On Friday, April 27, Stuart Ishimaru stepped down from his post as one of five commissioners on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The bipartisan panel is responsible for enforcing federal nondiscrimination laws, including issuing the April 20 decision that an employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ishimaru's departure means that the commission now consists of two Democratic members -- Chair Jacqueline Berrien and Commissioner Chai Feldblum -- and two Republican members -- Commissioners Constance Barker and Victoria Lipnic. Although the Title VII decision was issued without objection, other decisions have registered with Republican opposition.

One of the commissioners, the out lesbian Feldblum, noted the importance of keeping the commission fully staffed -- regardless of partisanship -- at Ishimaru's final commission meeting two days earlier.

"The whole point about a commission is that it works well when it's at its full capacity of five commissioners. That's the entire tone that we're trying to take in this agency," Feldblum told Metro Weekly after the meeting, expanding comments made earlier during the meeting.

Referring to this past year, when Barker's term was up, Feldblum said, "[T]he president, in a timely fashion, named Commissioner Barker [to another term] at the request of the Republican senators. ... They vetted Commissioner Barker, they named her, she met with both Democratic and Republican staff last fall. When Democratic staff asked me directly, 'What did I think?' Should they be, essentially, playing the usual Washington games? Should they filibuster? Should they hold it up? And I said, 'Not at all.'

"At that point, we had gotten the bipartisan ADA regulation. So, from my perspective, we were establishing a bipartisan tone," she said. "I felt that if Democrats started shenanigans around a Republican commissioner, that undermines the bipartisan effort."

Barker's nomination to a second term was confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent on September 26, 2011.

Now, Feldblum said, the tables are reversed and Republicans should allow a vote on a Democratic nominee to replace Ishimaru -- just as soon as President Obama names a nominee.

"I think it is on the president now to move quickly in naming a replacement. It's on the Senate to move quickly on analyzing that person's qualifications, and it's on the Senate to move that person to a vote," she said. "That's what civil rights in this country requires." 

Tico Almeida, the founder of Freedom to Work, attended Ishimaru's final hearing on the EEOC, and concurred with Feldblum's recommendation. 

"Our community should also now begin thinking about next steps, which should include pushing the Obama administration for the speedy nomination and pushing the Senate for the speedy confirmation of a replacement [for Ishimaru]," he told Metro Weekly.

Specifically, Almeida noted that future EEOC action relevant to the LGBT community could include employer guidance relating to the April 20 decision interpreting Title VII's sex-discrimination ban to include a ban on gender-identity discrimination.

Ishimaru, meanwhile, did not stop moving for long. Today, he was announced as the first head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's newly established Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, according to the Blog of Legal Times.

[Photo: Feldblum]

Within two weeks of President Obama's April 11 decision not to pursue an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity "at this time," Obama and his administration found the ground shift beneath their feet. Changes announced in both the law and the workplace this week draw attention to the protections the order would provide -- and the rapidly changing ways that world is looking at those protections.

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided, in the case of Mia Macy, that an employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision was first reported by Metro Weekly on Monday night, April 23.

Although Macy's case was sent back to the agency to which she had applied -- the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) -- for further consideration of her specific case, the principle established by the commission applies to all 53 of its field offices. 

As such, transgender people can file EEOC complaints against employers who they believe have discriminated against them, as the commission decided, "because the individual has expressed his or her gender in a non-stereotypical fashion, because the employer is uncomfortable with the fact that the person has transitioned or is in the process of transitioning from one gender to another, or because the employer simply does not like that the person is identifying as a transgender person."

Of the decision, a White House official told Metro Weekly on Tuesday, April 24, that "President Obama has long opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace." Other questions about the decision were referred to the EEOC.

The next day, on April 25, the Williams Institute released a new report (pdf) showing that the ground also is shifting quickly outside of government in the workplaces of the very federal contractors to whom the executive order would apply.

