a tough fight to keep the law in place, due to expected high turnout of African-Americans, Catholics and registered Republicans -- who each make up anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of the population. High-profile ministers and community leaders from each of those groups have vocally opposed the law as they try to marshal their followers to overturn it at the ballot box.

Today, at an event in a bowling alley, presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told a young man bowling with him, who apparently had reached for a pink bowling ball, "You're not gonna use the pink ball. We're not gonna let you do that. Not on camera," according to Reuters reporter Sam Youngman.

The Human Rights Campaign's vice president for communications, Fred Sainz, struck back.

"This is another example of Rick Santorum intentionally making ignorant statements that have a real impact on LGBT people," Sainz said in a statement. "Kids have enough to worry about. They don't need Rick Santorum telling them that using a pink bowling ball is a bad thing."

Referencing other comments criticized by LGBT advocates, Sainz added, "Whether he's comparing our marriages to inanimate objects, saying our children would be better off with a parent in prison as opposed to two loving same-sex parents, or calling open military service a 'tragic social experiment,' he's proven that he thinks LGBT people are second-class citizens not worthy of dignity or respect. In this case, he's advancing tired gender norms by implying a boy should be ashamed or embarrassed to use a certain color bowling ball."

Pink bowling balls can be found here and here ("Pink Flame Bowling Ball" pictured).

"Marriage will be won or lost in the United States in the next two to three years," the previously confidential memorandum from 2009 stated.

In the summer of 2009, the National Organization for Marriage led off its "$20 million strategy for victory" memo with that assessment.

Weeks earlier, Nate Silver, then writing at fivethirtyeight.com, had looked at the polling on marriage in the months since California voters approved Proposition 8 and noted, "A pair of new polls shows for the first time a plurality of Americans in support of gay marriage, although they are contradicted by some other recent evidence." Of polls that gave respondents options of only allowing same-sex couples to marry or not (as opposed to those polls that include civil unions as an option), Silver reported that the average was 43 percent for marriage rights and 53 opposed.

Less than three years later, as part of a lawsuit by NOM seeking to keep its donors under wraps, the NOM memo, along with others, was unsealed on Tuesday, March 27, and obtained and released by the Human Rights Campaign. And, according to the latest polling measuring support for marriage equality across the country, a Public Religion Research Institute survey conducted between March 7 and 11 found that "[a] slim majority (52 percent) of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, and 44 percent oppose."

NOM may have been right, but polling data suggests that "winning" may be in the eye of the beholder.

Among the strategies that the NOM documents show they had intended to advance during that time that marriage equality opposition flipped to marriage equality support include an effort "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies" and, within the Latino community, to "interrupt … assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity." Additionally, the documents show a concerted effort was planned to "accomplish a sophisticated cultural objective: interrupt the attempt to equate gay with black, and sexual orientation with race."

To that end, NAACP chairman emeritus Julian Bond today noted in a statement, "NOM's underhanded attempts to divide will not succeed if Black Americans remember their own history of discrimination. Pitting bigotry's victims against other victims is reprehensible; the defenders of justice must stand together."

Creating race-based, entrenched opposition to marriage equality wasn't the only strategy revealed in the NOM documents. Seeking to "develop an effective culture of resistance" to marriage equality was the aim of a section titled, "Behind Enemy Lines: Document the Victims -- Keeping Gay Marriage controversial in Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut."

This "culture of resistance" would, per NOM's strategy memo, be developed by, among other steps, "gather[ing] a rapid-response team of videographers and reporters to collect and record stories of those who have been harassed, threatened or intimidated as a result of their support for traditional views on marriage and sexuality across the country and also in Europe and abroad."

Although efforts to focus on alleged "victims" of marriage equality supporters have been a regular facet of the public strategy opposing marriage equality in recent years, MassEquality executive director Kara Suffredini said in a statement, "The casual tone with which NOM outlines how it will turn fair-minded Americans against each other solely to hurt LGBT families speaks for itself. This is the ugliest example of a 'solution' in search of a problem."

On Monday, March 26, the Department of Justice took aggressive action to move forward the case of a California federal court employee, Karen Golinski, who is beginning to receive equal health insurance coverage for her wife as a result of the trial-court win in her ongoing lawsuit challenging the constitutionality Defense of Marriage Act.

Calling the resolution of the case a "constitutional question of exceptional importance and urgency," DOJ lawyers -- with Golinski's support -- are seeking to speed up the appeal with the aim of resolving whether Section 3 of DOMA, which defines "marriage" and "spouse" as pertaining only to opposite-sex couples, unconstitutionally discriminates based on sexual orientation.

If DOJ lawyers have their way, an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will be considering the case of Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management well before the presidential election this November.

Additionally, even as the appeal is pending, OPM has directed Golinski's insurer to begin providing equal coverage for her wife, Amy Cunninghis.

Golinski, represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has argued -- and the Obama administration has agreed for the past year -- that DOMA, to the extent that it bars such equal coverage, is unconstitutional. On Feb. 22, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White agreed -- but two days later attorneys representing the House Republican leadership-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group told the court that BLAG would be appealing White's ruling.

On Monday, DOJ filed two motions in the appeal before the Ninth Circuit, both of which were agreed to by Golinski. The first asks the court to expedite the appeal and the other seeks to skip over the first stage of appellate review, in which a three-judge panel considers the case, in favor of moving directly to en banc consideration by an 11-judge panel of the court.

WHY THE REQUEST: In 1990, the Ninth Circuit had decided that discriminatory government treatment based on sexual orientation -- brought as a claim of "equal protection" violations under the Fourteenth or Fifth amendments -- is subjected to the lowest form of scrutiny, rational basis review. That case, High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, was decided four years after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick.

Twenty-two years later, and several Supreme Court cases -- most notably the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans and the 2003 case overturning Bowers, Lawrence v. Texas -- call into question the ongoing validity of High Tech Gays. DOJ argues that heightened scrutiny should apply to such claims.

In explaining its request for initial en banc consideration, DOJ argues, "Whereas a panel of this Court [under Ninth Circuit rules] would need to examine whether High Tech Gays continues to bind panels of this Court, the en banc Court could avoid that inquiry and could instead directly consider afresh whether, as the government argues, heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation."

DOJ goes on to argue, "And because the resolution of that threshold question will have substantial implications for the resolution of this case, en banc consideration is warranted to provide an expeditious and definitive resolution to plaintiff’s challenge to Section 3 of DOMA."

If the court grants the request for the en banc hearing, DOJ asks in the request for expedited consideration that the first briefs be due in the appeal 30 days from the date the court grants the en banc hearing and asks that arguments be scheduled "at the next possible en banc sitting after briefing is completed."

If the court denies the en banc request, DOJ asks that the argument of the three-judge panel be set "at the first available sitting after the completion of briefing, and in any event no later than in September 2012."

The move comes as the Ninth Circuit considers whether to hear the Perry v. Brown challenge to Proposition 8 en banc after a three-judge panel held that it is unconstitutional and a week before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considers another DOMA challenge, Gill v. OPM.

WHERE IS BLAG: In addition to DOJ's aggressive action to move the case forward quickly is the notable lack of action from BLAG thus far.

As reported first by The Washington Post on Monday evening, OPM sent a letter to Blue Cross and Blue Shield on March 9 informing the insurer that, in accordance with White's decision, "OPM hereby withdraws any outstanding directive regarding the enrollment of Ms. Golinski's wife, Amy C. Cunninghis, in her family health benefits plan."

In other words, Golinski -- because of the trial-court decision -- has won for the time being.

Unlike in, for example, the challenge to Proposition 8, there has been no request made to stay, or halt, the implementation of the trial-court ruling while the decision is appealed. BLAG could have, but thus far has not, sought a stay of White's ruling pending any appeal.

Accordingly, OPM -- with the March 9 letter -- began implementing the decision.

As DOJ notes in Monday's filing, Golinski's "spouse will now, pursuant to the district court's order, be permitted to enroll in [the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program], but will not know if she can stay in FEHBP -- and, if she became ill, be able to continue to rely on her insurance through that program -- until final resolution of these cases."

Although Golinski agreed to the expedited and en banc requests, DOJ's filing states that the lawyers representing BLAG "ha[ve] indicated that BLAG will file a separate response."

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit gears up to hear appellate arguments next week in two cases challenging the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act that excludes same-sex couples, the "who's who" of the arguments are getting sorted out as the court today announced the three-judge panel that will be hearing the case and the Department of Justice changed the lawyer who will be arguing the case for the federal government.

The panel of judges hearing next week's cases will consist of two judges appointed by Republican presidents and one Democratic appointee. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Judges Michael Boudin, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Juan Torruella, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, are slated to hear the arguments in the cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States, at 10 a.m. April 4.

There will be no video cameras or live audio streaming of the arguments, but the court clerk's office tells Metro Weekly that the audio from the hearing will be posted on the court's website shortly after the hearing concludes.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who brought the case in 2009 on behalf of Massachusetts same-sex couples who married under state law, won at the trial level in a decision announced in July 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro -- an appointee of President Nixon. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), whose office filed a similar lawsuit based on additional claims, also won at the state level.

The Department of Justice had appealed the decisions to the First Circuit before President Obama determined in February 2011 that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and DOJ stopped defending the law in court challenges like Gill and Massachusetts.

Since that time, House Republicans, through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), have intervened in the challenges in order to continue the defense of the law.

On April 4, Paul Clement, the former top appellate litigator for President George W. Bush, will argue on behalf of BLAG to defend the law to the three-judge panel. Clement and his firm, Bancroft PLLC, have been hired by BLAG to defend the 1996 law. This week, Clement is appearing before the Supreme Court representing the state attorneys general who are challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

Representing the federal defendants will be Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, the out gay lawyer named to his new role as the head of the Civil Division of DOJ about a month ago. Prior to joining DOJ, Delery was a partner at the WilmerHale law firm. Tony West, now in the No. 3 spot at DOJ as the acting associate attorney general, had argued the DOJ's position on DOMA's marriage definition when he had served as assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of DOJ. Ben Kingsley initially had been slated to argue the appellate arguments on April 4.

Mary Bonauto, the GLAD lawyer who argued before the Massachusetts courts to obtain marriage equality in the Bay State, will be arguing for GLAD's plaintiffs. Maura Healey, the head of Massachusetts Attorney General's Civil Rights Division, will be arguing on behalf of Massachusetts.

[Photo: Plaintiffs Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau. (Photo courtesy of GLAD.)]

Jeremy Kennedy -- the campaign manager for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, the effort to defeat the marriage amendment that will be on North Carolina's primary ballot on May 8 -- is having a good day.

With the launch today by several prominent pro-LGBT equality blogs of a "blogswarm" to defeat Amendment One, Kennedy is sounding hopeful. With posts from Pam's House Blend, Daily Kos, AmericaBlog, Towleroad, Joe.My.God., Good As You and even the Human Rights Campaign, the effort is giving momentum to a campaign that has taken hits since its inception by skeptics.

By 1 p.m. today, Kennedy says the campaign has raised "just a little over $13,000 from about 140 donors" today.

Asked how the effort came about, Kennedy tells Metro Weekly today, "We've been working with Pam Spaulding [of Pam's House Blend] and Joe Sudbay [at AmericaBlog] and Scott [Wooledge] at Daily Kos for several weeks now. I took the model from what we did in Maine. I worked on the Maine [marriage referendum] campaign in '09, and we had put together a national blog team to really help draw some national visibility to the campaign. So we started doing that here."

Kennedy sees the fight in North Carolina as an essential step in advancing marriage equality this year.

"We're the first fight in the country this year," he says. "We're gonna go up on May 8, and the momentum that we can build going out of this campaign and especially if we can pull off a win here in North Carolina is definitely gonna set us up to have some good momentum for the five or more states that are going to be on the ballot in November."

Not everyone is as focused on North Carolina as Kennedy would hope. Just this past week, when Freedom to Marry announced its "Win More States Fund" project, North Carolina was not on the list. Several of the blogs presenting the strongest criticism of the Freedom to Marry fund -- including Pam's House Blend and AmericaBlog -- are among the biggest supporters of the blogswarm effort launched today.

Kennedy, however, says the timing is chance, noting, "We picked this date about three weeks ago in order to coincide with when we thought we would be getting close to the $1 million mark."

To skeptics of the North Carolina campaign, Kennedy tells Metro Weekly, "I think, from the very beginning, a lot of people had written off North Carolina as a lost cause -- a long time ago. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that it was a southern state and all the other states around us already have constitutional amendments like this on the books."

Adding that it also was an issue of the allocation of resources across the states that are addressing marriage equality issues this year, he said, "I think they underestimated the team that we've put together in this state. ... We can defeat this amendment.

"That's the one thing our pollster said in our messaging memo. With a fully funded campaign, you can defeat this. ... When people know what this amendment actually does, a majority people oppose it," he says. "That means that we're going to need to have significant resources to be up on TV and to do other paid communications like mail."

Of today's effort and ongoing fundraising efforts, Kennedy says, "We've raised a good amount of money so far, but in these final six weeks we really need to double what we've done so far."

To aid in that end, Kennedy will be answering questions about the campaign in a livechat at 3 p.m. today that will be up at Daily Kos, The Bilerico Project, Pam's House Blend and AmericaBlog, per Kennedy.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that under a new rule it plans to propose on Tuesday, March 27, families headed by same-sex couples would be allowed to file a joint declaration to customs agents upon return to the United States -- saving hassle for those families and nearly 75,000 hours a year of customs agents' time.

According to the pre-publication version of the proposed rule, CBP is "proposing to expand the definition of the term 'members of a family residing in one household' to allow more U.S. returning residents to file a family customs declaration for articles acquired abroad." 

In its summary of the proposed rule, CBP states that it has concluded "that this proposed change would more accurately reflect relationships between members of the public who are traveling together as a family."

CBP anticipates that this proposed change will "reduce the amount of paperwork that CBP officers would need to review during inspection and, therefore, facilitate passenger processing." According to the CBP, the rule change would save the agency 72,600 hours annually.

Under the current version of the regulations, a joint family customs declaration can only be filed by members of a family traveling together who are "related 'by blood, marriage, or adoption;' live together in the same household at their last permanent residence; and intend to live in the same household after returning to the United States."

According to the pre-publication version of the proposed rule, "CBP does not believe that the current definition encompasses other relationships where members of the public travel together as a family. CBP believes that the definition unnecessarily limits the number of individuals who may file a family customs declaration for articles acquired abroad."

The new proposal would expand the definition to include those who "[a]re related by blood, marriage, domestic relationship, or adoption." "Domestic relationship" is defined in the pre-publication proposed rule as including "foster children, stepchildren, half-siblings, legal wards, other dependents, individuals with an in loco parentis or guardianship relationship, and two adults who are in a committed relationship including, but not limited to, long-time companions, and couples in civil unions, or domestic partnerships, wherein the partners share financial assets and obligations, and are not married to, or a partner of, anyone else."

Written comments on the proposed rule change will be accepted for 60 days following the expected publication of the rule on March 27.

Immigration Equality executive director Rachel Tiven praised the development.

"We asked the Obama administration to stop discriminating against families on federal customs forms, and today's announcement is welcome news. Separating families in the customs line was a waste of government resources and a painful symbol of the double standard LGBT families face at the federal level," she said in a statement. "This proposal ends that insult. It sends an unmistakable message that the Administration, and the United States, recognize gay families as 'real families,' too. We thank our coalition partners, especially Family Equality Council, for their part in this victory."

The Family Equality Council's executive director, Jennifer Chrisler, noted why her organization had pushed for the change, saying in a statement, "No child should have to ask their parent if they really are a family because of an arcane customs form. But that is what is happening to LGBT families who are treated differently when re-entering the United States through Customs and Border Protection after travelling abroad. In many cases couples are forced to declare they have no relationship with their spouses and parents are forced to split up their children in order to get through the customs process."

Of the proposed change, she said, "President Obama and this administration have recognized the need to modernize forms and regulations to reflect the reality of today's American families and we applaud them for that." But, she added, "We look forward to the day when LGBT families are recognized, respected and protected by all laws and policies."

READ the pre-publication version of the rule: 2012-07122.pdf

On March 21, Starbucks chief executive officer Howard Schultz responded to a recent campaign launched by the National Organization for Marriage urging people to "Dump Starbucks" by telling attendees at a corporate shareholders meeting, "I think Starbucks has many constituents, and from time to time we are going to make a decision that we think is consistent with the heritage and the tradition of the company that is perhaps maybe inconsistent with one group's view of the world."

In January, Starbucks -- the global coffee chain headquarted in Seattle, Washington -- announced its support for same-sex marriages amid the state's marriage equality debates. "It is core to who we are and what we value as a company," Kalen Holmes, executive vice president for Partner Resources, wrote in a statement published by the Seattle Times. 

In response, NOM launched "Dump Starbucks" -- a campaign claiming that Starbucks is going against the grind by launching a culture war on those who believe in the preservation of heterosexual marriages. 

"Unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company," Brian Brown, NOM's president, said in a statement. "But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society. We will not tolerate an international company attempting to force its misguided values on citizens. The majority of Americans and virtually every consumer in some countries in which Starbucks operates believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They will not be pleased to learn that their money is being used to advance gay marriage in society."

Although "Dump Starbucks" states that half of Starbucks' US customers are offended by its pro-equality position, a 2011 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be legal. At the time of publication, the petition had only 3,770 signers.

Starbucks, which was ranked 98 in CNN Money's 100 best companies to work for in 2011, reported consolidated net revenues of a record $3.4 billion during the first quarter of the fiscal year 2012 -- an increase of 16 percent since the first quarter, 2011.   

The Fortune 500 company is not alone in its support for marriage equality. On March 21, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, launched its own petition encouraging consumers to continue to support Starbucks despite NOM's backlash.

"NOM is falling back on their typical tactics. Starbucks has been a vocal supporter of marriage equality for loving same-sex couples – views that are in-line with the majority of Americans -- and that enrages NOM," said HRC President Joe Solmonese in a statement. "As a result, NOM is throwing a temper-tantrum and encouraging its few supporters to intentionally harm the economic well-being of Starbucks employees all over the world." The HRC petition does not reveal how many people have signed it.

At the shareholders meeting, Starbucks CEO Schultz said Starbucks is "the kind of company that embraces diversity."

WATCH:

Click here to see an HRC compiled list of other companies which support marriage equality.

With a 211 to 116 vote on Wednesday, March 21, the New Hampshire House of Representatives rejected a bill to repeal the state's marriage equality law. According to Reuters, about 100 Republicans voted against the bill.

Although the bill was expected to be vetoed by Gov. John Lynch (D), supporters of repealing the 2009 legislation that Lynch had signed into law were hoping to secure the two-thirds vote in favor of repeal that would have been needed to override a veto.

Craig Stowell, a resident of New Hampshire who testified before the legislature in support of the right of his gay brother, Calvin, to marry, became the co-chair of the Standing Up for New Hampshie Families coalition that fought to preserve the law.

A Republican, Craig Stowell said in a statement released by the coalition, "Today is a banner day for the freedom to marry. Our opponents have been crowing about getting their two-thirds, but in the end, it's clear they couldn't muster the votes. This is a victory for our supporters -- the majority of Granite Staters who oppose any roll back of marriage equality -- because they reached out time and again and told lawmakers to leave this law alone."

"This was our opponents' best shot and they blew it," he continued. "This was supposed to be the most favorable legislative climate for repeal and they couldn’t even get a majority."

Even Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese was praising Stowell's work.

"We thank Governor Lynch and supportive Republican and Democratic legislators for their tireless work on bringing marriage equality to the state and their continued leadership in the weeks ahead," Solmonese said in a statement. "And we could not be more proud of Claremont's Craig Stowell, a conservative Republican and former Marine, who has been fighting to defend his gay brother's freedom to get married."

American Foundation for Equal Rights board member and former Republican National Committe chairman Ken Mehlman had, as he did earlier in New York and Maryland, stepped up in recent months to help convince Republican lawmakers to vote in favor of marriage equality.

In a statement released by AFER, he said, "Congratulations to the thousands of New Hampshire residents who came together for fairness. Thanks to their powerful voices, dozens of New Hampshire Republicans joined their colleagues across the aisle to stand up for freedom and family values."

Back in January, Mehlman -- who had run President George W. Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 when many states had marriage amendments, which Bush had supported, on their ballots -- wrote an opinion piece for the Union Leader opposing marriage equality repeal.

Noting that he was traveling to the state to urge Republican lawmakers to reject the bill, he concluded: "It's time to stand up for individual freedom and liberty, to live by the Golden Rule and to oppose any effort to diminish or strip away individual rights, and to return to the real business of building business, keeping taxes down and growing our economy. 'Live Free or Die' should be more than just a slogan."

Marc Solomon, Freedom to Marry's national campaign director, celebrated the surprisingly lopsided victory.

"Our opponents tried to abuse the 2010 Republican legislative sweep in New Hampshire to repeal the popular law.  What they didn’t count on was the fact that the freedom to marry is becoming a bipartisan value, as resoundingly reflected in today's vote," he said in a statement. "We are grateful to Governor John Lynch for his principled defense of the freedom to marry law, and to the many lawmakers -- both Republican and Democrat -- who listened carefully to their constituents and recognized that New Hampshire is stronger when all committed couples can share in the freedom to marry."

Of the vote, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey said in a statement, "This is a wonderful victory for New Hampshire, which again took a stand for families. The House was right to reject efforts to turn back the clock on freedom and fairness in New Hampshire. Thank you to all the lawmakers who recognized our common humanity, and to Gov. John Lynch for his support of the freedom to marry."

[Photo: Craig Stowell, left, and his brother, Calvin, at a Human Rights Campaign event in Washington, D.C., in February 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[READ Chris Geidner's news analysis -- "Obama's Adventures in Wonderland" -- for more on this development.]

At multiple events in New York City on Monday, March 19, First Lady Michelle Obama -- in campaigning for her husband's re-election -- made reference to the effect that Supreme Court appointees will have on "whether we can ... love whomever we choose."

Although she did not explicitly mention marriage equality, the possibility of a case raising that issue reaching the Supreme Court has been a regular topic of discussion -- particularly in light of the challenge to California's marriage amendment, Proposition 8, that is currently being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

[UPDATE @ 3P: Today at the White House press briefing, in response to a question from Metro Weekly, White House press secretary Jay Carney said of the first lady's comments, "She has said this before and has for some time, and that is a reference to the president's position on the Defense of Marriage Act."

Continuing, he added: "The president and first lady firmly believe that gay and lesbian Americans and their families deserve legal protections and the ability to thrive just like any family does. The first lady has said she is proud of his accomplishments, including the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' ensuring hospital visitation rights and calling for the repeal of DOMA and obviously our actions on DOMA. And our decision not to defend DOMA is well known."]

At Locanda Verde restaurant on Greenwich Street in TriBeCa, the first lady spoke for nearly 30 minutes at an event hosted by Robert de Niro and his wife Grace Hightower. To a crowd of about 85 people contributing a minimum of $5,000 to the Obama Victory Fund that benefits the campaign and the Democratic National Committee, she discussed the president's accomplishments unsurprisingly in glowing terms. 