The report, which updated an October 2011 report on the nondiscrimination policies of federal contractors, concluded: "As of April 2012, 86 percent of the top 50 federal contractors prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 55 percent prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. While the numbers increased for both categories of anti-discrimination policies, the bigger increase was for the number of top 50 contractors prohibiting gender identity discrimination, for which there was a 29 percent increase from the previous year."

While the White House has avoided having any officials comment on the record about the executive order this week, others -- including Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias -- have put out opinions urging caution.

Talking with Metro Weekly the day that he published an op-ed in The Advocate -- in which he asked, "How much risk should we take to get the order signed this year rather than next?" -- Tobias said, "It's not a frivolous thing to ask: What's the smartest way for us to win? Do we want to absolutely get an executive order now that lasts for eight months until Romney rescinds it, in case he wins -- and it's going to be a very tough election -- or do we want to buy all of the insurance we can to tilt the odds as much as we can toward Obama winning so that when he signs the executive order next year ... it has three or four years at least to take effect and we have three or four more years of all this progress?"

He added: "Obviously, in the best of all worlds we would both get the executive order and still win. But, what worries me is that Karl Rove and the Koch brothers are not going to play fair."

Specifically pointing to North Carolina and Virginia -- two states that Obama won in 2008 -- Tobias, though, said, "For us to gamble that Karl Rove and the Koch brothers, putting $10 [million] or $20 million of grotesquely unfair, hateful, gender-identity-confusing kinds of ads, that just blast us in the most awful way, that that couldn't peel off 10,000 or 15,000 votes and cost us the election, some people are willing to take that risk."

Today, however, Jonathan Lewis, who provided significant funding for Get Equal in 2010 and has provided funding for Freedom to Work and Get Equal this year -- replied to Tobias, writing in The Advocate that Tobias's argument consists of "a series of totally irresponsible doomsday scenarios that have no basis in reality — except maybe if you work for the DNC, have been sent as a messenger for the White House, are still living in the 1990s, or happen to be a wealthy white guy who can wait on securing employment protections for others more vulnerable than yourself."

Lewis concludes, "Tobias substantiated my worst fears: this decision was based solely on what I called 'craven election-year politics' a couple weeks ago upon learning of the announcement."

Politics or not, the decision by the White House not to pursue an executive order "at this time" was not made in a vacuum. It was, rather, made in a world in which the very foundation on which the decision was made -- both in law and in the workplace -- is changing by the day.

As agencies assess the impact of the EEOC ruling on their own policies, a White House spokesman did not immediately reply to a request from Metro Weekly asking whether the EEOC decision changes the landscape for consideration of executive action that Obama could take now to address workplace discrimination against LGBT people.

UPDATE @ 5:05P: A White House official tells Metro Weekly there are "no updates ... on that issue."

Today, on a 68-31 vote, the Senate acted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act -- a bill that has, in the past, been enacted with strong bipartisan support but has been subject to significant Republican opposition in this Congress. Among the provisions that have drawn criticism are those that specifically provide for inclusion of LGBT people and issues in the enactment of the bill.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "Senators from both sides of the aisle came together today to ensure that all domestic violence victims, including those who are LGBT, will not face discrimination when they seek victim services. We applaud the Senate for recognizing the importance of this bill and taking bipartisan action, and we call on the House to do the same."

HRC pointed to three provisions of the legislation as providing specific support for LGBT people:

• The bill ensures that all programs or activities receiving funding from VAWA provide services regardless of a person's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. 
• The bill explicitly includes the LGBT community in the largest VAWA grant program, the "STOP Grant Program," which provides funding to care providers who collaborate with prosecution and law enforcement officials to address domestic violence. 
• Te bill establishes a grant program specifically aimed at providing services and outreach to underserved populations, including those who face obstacles to care based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In a statement, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey said, "To be the target of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence or stalking is terrifying and traumatic. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are not immune from this violence, and their distress should not be further heightened by a lack of proper response from service providers or law enforcement.