Raising the Supreme Court, according to a White House transcript, she said, "[L]et us not forget about what it meant when my husband appointed those two magnificent Supreme Court justices. And for the first time in history, our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation’s highest court.

She then added, "And let us not forget what their decisions -- the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come -– on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose" -- a line that prompted applause.  

"But that's what's at stake," she concluded in that section of her speech. "That's the choice that we face."

President Obama did not support marriage equality in his 2008 campaign and, according to his White House spokesman, Jay Carney, has not changed his position from the "evolving" point he told bloggers and reporters that he was at on the issue toward the end of 2010. The president, however, told his Justice Department more than a year ago that he believes the federal definition of marriage -- which limits marriage to one man and one woman -- is unconstitutional and has directed the DOJ to stop defending the law in court challenges, which it has done.

If there was any doubt whether the first lady's comments at the de Niro event were an off-the-cuff addition, she had made similar comments -- but with a focus on children -- to about 400 supporters who paid $150 each to attend an event at the Chelsea Piers bowling lanes earlier in the day on Monday.

Stating much of the same background on the court appointments that she would later give at the de Niro event, she then said, according to a White House transcript, "But more importantly, let's not forget the impact their decisions will have on our children's lives for decades to come -- on their privacy and security; on whether they can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever they choose."

The first lady's communications director, Kristina Schake, was a founding board member of the organization backing the challenge to Proposition 8, the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Schake's former business partner, Chad Griffin, is the board president of AFER and recently was announced as the next president of the Human Rights Campaign. At the State Dinner held in honor of the official visit by British Prime Minister Davd Cameron this past week, Griffin and his date sat at the president and first lady's table.

UPDATE @ 9A: Of the first lady's remarks, Evan Wolfson, president and founder of Freedom to Marry, told Metro Weekly: "With several freedom to marry cases potentially reaching the Supreme Court in the next year or two, the First Lady is absolutely right that we need to do everything we can to maximize our chances of winning there."

He added: "Who sits on the Court makes a big difference, as does the momentum for marriage we build to create the climate around the Court, which matters as much or more as the briefs we file. That's why we must urgently work to win more states and continue moving hearts and minds -- and why we need our leaders to join us all in making the case as effectively in the court of public opinion as our advocates do in the court of law."

The Supreme Court today denied review in a case brought by Christian student groups against San Diego State University, declining consideration of the question of whether colleges can require student groups to adhere to religious nondiscrimination policies in their membership decisions.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the SDSU student organizations, had asked the court to consider whether a university can allow student groups to have membership requirements based on nonreligious beliefs but not religious ones -- a characterization of the policy that the university had argued was inaccurate.

The question was left unanswered in an earlier case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, because there the court considered only whether the policy of the University of California-Hastings that student groups must accept "all comers" was a constitutional policy. It decided in that 2010 case that such an "all comers" requirement was constitutional.

The plaintiffs, the Alpha Delta Chi Christian sorority and Alpha Gamma Omega Christian fraternity, lost on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit on the main question of whether the school's former policy was constitutional (decision) and were seeking Supreme Court review -- a petition of certiorari (see SCOTUSblog) -- of that decision.

The court announced today that it had denied the petition for certiorari, which means the Ninth Circuit's decision stands. No justices announced their disagreement with the decision not to hear the case. The decision is not a resolution by the Supreme Court of the legal questions raised that would serve as a precedent across the country; it does, however, mean that the Ninth Circuit decision stands as a precedent for all lower courts within the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The school, represented by Neal Katyal, the former Department of Justice acting solicitor general who is now a partner at Hogan Lovells LLP, had advised that the court should not take the case because SDSU had since altered its student group policy to an "all comers" one like that approved in the CLS case. As such, the school argued, the case was moot.

The student organizations countered that the new "all comers" policy was only invoked at the last minute and was insufficient because it included an "exemption for gender-based discrimination by fraternities and sororities."

In addition to the mootness question, though, the school had argued more fundamentally that the ADF brief was "incorrect" in its description of the school's prior policy. Katyal wrote for SDSU, "[T]he former policy forbade exclusion not just on the basis of religion, but on the basis of any of the grounds protected by anti-discrimination law -- 'race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, color, age, gender, marital status, citizen- ship, sexual orientation, [and] disability.'"

Finally, the procedural posture of the case was such that questions about whether the school had selectively enforced its policy against the Christian Greek letter organizations were to be further considered by the trial court on remand. As such, SDSU argued, "This case would present a remarkably poor vehicle for review given that Petitioners' theory turns on unresolved facts that await elucidation in the District Court."

"While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples. That's what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do -- it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples -- and that's why the President does not support it," Cameron French, Obama for America North Carolina campaign spokesman, said in a statement reported by the News & Observer in North Carolina.

The move is notable because the Obama White House has avoided referencing specific states by name in statements issued by the White House about pending marriage and domestic partnership initiatives and referenda.

In September 2011, for example, when asked to clarify a White House statement issued about the North Carolina amendment -- a statement that discussed the president's general opposition but contained no North Carolina specifics -- White House press secretary Jay Carney told Metro Weekly, "I think our position on similar amendments has been clear. I don't have a specific one on this, but I think you can -- our position is clear on this, the President's position is clear on this."

Statements made by Obama and his spokespeople in 2009 also avoided specific mention of either Maine or Washington, both of which had referenda on the ballots relating to same-sex couples' relationship recognition, keeping instead to language similar to the first sentence of today's statement by French.

In Maine, the 2009 referendum reversed the state's legislature, which had passed a marriage equality bill. In Washington, the 2009 referendum upheld the state's legislature, which had passed a bill granting comprehensive domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples. The same also had been true about statements made before today in response to questions about North Carolina, Minnesota, Maine, Maryland or Washington -- all of which could have marriage initiatives or referenda on their ballots this year.

In 2008, however, then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama did specifically oppose California's Proposition 8, which was then pending before voters. He wrote to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, "As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. ... [T]hat is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

Although many states could have measures on their ballots this year, North Carolina is the only state that will have a marriage-related ballot measure on its primary ballot. The North Carolina primary is May 8.

The language will read: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contract."

Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry, told Metro Weekly, "Freedom to Marry applauds the President and urges voters in North Carolina and throughout the country to stay true to the Golden Rule of treating others as we ourselves would want to be treated."

He added, "President Obama's strong restatement of his opposition to anti-gay measures such as the proposed discriminatory constitutional amendment in North Carolina is one more reason voters should reject such ugly attempts to divide Americans and put obstacles in the path of people seeking to take care of their loved ones in sickness and in health and in tough economic times. It is wrong to deny loving and committed couples the freedom to marry, wrong to smuggle in language that would bar not only marriage but all other forms of recognition for families such as civil union or partnership, and wrong to write discrimination into the constitution."

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who is leaving the organization in the coming months and is an Obama campaign co-chair, said in a statement issued by HRC, "The President has made clear the importance of protecting all families. Amendment One undermines basic human dignity and places families of all types at risk in North Carolina. Voting 'No' on Amendment One is critical for maintaining a fair North Carolina."

Today's statement comes two days after Obama dined at the State Dinner held in honor of the official visit of British Prime Minister David Cameron with Chad Griffin, the out gay incoming head of HRC and founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. AFER is backing the court challenge to Proposition 8.

As The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart noted, "If the president or the administration had any concern about Griffin or the important work AFER is doing, you better believe he would not have been so prominently placed at the dinner. This doesn't give Obama a pass on his evolution. And it certainly is not going to give him immunity in the impending fight over adding a marriage equality plank to the Democratic Party platform as Greg Sargent cautions."

[NOTE: This post was updated at 4:30 p.m. to include information from the September 2011 White House press briefing. At 5:15 p.m., the final paragraph was removed. Wolfson and Obama will be sharing the stage at the Barnard College commencement, where both are to receive the Barnard Medal of Distinction, as BuzzFeed reported earlier today, but Wolfson tells Metro Weekly that won't be happening until May.]

Michael Fitzgerald, an out gay California lawyer, received overwhelming approval today from the U.S. Senate, with a 91-6 vote, for his nomination to serve as a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -- making him the fourth out LGBT federal, lifetime-tenured judge in the nation.

Fitzgerald's confirmation will make him the first out LGBT Article III judge serving outside of New York City. Article III judges -- referencing the judicial powers detailed in the Constitution -- are nominated by the president, given consent by the Senate to serve and have lifetime tenure.

The vote, which began a little after 2:24 p.m. today, came after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, March 12, announced that he would be forcing debate and votes on 17 of Obama's judicial nominees if no deal was reached. On Wednesday, March 14, an agreement was reached between the parties' leaders to have the Senate vote in the coming weeks on 14 of President Obama's judicial nominees -- including Fitzgerald.

No one spoke in opposition to the nomination, the vote on which was announced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who was presiding. Senators voting "no" were Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and David Vitter (R-La.).

Fitzgerald, who was nominated by President Obama on July 20, 2011 for the judgeship, had a hearing in October 2011 and was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate without opposition on Nov. 3, 2011.

[UPDATE @ 3:15P: In a statement, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who strongly backed the nomination, said of today's vote, "The federal bench in California will gain an extremely talented new judge as a result of today's historic vote to confirm Michael Fitzgerald. His sharp intellect and broad legal experience will make him a tremendous asset to the people of the Central District."

Of the Senate process on nominations, however, she added, "While I am pleased by today's overwhelming vote, it is shameful that he had to wait so long for a vote and I hope that Republicans will stop blocking the confirmation of highly qualified nominees."]

[UPDATE @ 5P: In a statement provided to Metro Weekly by Boxer's office, Fitzgerald said, "I am honored by the Senate's confirmation vote today. I am grateful to the President for my nomination. I am grateful to Senator Boxer for her recommendation of me to the President. I am grateful to Senator Feinstein for her support in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I look forward to serving the people of the Central District of California."]

Fitzgerald received an American Bar Association rating of "unanimously well qualified." A former assistant U.S. Attorney, he is a lawyer with Corbin, Fitzgerald and Athey in Los Angeles.

As a federal prosecutor, according to his law firm's web biography, he handled more than twenty criminal trials and filed over thirty briefs in the Ninth Circuit. His cases included the successful prosecution of a money-laundering ring masquerading as a legitimate business.

Fitzgerald graduated from the School of Law of the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) in 1985, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif. He served as Managing Editor of the Industrial Relations Law Journal and received the American Jurisprudence Award in Criminal Law. After law school, he was a law clerk to the Judge Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He had received his bachelor's degree magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1981.

At Fitzgerald's confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) had asked Fitzgerald specifically about a case on which he had worked earlier in his career, Buttino v. FBI.

In Fitgerald's written questionnaire provided to the committee, he described the case, writing, "[Frank] Buttino was a gay FBI special agent who was anonymously 'outed' to his Special Agent-in-Charge, which ultimately resulted in the removal of his security clearance and concomitant firing as an FBI special agent."

Buttino filed a class-action lawsuit against the Bureau, and, at Fitzgerald's request, he and his firm -- Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe -- represented the class at trial. After several days of trial, the case settled, with the FBI making significant policy changes as a result.

At the confirmation hearing, of the result Fitzgerald said, "The FBI agreed to no longer use security concerns as means to keep gays and lesbians from being hired as special agents, and Mr. Buttino's pension was restored."

A search of his political contribution history on OpenSecrets.org shows that Fitzgerald contributed the maximum amount -- $4,600 -- to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

The Senate previously has confirmed two out LGBT lawyers nominated by Obama, Judges Paul Oetken and Alison Nathan, both of whom sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Oetken's nomination was approved 80-13, including a majority of the Republican caucus voting for his nomination. Nathan, however, only was approved 48-44, and faced significant floor opposition -- although her sexual orientation was not directly raised in the debate -- and received no "yes" votes from Republicans.

Obama withdrew the name of one nominee, appellate nominee Edward DuMont, after the Senate refused to act on the nomination.

Oetken and Nathan joined the only other out LGBT Article III federal judge, Judge Deborah Batts, who was nominated by President Clinton and has announced that she will be taking senior status on April 13. Now-retired Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay and oversaw the Proposition 8 trial in 2009, had served as a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but he did not speak publicly about his sexual orientation until after his retirement.

It was announced today that, following an agreement reached between the parties' leaders, the Senate will be voting in the coming weeks on 14 of President Obama's judicial nominees -- including out gay nominee Michael Fitzgerald, whose nomination for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is due to be voted on about 2 p.m. Thursday, March 15.

According to the Senate schedule, at 1:45 p.m., the Senate will consider the nominations of Fitzgerald and Gina Marie Groh, nominated to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia. Then, at "approximately 2 p.m.," votes on each nominee will be held, first on Groh's nomination and then on Fitzgerald's nomination.

The move came after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, March 12, announced that he would be forcing debate and votes on 17 of Obama's judicial nominees if no deal was reached.

Fitzgerald, who was nominated by President Obama in July 2011 for a judgeship on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, had a hearing in October 2011 and was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate without opposition on Nov. 3, 2011.

Fitzgerald received an American Bar Association rating of "unanimously well qualified." A former assistant U.S. Attorney, he is a lawyer with Corbin, Fitzgerald and Athey in Los Angeles.

At Fitzgerald's confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) had asked Fitzgerald specifically about a case on which he had worked earlier in his career, Buttino v. FBI.

In Fitgerald's written questionnaire provided to the committee, he described the case, writing, "[Frank] Buttino was a gay FBI special agent who was anonymously 'outed' to his Special Agent-in-Charge, which ultimately resulted in the removal of his security clearance and concomitant firing as an FBI special agent."

Buttino filed a class-action lawsuit against the Bureau, and, at Fitzgerald's request, he and his firm -- Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe -- represented the class at trial. After several days of trial, the case settled, with the FBI making significant policy changes as a result.

At the confirmation hearing, of the result Fitzgerald said, "The FBI agreed to no longer use security concerns as means to keep gays and lesbians from being hired as special agents, and Mr. Buttino's pension was restored."

The Senate previously has confirmed two out LGBT lawyers nominated by Obama, Judges Paul Oetken and Alison Nathan, both of whom sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Oetken's nomination was approved 80-13, including a majority of the Republican caucus voting for his nomination. Nathan, however, only was approved 48-44, and faced significant floor opposition -- although her sexual orientation was not directly raised in the debate -- and received no "yes" votes from Republicans.

The primary senator to speak today against Nathan's nomination was Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who criticized Nathan for more than 18 minutes. Among his primary concerns were that she could potentially be an "activist judge," was inexperienced and -- as described at length -- might be too willing to rely on foreign law. Of such foreign-law reliance, he said, "I think it is a dangerous philosophy." He then stated that by holding such views, people "fundamentally can disqualify themselves from the bench."

Obama withdrew the name of one nominee, appellate nominee Edward DuMont, after the Senate refused to act on the nomination.

Oetken and Nathan joined the only other out LGBT Article III federal judge, Judge Deborah Batts, who was nominated by President Clinton. Article III judges -- referencing the judicial powers detailed in the Constitution -- have lifetime tenure.

As such, Fitzgerald's confirmation would make him the first out LGBT Article III judge serving outside of New York City. Now-retired Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay and oversaw the Proposition 8 trial in 2009, had served as a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but he did not speak publicly about his sexual orientation until after his retirement.

The White House today announced that President Obama is naming Dr. Grant Colfax as the new director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP). Colfax was most recently the director of the HIV Prevention Section in the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

"Grant Colfax will lead the my Administration's continued progress in providing care and treatment to people living with HIV/AIDS," Obama said in a statement. "Grant's expertise will be key as we continue to face serious challenges and take bold steps to meet them. I look forward to his leadership in the months and years to come."

In a statement, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said, "The announcement that Dr. Grant Colfax will serve as the New Director of President Obama's Office of National AIDS Policy brings enormous pride to many San Franciscans and prestige to our city's efforts to increase prevention, ensure treatment, and support research."

Colfax, according to the White House, will coordinate the continuing efforts of the government to reduce the number of HIV infections across the United States. A part of the White House Domestic Policy Council, ONAP emphasizes prevention through wide-ranging education initiatives and helps to coordinate the care and treatment of citizens with HIV/AIDS.

According to the White House, ONAP coordinates with the National Security Council and the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, and works with international bodies to ensure that America's response to the global pandemic -- including the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) -- is fully integrated with other prevention, care, and treatment efforts around the world.

Colfax is a graduate of Harvard Medical School and completed his medical residency at the University of California, San Francisco. According to the White House, his work focuses on collaborating with community stakeholders to implement sustainable, evidence-based HIV prevention and treatment interventions and policies in public health settings and measuring their effectiveness.

Of his work in San Francisco, Pelosi said, "As Director of the HIV Prevention Section in the San Francisco Department of Public Health, Grant has been essential in ensuring a decline in new HIV infections. With experience as a health care practitioner, researcher, and public policy thinker, Grant is uniquely suited to lead the lifesaving efforts of the Office of National AIDS Policy. He has pioneered groundbreaking, evidence-based prevention strategies, such as monitoring and mapping 'community viral load' for decreasing new HIV infections."

[Photo: Colfax (Photo via University of California-San Francisco.)]

Addressing the recent spate of "emo killings" in Iraq, in which young gay men and others with similar public presentation have been targets, the spokesman for the American embassy in Iraq told the San Francisco-based group, Gays Without Borders, that the embassy "strongly condemns" the killings and "is fully engaged at the highest levels to end these attacks, bring the perpetrators to justice, and ensure a secure and free future for all Iraqis."

In a response to Gays Without Borders, embassy spokesman Michael McClellan, who confirmed the email to Metro Weekly, wrote, "Along with the Embassy, the U.S. Department of State strongly condemns the recent violence and killings in Iraq by groups who appear to be targeting individuals based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or personal expression. These acts of intolerance should have no place in any society."

The New York Times on Monday morning reported that "young men in tight T-shirts and skinny jeans are being beaten to death with cement blocks and dumped in the streets .... The violence offers a reminder that the government has been unable to stop threats and attacks against small religious sects, ethnic groups and social pariahs like gay men."

The response to Gays Without Borders was first reported by one of its members, Michael Petrelis. In the NYT report, Jack Healy writes, "An Interior Ministry security officer said that in the past two weeks, officials had found the bodies of six young men whose skulls had been crushed. Reuters reported the toll to be 14 or more, citing hospital and security officials, while rights groups say that more than 40 young men have been killed, but have provided no evidence for this figure."

In the response, McClellan writes, "This embassy shares your concern about the recent attacks in Iraq against individuals identified as gay or part of the 'emo' culture. When NGOs here in Iraq first brought this issue to our attention, we immediately expressed our concern to the Government of Iraq, urged immediate measures to combat this violence, and undertook to try to ascertain the details of these attacks."

McClellan went on to note, "We have been encouraged by the degree of prominent public condemnation of these attacks. A representative for Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani condemned the violence and called the killings 'terrorist attacks.' The Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee within Iraq’s Parliament condemned these actions as well. These statements indicate that an increasing number of Iraqi officials are ready to take these crimes seriously. Through our advocacy and diplomatic efforts, we will continue to urge the Iraqi government to condemn attacks on the LGBT community and to devote all possible attention to preventing such crimes. The State Department will continue to advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

McClellan told Metro Weekly early this morning Eastern Time that there had been no further developments in the day since he had sent Petrelis the letter.

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that he was filing a cloture petition to attempt to force Senate votes on 17 federal trial court judge nominees, including out gay attorney Michael W. Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald, who was nominated by President Obama in July 2011 for a judgeship on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, had a hearing in October 2011 and was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate without opposition on Nov. 3, 2011.

In addressing the issue, Reid today said on the Senate floor, "One qualified consensus judicial nominee ought to be treated like any other, regardless of political party and regardless of who's president, quite frankly. With our courts already in crisis, the Republicans couldn't have chosen a worse time to play politics with the confirmation process.

"So, today I regret that I have to file cloture on a package of 17 district court judges. I hope that we can move through these. I hope that people aren't going to be doing more dilatory tactics," he continued. "If cloture is invoked, people have a right, under our rules, to hold up the next judge in line for 30 hours. That will show what this is all about: It will show it's an effort to embarrass the president and not take into consideration 116 million people [living in districts with declared] who don't have the ability to have their cases tried in an orderly manner."

According to the list posted by Democrats today, Fitzgerald would be the third of the 17 nominees to be considered.

According to Politico, McConnell spokesman Don Stewart argued that Democrats are responsible for the vacancy rate on the federal courts. President Barack Obama has only nominated people for 39 of the 83 vacancies on federal courts, and about half of those are awaiting final action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Politico cites Stewart as having said.

People For the American Way stated in a news release that there were only two filibusters of district court nominations during the 16 years that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in office.

"It is absolutely stunning that Republicans are willing to tie up Senate business for more than 510 hours just to make things more difficult for President Obama," PFAW's Marge Baker said in a statement. "For the past three years, Senate Republicans have been slow-walking judicial nominees at every step of the process, ignoring the duties they were elected to office to perform and contributing to a historic vacancy crisis in our federal courts."

The Senate previously has confirmed two out LGBT lawyers nominated by Obama, Judges Paul Oetken and Alison Nathan, both of whom sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Obama withdrew the name of one nominee, appellate nominee Edward DuMont, after the Senate refused to act on the nomination.

[Photo: President Obama at the 2010 White House LGBT Pride Month Reception. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

Since Metro Weekly's exclusive reporting on March 8 that then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama told the Houston GLBT Political Caucus in February 2008 that as president he would support a nondiscrimination policy based on sexual orientation and gender identity for federal contractors, the White House and Obama campaign have not responded to any questions about the issue.

The most discussed way for Obama to implement such a nondiscrimination policy would be through an executive order. Metro Weekly reported in January that several sources outside the administration familiar with the process said that such a proposed federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order that would include sexual orientation and gender identity has been given the okay by both the Labor Department, which oversees federal contract compliance, and the Justice Department and that the executive order proposal is at the White House.

People employed by federal contractors, according to the Freedom to Work organization that supports the executive order proposal, constitute more than 20 percent of the American workforce.

The silence on this proposal comes even as the White House today announced two other jobs-related initiatives -- the Universal Displaced Worker Program and the American Job Center -- and held a conference call with reporters to promote those programs. The call included the participation of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, whose department would implement the federal contractor executive order.

In a statement released promoting the programs, Obama is quoted as saying, "Anyone who has lost a job, no matter what the circumstances, deserves the same support to get back on their feet -- and today's announcement will help make sure they get it."

According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 2011, 47 percent of survey respondents said they "had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being transgender or gender non-conforming."

A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment about whether the programs announced today include any nondiscrimination requirements that would include sexual orientation or gender identity.

This is particularly relevant with regards to the American Job Center, which, according to the White House, "will build on [the administration's] partnerships with state and federal agencies, libraries, community colleges, and community organizations to ensure broad access in all parts of the country."