"Reauthorization of this inclusive Violence Against Women Act will go a long way toward ensuring everyone has access to life-sustaining resources. Lives are literally on the line, and we thank the Senate for passing this critical legislation. We urge the House to swiftly follow suit."

Today, Rolling Stone published its cover interview with President Obama. In it, Jann Wenner asked Obama about marriage equality.

From the interview:

Wenner: You've shied away from demanding marriage equality for all. Are you at least willing to say that you support it on a personal level?  

Obama: I'm not going to make news in this publication. I've made clear that the issue of fairness and justice and equality for the LGBT community is very important to me. And I haven't just talked about it, I've acted on it. You'll recall that the last time you and I had an interview, we were getting beat up about "don't ask, don't tell" in the LGBT community. There was skepticism: "Why's it taking so long? Why doesn't he just do it through executive order?" I described very specifically the process we were going to go through to make sure that there was a buy-in from the military, up and down the chain of command, so that it would be executed in an effective way. And lo and behold, here we are, and it got done.  

Ending "don't ask, don't tell" has been the dog that didn't bark. You haven't read a single story about problems in our military as a consequence of the ending of the policy. So whether it's on that, or changing the AIDS travel ban, or hospital visitation rights, or a whole slew of regulations that have made sure that federal workers are treated fairly in the workplace, we've shown the commitment that I have to these issues. And we're going to keep on working in very practical ways to make sure that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are treated as what they are -- full-fledged members of the American family.

The comments, which the interview details were made by Obama on Monday, April 9, came two days before his administration announced that Obama would not be pursuing an executive order to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The decision prompted an editorial from the editorial board of The Washington Post, criticizing the decision by stating that "there is no principled reason for refusing to extend such workplace protections to millions of Americans."

It was just this past Friday, April 20, Obama -- through the Twitter account run by his re-election campaign -- tweeted, "What three years of progress for the LGBT community looks like," with a link to a rainbow road of claimed accomplishments of the administration for the LGBT community.

One of those claimed accomplishments was about North Carolina: "March 16: Came out against North Carolina's Amendment 1, which would prohibit same-sex marriage in the state." The claim comes because the Obama for America North Carolina spokesman, Cameron French, stated on that date the Obama opposed the measure because "it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples."

Four days after claiming the opposition as a talking point for the administration's accomplishments on LGBT issues, however, Obama said nothing about Amendment 1 when he himself was actually in the state.

As with the executive order decision, the decision not to mention the amendment did not go without notice. From The New York Times's Andrew Rosenthal:

The president loves North Carolina. The state and the University.  

For all that, minus the name checks, he could have delivered the speech anywhere. It was noticeably lacking in references to the political situation in the real North Carolina, ... where residents will be voting in two weeks on one of the most depressing ballot initiatives of the year.  

The proposal, called Amendment One, would ban not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions. It's causing a huge commotion in North Carolina.  

Mr. Obama never mentioned it. ...

His silence on Amendment One this afternoon, and on gay marriage throughout his presidency, may keep his campaign managers happy, but hardly reflects the "yes we can" attitude that got him elected.

As the president goes into election mode, one message is emerging that the Obama campaign is doubtless noting already: LGBT advocates and allies do not appear poised to allow him and his campaign to make supportive statements in one forum while avoiding related decisions or topics in other fora without calling him out on the inconsistency.

[Photo: Mia Macy, whose case led to an unprecedented decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and her wife, Trish. (Photo courtesy of the Macys.)]

In tonight's exclusive series, "Transgender Breakthrough," Metro Weekly reports:

An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to an opinion issued on April 20 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The opinion, experts say, could dramatically alter the legal landscape for transgender workers across the nation.

In a news release overnight, the National Center for Transgender Equality's executive director, Mara Keisling, celebrated the news, saying, "This ruling is a major advancement in transgender rights that will provide a significant tool to fight discrimination. It will also help us advocate for still needed protections like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the federal contractors executive order."