In addition to questions about today's new programs, Metro Weekly today reiterated its question to officials from the White House press office and the Obama campaign's press office about whether the President changed his position since February 2008 regarding a federal contractor nondiscrimination policy, and, if not, why has he not signed an executive order to implement such a policy. Neither the White House nor the Obama campaign have responded.

Following Metro Weekly's exclusive report on March 8 that then-Sen. Barack Obama told the Houston GLBT Political Caucus in February 2008 that he would support a federal contractor nondiscrimination policy including sexual orientation and gender identity as president, the American Civil Liberties Union today called on President Obama to sign an executive order to that effect, calling it "the single most important step" the president could take before re-election to help stop anti-LGBT job discrimination.

The Human Rights Campaign's vice president for communications, Fred Sainz, told Metro Weekly that HRC, which has endorsed Obama's re-election, had been unaware of the questionnaire prior to the March 8 report. He added, though, "[W]e're not surprised that the president understands the importance of this executive order."

In coments by the ACLU's legislative representative Ian Thompson, Thompson wrote, "The ACLU views this executive order as the single most important step that President Obama could take this year to eradicate anti-LGBT discrimination from American workplaces. ... Candidate Obama was right to endorse this executive order in 2008. It's time for President Obama to issue it."

Sainz concurred, writing, "In the absence of a federal [Employment Non-Discrimination Act], an executive order is the best possible way of covering the greatest number of LGBT workers right away."

Spokespersons at the White House and Obama campaign have not responded to multiple requests from Metro Weekly asking whether Obama has changed his position on whether he supports such a policy, and if not, why he has not yet signed an executive order as president to implement such a policy.

Sainz told Metro Weekly that, along with the Center for American Progress, ACLU and Williams Institute, HRC has "regularly and continuously advocated with White House and Administration officials on the importance of this order."

He noted that HRC recently shared polling data with the Obama administration finding that 73 percent of Americans support a policy that would require companies that do business with the federal government to not discriminate against LGBT people in employment. In addition, Sainz reports that HRC has shared extensive data from the group's Workplace Project, including the 2012 Corporate Equality Index, reflecting that a majority of Fortune 500 companies already have these kinds of nondiscrimination policies in place.

Advocates of marriage equality in Maryland are touting a new poll that indicates a majority of voters -- 52 percent -- are supportive of the recently-passed marriage equality bill signed into law by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) on Mar. 1.

The poll of 600 voters, which was conducted by Public Policy Polling on behalf of the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition from Mar. 5-7, asked, "The state legislature recently approved a law allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry in Maryland, and there is likely to be a statewide referendum in the November election on whether to keep the law. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote for or vote against the recently-approved law allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry?"

According to the poll results, 52 percent of voters would vote to uphold the law via referendum, while 44 percent would vote to overturn it. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

"This is good news for thousands of families and their children all over the state," Penny Nicholas, a straight African-American mother who testified in support of the law, along with members of the Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign, before the legislature last month, said in a statement about the poll. "A majority of voters realize that committed, loving gay and lesbian couples want the best for their children –- which means making sure their kids are treated equally under the law."

The results foreshadow what both proponents and opponents of marriage equality have been predicting for a while: a long, expensive, closely-decided race where both sides are expected to spend millions of dollars arguing their stance on marriage equality. Opponents, including the Maryland Marriage Alliance, the chief organization seeking to overturn the law, have vowed to collect more than the 55,736 signatures required to force the referendum onto the November ballot.

Maryland is currently one of eight states, plus the District, that allow marriage equality under the law. But opponents point out that voters in 31 states have either approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage or have overturned existing marriage equality laws, as California voters did in 2008 and Maine voters did in 2009.

Chris Hughes, the out gay 28-year-old co-founder of Facebook who left the company to help create then Sen. Barack Obama's social media effort in his 2008 presidential campaign, has purchased a majority share of and has become the publisher and editor-in-chief of The New Republic, The New York Times reported and Hughes confirmed in a letter at The New Republic.

In his letter, he writes in part:

It seems that today too many media institutions chase superficial metrics of online virality at the expense of investing in rigorous reporting and analysis of the most important stories of our time. When few people are investing in media institutions with such bold aims as "enlightenment to the problems of the nation," I believe we must.

At the same time, his letter references "social networks, blogs, and daily aggregators" but adds, "In the next era of The New Republic, we will aggressively adapt to the newest information technologies without sacrificing our commitment to serious journalism."

Hughes is engaged to Sean Eldridge, a senior advisor at Freedom to Marry who previously served as the organization's political director. The couple were profiled in the May 2011 issue of The Advocate, as part of its 40 Under 40 list.

In the article, Ari Karpel wrote of Hughes:

Hughes's role at Facebook wasn't about writing code. A French literature major, he's the guy who came up with popular features that helped make the site user-friendly. One of those features allowed political candidates to construct a version of a profile page, long before celebrities and companies had the fan pages that are so popular today. This caught the eye of the team supporting the freshman senator from Illinois, who was not yet a presidential candidate. Chris worked with them on honing the functionality to suit their needs. Eventually they came back to him, asking if he would lead the campaign's online organizing. How could he say no? "He's an incredible candidate, and it was a unique time in history," says the Hickory, N.C., native, who moved to Illinois for the job.

Of the couple, the article (from May 2011, remember) quoted Hughes talking about their plans -- in light of the money he made from Facebook:

"Sean and I are in a really unique position," Hughes says. "We're young and we both want to have a serious impact on the world." They're modeling their giving on the work of Tim Gill and Jon Stryker, who, through their organizations -- the Gill Foundation and Arcus Foundation, respectively -- have fueled progressive causes with their philanthropy. Hughes and Eldridge aren't limiting themselves to marriage equality or gay issues. There's education, cultivating the humanities, international development, and, Hughes says, "creating a more economically just world. There's just so much stuff we care about that I hope we can make change on as many of them as possible. I know it might sound crazy, but we both feel the clock ticking. There's only so much time, and there's so much stuff to do."

Fast forward to today, from The New York Times:

Asked how he would turn a profit for the money-losing magazine, Mr. Hughes said, "Profit per se is not my motive. The reason I'm getting involved here is that I believe in the type of vigorous contextual journalism that we — we in general as a society — need."

He added that he hoped the magazine could be profitable. "But I'm investing and taking control of The New Republic because of my belief in its mission, not to make it the next Facebook," he said.

From 1991 to 1996, out gay writer Andrew Sullivan, now at The Daily Beast, served as editor-in-chief of the traditionally liberal magazine (that, at times, takes positions outside of liberal orthodoxy). 

Before taking on the editorship, it was Sullivan's Aug. 28, 1989, cover story in the magazine -- "Here Comes the Groom" – in which he began making his case for marriage. The article's subhead was "A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage."

Now, with an advocate for marriage equality at his side, Hughes has announced the start of his tenure at the head of the magazine.

[Photo, below right: Hughes, left, and Eldridge (Photo from The Advocate.)]

Today, 70 groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers to the NAACP -- along with LGBT advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign; National Gay & Lesbian Task Force; Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network; Trevor Project -- urged the Obama administration to endorse the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA).

The letter, dated March 7, leads off:

We are 70 national and state organizations who are committed to ensuring that all students are able to pursue an education unhindered by discrimination and harassment. We write to request that your administration publicly support and endorse the Student Non-Discrimination Act (S. 555/H.R. 998).

The SNDA, modeled after Title IX, would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal education nondiscrimination law. During the Senate's consideration of the bill, Metro Weekly in March 2011 detailed that White House and other administration officials have declined numerous opportunities to endorse either bill and have rarely even mentioned the bills except in response to specific questions about them.

In October 2011, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) announced that the committee voted to pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2011 out of committee -- but it did so without SNDA or another anti-bullying bill, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, included.

Eight months earlier, in February 2011, President Obama met with Senate leaders on the issue, but neither anti-bullying bill was raised during the meeting.

In closing, the 70 organizations' letter states:

Your administration's endorsements of both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Respect for Marriage Act provided those bills with critical momentum. An endorsement of the Student Non-Discrimination Act would likewise be a clarion call for equality in our schools and better protections for vulnerable children. And more importantly, it would make clear to all Members of Congress what the administration views as a necessary federal legislative solution to the serious problem of anti-LGBT discrimination and harassment in our nation's public schools.

READ the letter: snda_ltr_to_president_obama_3-7-12.pdf

GOProud has a new friend: Republican House candidate Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

Following his interview this morning on CNN, in which he was questioned about previous statements made about LGBT people, Wurzelbacher and Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, released the following joint statement:

"The left and their friends in the main stream media don't want to talk about the issue most Americans in this country today care about -- jobs. Instead, they want a culture war. They want a culture war because they cannot defend this President's record of failure when it comes to creating jobs and growing our economy. They hope to cynically distract Americans to protect President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress in November. The bottom line is that whether you are gay or straight, black or white, male or female, conservative or liberal, what matters most in these tough economic times is leadership in Washington that will work to create jobs for all Americans."

In addition, Wurzelbacher said in the statement, "This is just more games from the liberal media, who want to try to attack me and distract from the issues that matter to most Americans.  I showed this morning that I will not back down to the pressure from national liberal spokesmen, and I will not be distracted from my focus of creating jobs in Northern Ohio.

"I am not a career politician and I certainly do not speak like one, but I want everyone to know that I believe in treating every American, gay or straight, with decency and respect," he concluded in the statement.

Wurzelbacher will face Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) in the fall election for Ohio's 9th congressional district.

New polling numbers from Public Policy Polling today look good for marriage equality supporters:

It looks like Maine voters will reverse their 2009 decision and legalize gay marriage in the state this fall. 54% think that gay marriage should be legal to only 41% who think it should be illegal. And when we asked about the issue using the exact language voters will see on the ballot this fall, they say they're inclined to support the referendum by a 47-32 margin.

There's some indication that the exact ballot language is confusing people a little at this point. Only 67% of those who support gay marriage in general say they'll vote yes while 12% say they'll not and 21% are not sure. At the same time just 60% of those who oppose gay marriage generally say they'll vote against the proposed referendum, while 24% say they'll vote for it and 16% are not sure. My guess is at the end of the day voters will see this as a straight referendum on gay marriage regardless of what the language on the ballot says- and the 54/41 number bodes well for pro-equality voters.

Republicans' opinions are pretty much the same as they were in 2009. But Democrats' support for gay marriage has increased slightly, from 71% to 78%. And more importantly independents have gone from voting against gay marriage 52/46 three years ago to now supporting it by a 57/36 margin.

The Maine secretary of state on Feb. 23 certified the Maine marriage equality supporters had gathered enough signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would "allowing same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses."

Public Policy Polling, which discusses confusing ballot language regarding religious freedom, also confused its use of language in its summary above, as Mainers are not going to be voting on a referendum this fall to overturn legislation passed by state lawmakers -- as they did in 2009 -- but instead will be voting on an affirmative initiative to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Here are the two questions asked:

Q7    Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?
Yes.................................................................. 47%
No .................................................................. 32%
Not sure .......................................................... 21%

Q8    In general, do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?
Legal ............................................................... 54%
Illegal .............................................................. 41%
Not sure............................................................. 5%

[Image: Ten states were up for grabs on Super Tuesday 2012. (Illustration by Aram Vartian.)]

With former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) winning primary races in the Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia early in the evening, by 9 p.m., his three wins put him in the lead for the Super Tuesday night, a day when he was likely to take the most delegates.

Tennessee and Oklahoma primaries went to former Pennsylania Sen. Rick Santorum (R), while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) only won his home state of Georgia. The Tennessee race was talked about as a possible way for Romney to cut off Santorum's continued challenge, but Santorum ended up taking the state handily.