To that end, Tico Almeida, the founder and president of Freedom to Work, said in a statement, "The EEOC's strong and historic ruling in favor of workplace fairness for transgender Americans should be adopted by all federal agencies, including the Department of Labor as it enforces the existing executive order banning gender discrimination at federal contractors. We call on Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and her staff to issue new guidance for federal contractors to inform them that they cannot discriminate against transgender Americans while profiting from taxpayer-funded contracts."

* * *

READ the news report; Metro Weekly's interview with Mia Macy, the woman at the center of the EEOC case; and the process for case resolution at the EEOC:

DOWNLOAD and READ the EEOC decision: EEOC_re_MMacy_042012_distribution.pdf

[Image: Screen capture from Cleve Jones's Facebook page today.]

Cleve Jones, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights activist who began his work with the community via Harvey Milk, has been named a White House Champion of Change, according to his Facebook page and later confirmed by the White House. 

Jones will meet with President Obama this week as part of the program aimed at bringing those with the best ideas to the White House to "share their ideas to win the future," the program's mission states.

Jones is the founder of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt. He is a member of the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the ongoing legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, and is a senior adviser to the Courage Campaign.

Previous "Champions" include Dee Dee Ngozi Chamblee, executive director and founder of LaGender, Inc., and Adam Tenner, executive director of Metro Teen AIDS since 2001, among others.

The White House today announced that President Obama is endorsing the Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA) and Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), two bills pending in Congress to address bullying and discrimination faced by students across the nation.

White House spokesman Shin Inouye tells Metro Weekly, "The President and his Administration have taken many steps to address the issue of bullying. He is proud to support the Student Non-Discrimination Act, introduced by Senator Franken and Congressman Polis, and the Safe Schools Improvement Act, introduced by Senator Casey and Congresswoman Linda Sanchez.  These bills will help ensure that all students are safe and healthy and can learn in environments free from discrimination, bullying and harassment."

The SSIA would amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to include bullying- and harassment-prevention programs, including ones based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The SNDA, modeled after Title IX, would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal education nondiscrimination law.

[UPDATE @ 6:25P: White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, in a blog post, noted today's news, writing, "Recently, I watched the movie BULLY with my mom.  We were both deeply moved by the film and the stories it tells of students, families, and communities impacted by bullying."

She went on to note the administration's work to address bullying thus far, then added, "We also hope that Congress will take action to ensure that all students are safe and healthy and can learn in environments free from discrimination, bullying, and harassment by passing the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) and the Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA). These pieces of legislation are critically important to addressing bullying in our schools and safeguarding our most vulnerable students."]

The news comes, Inouye wrote, as "the White House Office of Public Engagement is holding a screening of the documentary Bully at the White House with bullying prevention advocates from a wide range of communities."

More than a year ago, the president held the first White House conference dedicated to discussing bullying prevention and sharing ideas and strategies for combating the problem.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network executive director Eliza Byard said in a statement, "Today's announcement is a vital show of support to students everywhere of all identities, backgrounds and beliefs who face bullying and harassment in school," said Byard. "By speaking out on GLSEN's Day of Silence in support of these two critical bills, the President has given greater hope to students who often feel that they have nowhere to turn. It is deeply moving to know that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students who face the multiple threats of harassment, violence and discrimination have the President as an ally in their efforts to win all of the protections that they deserve."

Before today, Inouye and other administration officials had said the administration supported the goals of both of the bills but there was no specific endorsement of either bill. Specifically, Inouye told Metro Weekly in March 2011, "We support the goals of both of these bills. This year, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is being considered, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that all students are safe and healthy and can learn in environments free from discrimination, bullying and harassment."

When the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee considered the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2011, it passed the bill in October 2011 without inclusion of or even a vote on either the SNDA or the SSIA.

The SSIA was reintroduced by Sens. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) the week of the White House bullying conference in 2011 and currently has 38 co-sponsors. The House version, introduced the next month by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), currently has 147 co-sponsors. The SNDA, meanwhile, was reintroduced by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) the week of the bullying conference in 2011. The House bill has 157 co-sponsors, and the Senate version has 37 co-sponsors. 

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "The President's endorsement of the SNDA and SSIA recognizes the importance of providing LGBT students with the same civil rights protections as other students. No student should feel scared when walking into their school and these bills would address the discrimination and bullying that our youth have endured for far too long."

Regarding the SNDA, the American Civil Liberties Union, which has strongly pressed the bill, called the development "key."

"Having the White House stand behind the Student Non-Discrimination Act is key to getting this necessary legislation passed into law," Ian Thompson, ACLU legislative representative, said in a statement. "Our public schools should be a safe harbor for our youth, not a place of exclusion and ridicule. By passing the Student Non-Discrimination Act, Congress can have a profound and very real impact in improving the lives of LGBT students. It’s time to make passage of this bill a priority."

The news comes as the White House has faced blistering criticism -- from LGBT advocates to The Washington Post editorial board -- for Obama's decision not to pursue an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Today's endorsement also comes one day after The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel reported on New Mexico U.S. Senate candidate Heather Wilson's comments criticizing the SNDA.

Mitt Romney's campaign tonight announced that it has hired Richard Grenell, an out gay former George W. Bush administration official, to serve as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's "national security and foreign policy spokesman," according to a report from The Washington Post that did not mention Grenell's sexual orientation.

Grenell served through September 2008 in the Bush administration as a spokesman to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- and told The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld as he left the administration that it was his hope that New York would have marriage equality soon and that he would one day be able to marry his partner, Matt Lashey. The couple has been together 10 years.

Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper, who also served in the Bush administration, tells Metro Weekly that Grenell will be "a tremendous asset" to the Romney campaign.

"Having served with Ric," Cooper says, "I can attest that his experience in the multi-lateral environment of the UN and familiarity with domestic and international media make Ric a strong voice."

Of his politics and experience, GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia noted, "It's Obama and Romney now, so we're going to be talking about all the issues affecting the American people and the whole world. Ric has been around during some very important times in world affairs and ... certainly has the experience to help the campaign deal with and respond to crises around the world as they develop this year."

Andrew Sullivan, who had endorsed Obama's 2008 run, wrote of the news, "For Romney to have an openly gay spokesman is a real outreach to gay Republicans, a subtle signal to moderates, and the Santorum faction's reaction will be worth noting."

LaSalvia didn't see that as relevant, saying, "I think [Romney] picked the best person for the job, and I think that's all you should read into this."

Human Rights Campaign vice president Fred Sainz, whose organization endorsed President Obama's re-election before the first Republican primary, says of Grenell's hire, "While I disagree with his politics, I'm certainly glad that a man of his standing is represented in the Romney campaign."

Sainz, who worked with Grenell back in the 1990s in the office of San Diego Mayor Susan Golding (R), praises Grenell's brains, despite disagreeing with him politically.

"Ric is one of the smartest people I know. I have know him for over 15 years and he's a man on integrity and deep emotional conviction," Sainz tells Metro Weekly.

At the end of Grenell's service in the Bush administration, he took a notable whack at the administration, telling The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld of his effort to have his partner, Matt Lashey, listed in the United Nations' Blue Book, which is "a reference guide of contact information for different member states of the United Nations as well as diplomatic personnel and their spouses."

Grenell had attempted to have Lashey's name added several times, to no avail. He told The Advocate back in 2008, "What put me over the edge was a friend and colleague who met her spouse after I was already with my partner -- they got married and subsequently were put into the Blue Book in a matter of days."

The State Department eventually told him that the Defense of Marriage Act prevented the listing. Although he protested the decision behind the scenes, Lashey's name was not ever added, which led to his coming forward to criticize the treatement publicly as he left his post.