The Ohio primary, seen as the key race of the night, was too close to call an hour and a half after the polls closed in the Buckeye state at 7:30 p.m., with Santorum with a slight lead.

The remaining three contests -- Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota cacuses -- remain ongoing.

UPDATE @ 10:45P: Santorum is projected to win the North Dakota caucuses. Ohio is still too close to call, with more than 80 percent of the vote reporting -- but Santorum's lead is tightening.

UPDATE @ 11P: For the first time in the night, Romney takes the lead in Ohio vote count. Idaho is counting, and Alaska caucuses close at midnight Eastern Time.

UPDATE @ 11:15P: Romney, per CNN, also took the Idaho caucus.

UPDATE @ 12:30A MARCH 7: The Associated Press calls Ohio for Romney.

In a statement about the night's results, GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia said, "Tonight, Governor Mitt Romney has won the lion’s share of delegates at stake. This is a big night for Governor Romney and all but guarantees that Romney will be the eventual nominee of the Republican Party."

He continued: "Obviously this process is technically not over. Despite the large delegate lead enjoyed by Governor Romney, other candidates in the field have made it clear that they intend to continue on. The question that Republicans, and conservatives in particular, must begin to ask themselves is whether continuing this process is in the best interest of our movement, the party and -- most importantly -- our country."

Jerame Davis, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, countered in a statement, saying, "As the results from the Super Tuesday elections continue to roll in, one thing is certain: While Republican voters are indecisively trying to choose between the worst of candidates, Democrats can rest assured that they are the big winners again tonight.

"With a field of nincompoops and homophobes running on the GOP ticket, President Obama clearly will be the best candidate on the ballot in November," Davis continued. "His commitment to equality -- LGBT and otherwise -- has been obvious throughout his first term in office, but there's plenty of work left to do that only an Obama White House will accomplish."

LaSalvia, however, said, "President Obama has made it clear that he plans on doubling down on his failed policies. Obama and the left are fanning the flames of the culture wars in an attempt to distract Americans from the abject failure of this President to create jobs and grow our economy. To focus on the issues that Americans most care about and to defeat Obama we will need unity in the conservative movement and in the Republican Party and that unity must come soon."

Following an investigation that began in November 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice today filed a federal lawsuit against the Anoka-Hennepin School District, the Minnesota school district that has been the subject of significant public criticism for its treatment of LGBT students, alleging that the district violated students' constitutional rights, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Education Amendments of 1972.

In the DOJ complaint, obtained by Metro Weekly, DOJ lays out the findings of its investigation, which was conducted with the Department of Education and has led to a proposed settlement of the lawsuit and two ongoing lawsuits brought by students in the district. In October 2010, the Department of Education sent a letter to schools detailing their obligations under federal law to protect LGBT students from sexual harassment and gender-based harassment resulting from sex stereotypes.

Noting specific examples of discriminatory treatment faced by 10 students in the district, DOJ's investigation, according to today's filing, concluded, "The school and District officials with authority to address the sex-based harassment knew or should have known about the harassment [the students] experienced.

"Often, District personnel ignored these sex-based harassment allegations," DOJ lawyers wrote in the complaint, which was signed by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the head of DOJ's Civil Rights Division. "In those instances when the District did respond to reports of sex-based harassment, the District's response improperly placed the burden of stopping the harassment on the student being harassed. ... The District knew its responses to sex-based harassment were inadequate because the harassment continued and in certain instances escalated.

"In sum, students in the District experienced and reported verbal and physical sex-based harassment because of their gender nonconformity. ... Based on this evidence, a hostile environment based on sex exists in the Anoka-Hennepin School District, the District knew or should have known about the hostile environment, and the District has failed to address it," the complaint stated.

To end the lawsuits, the Anoka-Hennepin School District has agreed to take significant action to prevent harassment of students who are or are perceived to be LGBT or gender non-conforming, as well as those who have friends or parents who are LGBT, under the terms of a proposed court agreement announced tonight by DOJ and the plaintiffs of the two additional lawsuits that were previously filed against the district by students.

The agreement reached by six students in the Anoka-Hennepin School District who had filed two federal lawsuits accusing the district of gender-based and sexual orientation-based harrassment, along with DOJ and the school district, would put in place a federal government-supervised five-year consent decree requiring the district to take the actions to improve the atmosphere for the students and others like them.

Dylon Frei, one of the plaintiff students in the case, said in a news release issued by his lawyers tonight: "No one should have to go through the kind of harassment that I did. I am happy this agreement includes real changes that will make our schools safer and more welcoming for other kids."

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and attorneys from the law firms of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, and Culberth & Lienemann LLP represented the plaintiffs, including Frei, in the case.

Perez, the lawyer in charge of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, said in a release issued tonight by DOJ, "Harassment by or against students in schools is unacceptable, and not a 'rite of passage' to be endured by anyone. Parents are entitled to know that their children will be safe in school every day."

He continued by praising the district -- which recently was profiled in a critical Rolling Stone article titled, "One Town's War on Gay Teens" -- saying, "We commend the Anoka-Hennepin School District for its willingness to tackle sex-based harassment and for working collaboratively with the federal government to address concerns across the district. We hope the district will become a model for schools nationwide by providing a safe and nurturing learning environment for all students free from bullying and harassment."

Sam Wolfe, an attorney for the SPLC's LGBT Project, pointed out the district's past while remaining hopeful about today's proposed agreement in his statement, saying, "This historic agreement marks a fresh start for the Anoka-Hennepin School District. Unfortunately, this district had become notorious for anti-LGBT hostility and discrimination. This consent decree sets the stage for Anoka-Hennepin to become a model for other school districts to follow in creating more respectful learning environments for all students in a thoughtful, systemic, and proactive way."

According to a news release from DOJ, it had "received a complaint [in November 2010] alleging that students in the school district were being harassed by other students because they didn't dress or act in ways that conform to gender stereotypes."

The release continues: "The Departments of Justice and Education conducted an extensive investigation into sex-based harassment in the district's middle and high schools. Many students reported that the unsafe and unwelcoming school climate inhibited their ability to learn. The parties worked collaboratively to draft a consent decree addressing and resolving the allegations in the complaints."

NCLR's legal director, Shannon Minter, pointed to the broader implications of the agreement: "This is an important step toward making LGBT and gender non-conforming students feel safe and welcome in district schools. The district has committed to a detailed long-term plan to prevent and address harassment, as well as ongoing review of its implementation of the plan by federal agencies."

The DOJ complaint, in addition to detailing the findings of the DOJ and Education Department investigations, procedurally enables DOJ to be a party to the proposed consent decree.

According to the release from the plaintiffs' groups, under the terms of the consent decree the district is required to:

• Retain the Great Lakes Equity Center, an equity assistance center based at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis to provide a comprehensive, systemic review and recommend revisions to district policies and practices related to sex and sexual-orientation related harassment.
• Fully investigate reports of harassment; escalate remedial efforts through additional measures when students are harassed on a repeated basis; and mitigate the effects of harassment that occurs.
• Take proactive measures to address the hostile environment.
• Develop procedures for parental notification while maintaining sensitivity to a student's right of privacy relating to their real or perceived orientation or gender identity.
• Hire a district-level, harassment-prevention official who will help lead the district's efforts to "eliminate and prevent future instances of harassment in its education programs and activities."  This official will be referred to as a Title IX/Equity Coordinator who will ensure the district complies with its legal obligations to protect students from harassment; implement district policies and procedures relating to sex and sexual-orientation based harassment; monitor all complaints of such discrimination and harassment; identify trends or common areas of concern related to compliance; and coordinate between and among school and district staff, students, and parents related to addressing and preventing harassment.
• Work with the Equity Center, Title IX /Equity Coordinator to develop improved and effective trainings, consistent with best practices, on harassment for all students and employees who interact with students.
• Ensure that a counselor or other qualified mental health professional to be available during school hours for students in need.
• Hire a mental health consultant to review and assess current practices in the district relating to assisting students who are subject to harassment.
• Strengthen its annual anti-bullying survey.
• Enhance a recently formed harassment-prevention task force to advise the district regarding how to best foster a positive educational climate. 
• Work with the Equity Center to identify hot spots in district schools where harassment is most problematic, including outdoor locations and on school buses, and work with the equity consultant to develop corrective actions.

READ the DOJ complaint: Complaint in Intervention.pdf

READ the proposed consent decree: 2012.03.05. Consent Decree.pdf

Today, out gay Michigan congressional candidate Trevor Thomas (D) announced the support of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) and former Lt. Gov. John Cherry (D) in his bid to unseat first-term Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) -- and first in his attempt to win an expected primary fight.

A former Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network spokesman who also worked for the Media Matters LGBT project, Equality Matters, Thomas returned to his home state of Michigan this past year and announced his candidacy for the Grand Rapids-based congressional seat in February.

According to MLive.com, which reported on today's endorsements from Granholm and Cherry:

Thomas, a former news producer at WOOD-TV8, gained the trust of Granholm and Cherry while working on their 2006 re-election campaign.

He later moved into the executive office, working on programs like "No Worker Left Behind." ...

"From day one Trevor has been a fighter for fairness and opportunity," Granholm said. "From the newsroom to the halls of Congress, Trevor has the experience and passion to get results on the issues critical to Michigan families.

"This is a campaign of inclusion that will stand up and represent all the voices of West Michigan and I am proud to support and be a part of it."

Cherry cited Thomas' ability to put aside partisanship to get major legislation passed at the federal level.

"This is the fresh and progressive leadership we need today," Cherry said.

Thomas was in D.C. this past weekend for the 20th annual SLDN dinner, celebrating the end of DADT.

Thomas, who filed the paperwork for his congressional candidacy on Feb. 13, told supporters at the time, "I've spent my life working to raise up the voices of those who haven’t been heard and who haven’t had a fair shot at opportunity -- and that's what this campaign is all about."

[Photo: Trevor Thomas (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

[Photo: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network co-founder Michelle Benecke speaks at SLDN's 20th annual dinner, where the plaintiffs of the organization's ongoing lawsuit seeking equal spousal benefits for servicemembers were recognized on stage. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

On Saturday evening, March 3, two events were held putting forth two visions of equality, one in the Armed Forces and one about marriage.

In DC, supporters of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network gathered at the National Building Museum for the organization's 20th annual national dinner, emceed by MSNBC's Thomas Roberts and featuring a keynote address by President Obama's senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett. Jarrett, who previously addressed the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner, spoke to SLDN about the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," including an extended story about now-SLDN Development Director David Hall's experience in the military and discharge under DADT. In part, Jarrett said:

[I]n the Obama Administration, we talk a lot about change. Well thanks to the work we’ve done together, if anyone ever asks you what change is all about, you can tell them that change is finally being able to put a family photo on your desk. Change is being able to tell your coworkers what you and your loved one did over the weekend, or what you have planned for your family vacation. Change is being able to share stories about your family with fellow servicemembers while you’re away from home, and living with the fear that you may never see them again. Change is knowing that if you make that ultimate sacrifice for your country, someone will be able to notify your loved ones. That’s change.

And I thought that tonight, I would close by sharing a story about what change truly likes looks like to me. At last Wednesday’s dinner at the White House, one of the guests was Lieutenant Colonel Beth Behn. She’s spent nearly two decades in the army, including service overseas in Kuwait, Korea, and Haiti, and two tours of duty in Iraq. Today she’s a professor at West Point. She’s accomplished a great deal in her stellar career – but one thing she had never done, until last Wednesday, was bring her partner of 13 years to an official event. So the fact that Beth and Julie were both honored by the President, and able to proudly sit, together, in the East Room of the White House – well, that’s what change looks like to me. When President Obama thanked the military families, and Julie was able to stand and be recognized – that’s what change looks like to me. And the fact that their children will be able to tell their friends that both their parents went to the White House – that’s what change looks like to me.