Grenell cited his help for LGBT groups, though, as an accomplishment of his time in the Bush administration. He "helped secure two former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., John Danforth and John Bolton, to give keynote speeches at Log Cabin Republican conventions," according to The Advocate's report, as well as succeeding in getting some LGBT groups accredited at the U.N.

Of his relationship with Lashey and the possibility of marriage, he told The Advocate in 2008, "It is not an option for us in New York, but hopefully someday soon it will be. In my mind, and in Matt's mind, this is it. We're married."

Grenell tells Metro Weekly that he and Lashey are still together and living in California, which does not have marriage equality -- although its ban on marriage equality, Proposition 8, is being challenged in federal court.

The news of Grenell's hire comes in the same day that it was announced that Romney, who opposes marriage equality, would be the commencement speaker at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University -- news examined by Think Progress's Igor Volsky, who looked at the university's anti-LGBT history. 

Obama likewise opposes marriage equality but has said that his personal view is "evolving." His Department of Justice stopped defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal definition of marriage, in court more than a year ago -- a decision that Romney has strongly criticized.

[NOTE: This story was minorly updated throughout at 1 a.m. April 20 to reflect Grenell's relationship status.]

[Photo: Grenell, right, appearing on Fox News. (Photo from Facebook.)]

[Image: Screen capture from the front page of The Washington Post website this evening.]

The Washington Post editorial board tonight strongly criticized President Obama's decision not to pursue an executive order prohibitting federal contractors from discriminating against their employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Post concluded, after referencing the president's success in repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," that Obama "should again seize the mantle of leadership by issuing an executive order that prohibits the federal government from doing business with contractors that fail to guarantee basic fairness to their LGBT employees."

The board, which previously editorialized in support of the order, led off with the Thursday, April 12, White house press briefing -- which Metro Weekly detailed that afternoon -- editorializing:

WHITE HOUSE press secretary Jay Carney spent a good chunk of his time during a briefing last week trying to explain why President Obama has declined to issue an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  

Mr. Carney struggled for some eight minutes but was unable to give a satisfactory answer. That’s understandable, because there is no principled reason for refusing to extend such workplace protections to millions of Americans.

Read the full editorial.

UPDATE @ 10:35P: One note: The editorial, despite repeatedly using the "LGBT" terminology on three occasions in the brief editorial, only references "sexual orientation" -- and not "gender identity" -- when discussing the specific language of nondiscrimination that applies to LGBT discrimination on four occasions.

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

"Should we settle for an economy where a few people do really well and then a growing number are struggling to get by? Or do we build an economy where people ... [ha]ve got a chance to get ahead, where there are ladders of opportunity, where everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody does their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules?"

President Obama, whose White House last week announced his decision not to take executive action to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, posed those questions at Lorain County Community College in Elyria, Ohio, today.

Although Obama portrayed the first question as rhetorically referencing the Republican theory of economics and governing and the second as his and the Democrats' theory, the discussion from White House press secretary Jay Carney was less ambitious on Tuesday, April 17.

"At this time, we believe that the right approach is to build support for passage of [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] legislation," he said of legislation that is almost certain not to come to consideration in the Republican-led House and staying away from talking about LGBT workers getting a "fair shot" in this Congress.

Instead, Carney said, "[A]t this time we are not pursuing an executive order. I'm not going to speculate about executive orders that may or may not be pursued in the future. What I'm saying is: Right now, we're not."

In a Roll Call article published earlier today, out gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) took issue with that decision, saying, "Without a Congress that's willing to pass [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], I wish the president was a little more aggressive to pursue nondiscrimination."

Questions over why President Obama chose last week not to pursue an executive order to ban federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity continued to be posed in the White House briefing room today, with White House press secretary Jay Carney today pulling back comments made by White House spokesman Shin Inouye less than 24 hours earlier that "the Administration hasn't taken any options off the table."

Today, Carney said, "Our position hasn't changed since we started talking about this last week. At this time, we believe that the right approach is to build support for passage of [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] legislation. And I think an example of why this approach can be most effective is the way that we approached the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' So, there is no change."

Although Carney has pointed repeatedly to DADT repeal as the path for workplace protections, the White House has not responded to any of the multiple distinctions between the two goals of LGBT equality supporters.

Asked if today's answer contradicted Inouye's comment, Carney said, "What I just heard you say does not represent anything different from what I've said in the past, which is that at this time we are not pursuing an executive order. I'm not going to speculate about executive orders that may or may not be pursued in the future. What I'm saying is: Right now, we're not."

Today's questioning marks the second time Carney has been asked about the executive order in the briefing in the six days since the White House decision not to issue such an executive order at this time.

Carney today referenced the eight-minute questioning he took on the topic on Thursday, April 12, saying, "We discussed this pretty thoroughly last week, and the focus is on building the kind of support for and coalition behind passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that we hope would lead to the kind of legislative action that would be especially effective in this case."

Asked if the administration misjudged the response from Obama's supporters to the decision not to pursue the executive order, Carney defended the decision as "the right approach."

He said, "The president believes that, in this case, the right approach is to try and build support for ENDA. I think that a good example, again, is to look at the approach that was taken by this administration in dealing with his commitment to repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and working with Congress and working with the Pentagon to make sure that that came to pass. There was criticism at the time that we weren't taking the right approach. In the end, I think, it has been shown to have been the right approach and to have been an effective approach in building support and ensuring that in its implementation ... that the implementation itself has been extremely effective."

There are four major distinctions between what happened surrounding DADT repeal and what is going on with the administration's actions to advance LGBT workplace protections, distinctions thus far ignored by the White House.

First, the control of Congress was in the Democrats' hands in the 111th Congress.

President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) all supported the goal of ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Now, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) controls the House agenda, and he and most of his colleagues oppose ENDA. As such, ENDA has no chance of passage in the 112th Congress.

Second, although a formal moratorium on DADT discharges was not put in place prior to DADT repeal, the administration did take interim steps to lessen discrimination while awaiting legislative action on the repeal. 

In fact, on Feb. 2, 2010, in his Senate testimony on the matter at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he had "directed the department to quickly review the regulations used to implement the current 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law, and within 45 days present to me recommended changes to those regulations that, within existing law, will enforce this policy in a fairer manner. On March 25, 2010, the Pentagon implemented the results of that review, raising the level of the officer who was authorized to initiate an inquiry or separation proceeding regarding the DADT policy to a general or flag officer in the servicemember's chain of command.

On October 21, 2010, the Pentagon made further changes, announcing that discharges under DADT would take the approval of the service branch secretary, and only in consultation with the defense department general counsel and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The DADT Repeal Act was not signed into law until Dec. 22, 2010.

Third, unlike with DADT repeal, the relevant agencies appear to be fully on board with the executive action being sought here.

Several sources outside the administration familiar with the process told Metro Weekly in January that a proposed expansion of the federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order to include sexual orientation and gender identity has been given the OK by both the Labor Department, which oversees federal contract compliance, and the Justice Department. To contrast, even as he was implementing the revised discharge procedures Gates told reporters back in March 2010, "I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed the study" -- a reference to the Comprehensive Review Working Group. 

Fourth, unlike the DADT discharge change, the additional effects of the proposed executive order being sought by advocates with regards to workplace discrimination have impact beyond that which would be achieved by ENDA. 

The proposed executive order, by giving the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) authority to ensure compliance with the order, would provide additional protections -- available under Executive Order 11246 to employees of federal contractors discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin -- to LGBT employees of federal contractors. Those protections would not be available to employees of federal contractors, even if ENDA were to become law.