The dinner was SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis's last, as he announced earlier this year that he would be leaving the organization when a successor is named to take his place, and he was honored from the stage for his service to the organization.

On the other coast, supporters of the American Foundation for Equal Rights -- including the group's board president, Chad Griffin, who was named the next president of HRC on Friday, March 2 -- gathered at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles for the West Coast premiere of 8, Dustin Lance Black's play about the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8.

WATCH the Los Angeles 8 premiere, screencap below, below the jump.

Follow @metroweekly

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

On his way to the airport to return to Los Angeles from DC, the incoming president of the Human Rights Campaign, Chad Griffin, spoke with Metro Weekly about today's news.

"To me, this is the grandest, most exciting opportunity of my life," Griffin says when asked about why he would leave California to return to D.C. -- and to an organization like HRC that often is the target of activists' attacks. "I think this particular time is right for me and for the organization."

He will take the helm of the organization, he tells Metro Weekly, on June 12.

Griffin says that every part of his experience led him to this day, explaining that he went from "growing up as a kid in Arkansas, not knowing that I knew a single gay person ... to a career in politics and policy ... then, this little thing happened a few years ago called Prop 8."

Noting the passage of Proposition 8 on Election Day in 2008, as well as the passage of an adoption ban in his home state of Arkansas, he says that he was "depressed for a day."

"The next night, I was driving home from a meeting ... I see all these people gathered in the middle of the street ... and there was this candlelight vigil."

He got out of his car and saw hundreds and then thousands of people, including people speaking from the makeshift stage, and he says, "I left what was happening at the stage, and went into the middle of the crowd, and I didn't know anyone. ... Living in L.A. for as long as I had, I thought I knew every gay person."

But, Griffin says, he looked around that night and saw so many new faces of all races and ages, including many young ones, "I called a close friend of mine ... and I said, 'The world has changed.'"

He notes, "Momentum is on our side, but that kid that I used to be, there are thousands if not millions of them out there, in Arkansas and [elsewhere]. In many ways, on that night I found my voice."

Of the place that HRC plays in the national LGBT movement, he says, "The impact that you can have in this country and in all 50 states is something that is not comparable to anything else."

Calling it "the grandest privilege that I've ever had," Griffin tells Metro Weekly, "The impact that I can have with HRC is something that I'm looking forward to diving into head first."

Asked whether his role as the head of a marriage-based organization like the American Foundation for Equal Rights has been will signify too much attention attention being placed on marriage at HRC at the expense of things like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act going forward, Griffin says, "I'm gonna go, every single time, back to that young kid. Every decision."

Noting that "it's not any one thing that impacts the life of a gay person," he says, "I don't think anyone who knows me would say anything other than that I'm committed to full equality."

Adding that while it's true that marriage -- specifically the fight against Proposition 8 -- has been his focus for the past couple of years, he says, "We have to fight the battle on all fronts, whether it's school bullying, an inclusive ENDA or a whole host of other things, political or otherwise, that impact the lives of a gay person."

Griffin has about 100 days to draw up his battle plans before he takes the helm on June 12.

[Photo: American Foundation for Equal Rights board president and incoming Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin, right, with Dustin Lance Black, screenwriter of Milk and AFER board member, at the signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act on Dec. 22, 2010. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[Photo: Chad Griffin (Photo by Rex Wockner.)]

The Human Rights Campaign today announced that Chad Griffin, the force behind the challenge to California's Proposition 8, will take over as the next president of HRC.

In a statement released by HRC, Griffin said, "All over this country in big cities and small towns, there are families and young people who long to be accepted for who they are, and who want be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else."

A founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the federal challenge to Proposition 8, Griffin has significant bipartisan accomplishments under his belt -- including having secured the "odd couple" team of Ted Olson and David Boies, who faced off in Bush v. Gore, to fight the lawsuit -- despite his past work in the Clinton White House communications team.

HRC board co-chair Tim Downing and HRC Foundation board co-chair Sandra Hartness spoke on behalf of their colleagues on the board of directors in issuing a statement about the news of the selection of Griffin to replace HRC president Joe Solmonese, which was first reported by The Advocate's Andrew Harmon.

"We're ecstatic to have someone of Chad's caliber as our next president. His superior credentials and achievements, both as a visionary and strategist, make him uniquely qualified to lead this organization forward," they said. "Chad has a proven track record of consistently delivering results during his career. That’s something that our community rightly expects and deserves."

To that, Griffin said, "I'm honored by the board's confidence in my ability to lead HRC. While there's no doubt that we've made tremendous progress on the road to equality, we must not forget that millions of LGBT Americans still lack basic legal protections and suffer the consequences of discrimination every day. Today's generation of young people, and each generation hereafter, must grow up with the full and equal protection of our laws, and finally be free to participate in the American dream. As HRC president, I'll approach our work with a great sense of urgency because there are real life consequences to inaction."

In a statement released by AFER, Olson -- who repesented Bush -- and Boies -- who represented Gore -- both praised the selection.

The search committee to find the successor for Solmonese has been co-chaired by HRC board of directors members Joni Madison of Hillsborough, N.C., and Dana Perlman of Los Angeles.

Solmonese has led the organization since March 2005, following the rocky and brief tenure of Cheryl Jacques, whose resignation in November 2004 led to the appointment by the board of Hilary Rosen as interim executive director and began the national search that resulted in Solmonese's hiring.

He helmed the organization during historic successes like passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009 and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2011 but also during one of the most divisive moments of the organization's history -- its support in 2007 for a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that was not inclusive of gender identity.

Solmonese -- whose planned departure was announced, abruptly when news leaked, in August 2011 -- has led the organization into the 2012 election cycle, where the organization issued an early endorsement to President Obama for his re-election, and the task of carrying out the organization's general election activity will fall now to his successor.

Prior to Jacques, Elizabeth Birch had served as the head of the organization from early 1995 until January 2004. Birch had been the worldwide director of litigation for Apply Computer prior to taking the job at HRC.

Birch, whose tenure marked significant growth for the organization, was preceded by Tim McFeeley, who was preceded in turn by Vic Basile. Basile served as the first executive director for the Human Rights Campaign beginning in 1983, although it was known as the Human Rights Campaign Fund at the time and its purpose was solely a political action committee.

Responding to the Feb. 21 decision by the proponents of Proposition 8 to seek expanded review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the appeal of Perry v. Brown, the plaintiffs challenging California's Proposition 8 today told the court it should deny the proponents request because "the panel decision reflects a straightforward application of settled Supreme Court precedent and does not conflict with any decisions from this Court or any other court of appeals."

The three-judge panel that had been considering the case for more than a year reached its decision on Feb. 7 that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker was correct that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. The appeals court, however, found it to be so on more narrow grounds than Walker had done originally.

Among other responses, the plaintiffs responded today to the proponents' main argument: that the narrow Ninth Circuit reasoning for the decision, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans, was misapplied to Proposition 8. The plaintiffs' lawyers wrote:

Proponents claim that "[t]he root of the panel majority's error is its assertion that Romer turned on the timing of Colorado's Amendment 2 rather than its substance." But Romer's plain language belies Proponents' argument, demonstrating that the timing of the Colorado amendment was an important factor in understanding its substance and effect: Just like Proposition 8, Colorado Amendment 2 repealed provisions that previously advanced non-discriminatory treatment of gay men and lesbians, raising the specter that it was motivated by an improper purpose.

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.

READ the plaintiffs' filing: Perry-EnBanc-Plaintiffs.pdf

UPDATE @ 6:55P: The City and County of San Francisco also oppose en banc review.

Read the San Fran filing: Perry-EnBanc-SanFran.pdf

Although students gathered outside Chick-fil-A at New York University today to stand in opposition to the restaurant’s substantial contributions to anti-LGBT groups, the university's student government chair sent out an email to all students reiterating the governing board's position made in 2011 when it "voted not to support an institutional ban of Chick-Fil-A" from campus.

"The Student Senators Council believes that freedom of expression is the most important virtue of an institute devoted to education," Albert Cotugno, chair of the Student Senator's Council wrote in an e-mail to students. "The SSC also believes there is a fundamental difference between personal boycott and institutional prohibition. To ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression."

The students, however, rallied on behalf of over 10,890 others who signed a Change.org petition urging the university to disband itself from the fast-food chain by ending its contractual agreement on campus.  The petition, started by Hillary Dworkoski, a bisexual freshman at the university, is one out of a series of petitions against the restaurant, but has recently picked up the attention of the media because it is the only Chik-fil-A location in New York City. 

"While Hillary may not be the first person to take on New York City's only Chick-fil-A, I wouldn't be surprised if she's the last," said Change.org Campaign Manager Mark Anthony Dingbaum. "With no budget and armed with only a laptop, Hillary has amassed a student-powered campaign ... and she's showing no signs of stopping until Chick-fil-A is removed from campus. She's one indefatigable freshman."

According to Equality Matters, IRS 990 forms reveal that Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, donated almost $2 million to anti-gay groups in 2009. This money has supported a number of groups – including Focus on the Family, Exodus International and the Family Research Council – opposed to LGBT equality.

"It's a contradiction of values," said Dworkoski. "I chose to attend NYU because it's known to be one of the most diverse and accepting schools in the country. Supporting Chick-fil-A, which gives millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations, completely undermines our university values."

Although the university student government does not support banning Chik-fil-A from campus, Cotugno encourages students to continue to express their opposition to the chain. "The Student Senators Council encourages concerned students and other community members to continue investigating the issue and further urges them to exercise their right to personally boycott any entity that offends their moral sensibilities," he wrote. 

UPDATE @ 10:15P: Despite student government's message, Dworkoski remains committed to giving Chik-fil-A the boot. "This email does not affect me at all," she said. "I will continue raising awareness about this issue and trying to get rid of Chick-fil-A on campus even if it takes all three of my remaining years at NYU."

[Photo: Hillary Dworkoski (Photo via Facebook.)]

READ the full Student Senator's Council letter below the jump.

[Image: Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), flanked by Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George's counties), left, and House Speaker Michael Busch (D-Anne Arundel Co.), right, signs the Civil Marriage Protection Act into law. Behind O'Malley is his wife, Catherine Curran O'Malley, and Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown.]

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signed into law HB 438, a bill legalizing marriage equality, in a 5 p.m. ceremony held at the State House in Annapolis Thursday evening.

Saying, "We are one Maryland," he declared, "The bill is signed," at 5:15 p.m.

Although the bill will not take effect until 2013 and faces a referendum effort, O'Malley's signature makes Maryland the eighth state and ninth jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is also legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Washington state and the District of Columbia. The Washington law also faces a referendum effort.

O'Malley, who made the bill part of his 2012 legislative agenda, spent a large portion of the first half of the General Assembly's legislative session trying to wrest favorable votes from reticent lawmakers.

In 2011, a separate marriage equality bill passed the Senate but was killed in the House of Delegates. This year, supporters of the measure focused their attentions on the House members, particularly white Democrats representing more conservative districts and African-American lawmakers from Prince George’s County and Baltimore City, who had opposed the bill because of outcry from their constituents and several influential ministers in their districts.

In the end, 15 of 18 delegates from Baltimore City, 23 of 24 delegates from Montgomery County, and 13 of 23 delegates who represent parts of Prince George's County voted in favor to give the bill the bulk of support it needed to pass the lower chamber, 72-67. Delegates representing parts of Howard, Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties split their votes, and those from Southern Maryland, Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore primarily opposed it.

In the Senate, which was the only chamber to hold an official vote in 2011, the debate over the issue was less contentious, and, as even opponents had predicted, the measure eventually passed, 25-22.

[READ Metro Weekly's full report: "Gov. O'Malley Signs Marriage Equality Bill, Making Maryland Eighth State (Plus DC) to Do So."]

Watch live now as Marlyand Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signs the state's marriage equality bill.

On Wednesday, Feb. 29, a rally in support of nine Harvard students expelled for homosexuality in 1920 coincided with the launch of Lady Gaga's pro-LGBT Born This Way foundation and the 62nd anniversary of President Dwight Eisenhower's executive order requiring the firing of all LGBT American federal employees. Each offers a chance to consider the current state of LGBT student and worker rights.

On May 12, 1920, Harvard University undergrad Cyril Wilcox admitted to his brother George that he had been having an ongoing affair with older Boston cafe-owner Harry Dreyfus. The next day, Cyril killed himself by inhaling gas his parents' Fall River, Massachusetts, home.

After his death, George discovered two of Cyril's personal letters mentioning a group of gay students on campus. George located Dreyfus and beat more information out of him before approaching Harvard's Acting Dean Chester N. Greenough with his information. Within the month, Greenough and school president Abbott Lawrence Lowell (pictured) created a secret tribunal of five administrators to investigate student homosexual practices.

Over the next month, the tribunal (known as "The Secret Court") conducted more than 30 closed-door interviews, asking suspected gay students about their feelings on homosexuality, preferred reading, masturbation habits, sexual practices, overnight guests, alleged cross-dressing parties, and rumored gay establishments such as the Café Dreyfus, The Lighted Lamp, The Golden Rooster and Green Shutters.

By July, the tribunal had expelled eight students and an assistant professor, suggested that they leave Cambridge and wrote letters informing their families of the findings against them. One student under investigation killed himself via drug overdose a few days before his official expulsion. Another committed suicide via gas inhalation almost a decade later.

The dealings of the tribunal — hidden in an archive innocuously labeled "Secret Court Files, 1920" — remained amongst the employee, building and student records of the Nathan Marsh Pusey Library until a researcher from the school newspaper The Crimson uncovered them in 2002.

That same year, then Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers publicly called the Secret Court "extremely disturbing," expressed "deep regret" for all the pain that it caused and called the persecution of sexual identity an abhorrent affront to the school's values.

Though historian William Wright and filmmaker Michael Van Devere both published dramatic re-creations of the Secret Court investigations based on the tribunal's existing transcripts in 2006 and 2008 respectively, it wasn't until 2010 that Harvard students began a movement entitled "Their Day in the Yard" petitioning Harvard University to officially abolish the Secret Court, reverse its decisions and award posthumous honorary degrees to the seven expelled students who were not later invited back to finish their studies.

The 2012 petition urging these actions from current President Drew Faust reads in part, "Until this is done, the Court and its work is still very much alive."

However, the university released an official statement on Feb. 28, announcing:

"Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences does not award posthumous degrees except in the rare case of a student who completes all academic requirements for the degree but dies before the degree has been conferred."

The Harvard LGBT Caucus did not respond to Metro Weekly's request for information about whether they will pursue the abolition of the Secret Court and reversal of its rulings.

The Feb. 29 protest coincided with the on-campus launch of pop musician Lady Gaga's Born This Way Foundation which seeks to empower youth through creation of schools safe for LGBT and self-expression.

"This is not an anti-bullying foundation," said Gaga, "This is a youth-empowerment foundation."

Currently, a majority of U.S. states have not passed nondiscrimination laws specifically protecting LGBT students.

The protest also comes a day after the 62nd anniversary of President Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450 requiring all federal agencies and government contractors to fire known lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

Even today, many LGBT Americans can still be legally fired from their jobs because of their sexual identity.

WATCH Lady Gaga talk about why she is launching the foundation:

The Human Rights Campaign announced today that it is endorsing Elizabeth Warren (D) in her challenge to unseat Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who won the special election in 2010 to fill out the term of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) after his death in 2009.

HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "We enthusiastically endorse Elizabeth Warren for the United States Senate. Massachusetts was the first state to make marriage equality a reality, yet the Bay State is represented by anti-equality incumbent Scott Brown. 

HRC also included a statement from Warren, who said, "I'm honored to receive the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign. As a country we should stand for fairness and equality for all our people -- in employment, health benefits, educational experience, or spousal status."

She added: "I am proud that Massachusetts has led the nation on equality issues, and it is time for the federal government to end the disparities and discrimination that LGBT people and their families face. I look forward to working with HRC to protect and promote fairness and equality."

Solmonese said, "It is time the people of Massachusetts are represented by a Senator who shares their values of fairness and equality. Elizabeth Warren will be that Senator."

According to HRC's endorsement announcement, one of the key pro-LGBT accomplishments cited by Brown supporters -- his votes for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal on December 18, 2010 -- was countered by his opposition earlier in the year.

"Brown opposed repealing the archaic 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in May 2010 when it came before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and repeatedly voted to block consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, which contained the repeal language, through the rest of that year, including a motion to proceed on December 9, 2010," the statement detailed.

Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Brown's re-election on Sept. 20, 2011, the day that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed. LCR officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At the time, LCR executive director R. Clarke Cooper told Metro Weekly, "We've been working with him, obviously, we worked with him on ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] repeal. And we're looking forward to working with him in the future on other measures ... so he's somebody we're investing in."

Of Brown, he added: "It's somebody on the right side of the issues in the Republican Party. We need more Republicans like Scott Brown and like Susan Collins supporting us."

Solmonese countered: "When elected to the U.S. Senate, Elizabeth Warren will return the vision to Massachusetts that was lost when Scott Brown was elected. She will fight for all Massachusetts families and the LGBT community."

UPDATE @ 4:30P: Cooper, in a statement provided to Metro Weekly, responded to today's HRC endorsement by saying: "Senator Scott Brown came to Washington, DC last year as part of a vanguard that broke the Democratic lockdown on the Senate. Since then he has been a firm and consistent voice on core conservative positions in support of job growth and reducing the deficit.

"We are proud to have endorsed Senator Scott Brown for reelection to the United State Senate in 2012. He has been a tremendous advocate for the people of Massachusetts and a solid ally for Log Cabin Republicans, representing the power and potential of an inclusive GOP. As a current serving officer in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, he knew that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was not working and was a critical part of ending that policy," he said. "Senator Brown has proven himself as a leader and we look forward to helping him win his reelection campaign. A true ally, Senator Brown also just endorsed Log Cabin Republican and Congressional candidate, Richard Tisei."

Andrew Breitbart died overnight, a fact first reported a little before 9 a.m. this morning at his site, Big Journalism, and confirmed to Metro Weekly by Breitbart.com, LLC, editor-in-chief and in-house counsel Joel Pollak and, externally, by ABC News.

Breitbart was 43 years old and, up to his last tweet, was constantly poking and prodding at those who opposed him -- often ignoring the lines of propriety and fact (a characterization he would strongly dispute).

Breitbart, who had joined the advisory board of GOProud in January 2011, hosted a party for the organization at CPAC that year.

When the presence of GOProud at CPAC in 2011 was questioned by some on the right, it was Breitbart who told Metro Weekly, "If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative."

Although he left the advisory board recently over questions about whether the leaders of the organization, Christopher Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia, had outed an official working with the presidential campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), he said at the time that he held no ill will toward GOProud and hoped that they could move beyond the incident to advance the role of gay conservatives in the conservative movement.

Barron and LaSalvia certainly hold no ill will toward him. The pair issued a joint statement today, saying, "We are stunned and saddened at the passing of Andrew Breitbart – a real hero of the conservative movement. Andrew was an amazing friend and ally to this organization.  When we faced some of our toughest days, it was Andrew who was willing to come to our aide and fight for us and for what was right. We wouldn't be the organization we are today without the help of Andrew Breitbart."

They added: "On a personal level, we want to express our deepest condolences to Andrew’s family and friends. They are in our thoughts and in our prayers."

In an extended, previously unpublished portion of Metro Weekly's Feb. 4, 2011, interview with Breitbart, he laid out his thoughts on equality.

"I've seen gay groups estimate the percentage of gay people in our country as high as 10 percent, and I’ve seen groups that aren't amenable to gay rights or whatever say, "No, no, it’s closer to 2-3 percent." Well, when those people minimize the amount of people there are – two to three percent – what is their fear of that two to three percent coming into the Big Tent and disagreeing with you on three percent of the issues?" he said. "None of it makes sense to me.

"I just don't get it. I go into middle America, and I don't see people hating gay people as a part of their agenda. Are there anomalies? ... Yes," he continued. "The majority agrees on the humanity of gay people – and to treat gay people like you treat all people. It doesn't make sense that the political polarities represent such a small percentage. It's a two percent versus a two percent versus the rest of the 96 percent of the country that is living our lives integrated."

With marriage equality out of the way, transgender Marylanders are hoping there is enough goodwill -- and enough time left in the 2012 legislative session -- to pass a comprehensive statewide bill that would ban discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony on Tuesday, Feb. 28 from opponents and proponents of a proposed bill, SB 212, that would make discrimination based on gender identity or expression illegal in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations.

A similar bill that did not include protections for public accommodations passed the House of Delegates last year, 86-52, but failed in the Senate. Advocates hope that this year, especially with marriage equality off the table, Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George’s counties) will be more amenable to allowing an up-or-down vote by the full chamber.

"Marriage will be out of the Senate, and there will be no other 'gay' bills on the table, just our non-gay 'gay' bill," Dana Beyer, executive director of the transgender rights organization Gender Rights Maryland, had told Metro Weekly after the Baltimore County Council passed protections for sexual orientation and gender identity at a Feb. 21 meeting. 

Baltimore County's passage of a non-discrimination bill made it the fourth local jurisdiction in Maryland, along with Baltimore City, Montgomery County and Howard County, to pass protections similar to what SB 212 would grant. Taken together, the success of such measures in those places means that 46 percent of the state’s population is protected from discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Advocates pointed out that regional disparity in the course of their testimony.

"We now have a balkanized state where our laws do not cover all people equally, depending on where they live," said Sharon Brackett, president of Gender Rights Maryland, urging lawmakers to support the bill.

"Follow your counties. They are ahead of you on this, as are Alabama, Georgia and Florida," she added, referring to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that found that discrimination against transgender individuals for gender non-conformity is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition on sex-based discrimination.

The hearing featured many parents of transgender children who spoke of wanting their children to be happy and protected under the law for expressing their gender identity. Many told lawmakers on the committee of their personal journeys of understanding, explaining that they did not understand the concept of what being transgender meant.

Catherine Hyde, a mother from Howard County who is part of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), had tears in her eyes and choked up when she testified of how her transgender daughter was bullied in school for not conforming to gender norms. Other parents and some transgender individuals talked about the discrimination they faced in their daily lives and asked the senators to pass the bill to provide equal protection for all gender non-conforming people in the state.

Some advocates cited the case of Chrissy Lee Polis, a transgender woman who was savagely beaten after using a restroom in a Baltimore-area McDonald's in Rosedale, Md. in April 2011, as evidence of hostility facing transgender women. Polis's attack was recorded on a cell phone camera and later posted on the Internet, where she was subjected to verbal attacks from online viewers, including the employee who posted the video.

But opponents testified that passing a bill with protections for gender identity and expression, particularly in the area of public accommodations and restrooms, would place biological women at risk of sexual assault by predatory "men dressed as women." Some also argued that gender identity is not fixed or immutable, but a mental disorder, and that the law should not be changed to satisfy a preference or lifestyle choice.