The Human Rights Campaign is not accepting the decision as a done deal. After today's briefing, HRC launched a campaign on Facebook, providing supporters with a form to contact the White House and Senate.

The HRC action states, "The next steps in this fight are clear: we need Senate hearings to move the Employment Non-Discrimination Act forward, and we need the President to issue an Executive Order banning anti-LGBT discrimination by federal contractors."

The request echoes comments made to Metro Weekly on Monday, April 16, by Freedom to Work president Tico Almeida.

Almeida, who said he is still strongly pushing the White House to reconsider its decision about the executive order, also explained what should happen in the Democrat-controlled Senate, saying, "Get [Sen. Tom] Harkin [(D-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee] to do a hearing and mark-up, and get [Majority Leader Harry] Reid [(D-Nev.)] to take it to the floor. This is the test of their sincerity on a legislative strategy. If they can get that done, it shows that they're making a good-faith effort. If they can't get Tom Harkin to hold both a hearing and a mark-up, then it seems to me that they're not really trying."

Facing continued fallout from the Obama administration's decision not to proceed with an executive order banning LGBT discrimination by federal contractors, White House spokesman Shin Inouye tells Metro Weekly today that "the time is right for a comprehensive legislative approach" to address anti-LGBT workplace discrimination -- a reference to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- although he added that "the Administration hasn't taken any options off the table."

In responding to questions about the decision on Thursday, April 12, White House press secretary Jay Carney had pointed to "an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act" as providing "lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections" for LGBT people. He had, contrary to today's statement, said, "[W]e do not expect that an EO on LGBT nondiscrimination for federal contractors will be issued at this time."

Advocates from the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress and Freedom to Work, though, all found today's response lacking -- at least as to its focus on ENDA to the detriment of the executive order path.

HRC vice president for communications Fred Sainz tells Metro Weekly that today's statement ignores the "political realities in 2012" -- from the Republican control of the House to the difficulty of reaching 60-vote support in the Senate -- that prevent ENDA from being "a viable option," and Freedom to Work president Tico Almeida says that, even on the legislative front, the administration needs to put action behind today's comments in order to prove its sincerity on the issue.

CAP vice president for LGBT research and communications Jeff Krehely, summed up the frustration, telling Metro Weekly, "The president has clear legal authority to issue this executive order, and CAP calls on him to do that now."

Inouye made today's statement in response to a request from Metro Weekly made on Friday, April 13, asking whether the president continues to support a formal written policy of nondiscrimination that includes sexual orientation and gender identity or expression for all Federal contractors, as he'd committed to in a 2008 political questionnaire. 

Inouye responded to Metro Weekly today, writing, "President Obama is deeply committed to working to address the issue of LGBT employment discrimination. An inclusive ENDA would provide broad, lasting and comprehensive protections for LGBT people across the country, regardless whether they happen to work for a government contractor. While the Administration hasn't taken any options off the table, our belief is that the time is right for a comprehensive legislative approach to achieve passage of ENDA."

He added, "We will work with a broad range of partners to continue to build the case for, and raise awareness of the need for, employment nondiscrimination protections that include the LGBT community."

In addition to the reporting from Metro Weekly on the 2008 questionnaire, MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry raised the issue on her show on Sunday, April 15, and the vice president of the National Council of La Raza today "strongly urge[d]" President Obama to "revisit [his] position on signing an executive order (EO) prohibiting the discrimination of federal contractors in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identification."

La Raza, which bills itself as "the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States," noted in the letter signed by La Raza vice president Eric Rodriguez, "25 of some of the largest federal contractors think it is a good practice to add sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination policies. It is, but it also does something else -- it protects a group of people who have a long history of being marginalized and gives them hope. That is why we urge you to sign an EO on this matter as soon as possible."

When President Obama's press secretary on Thursday, April 12, explained the president's decision not to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, Jay Carney told reporters that "[t]he president is dedicated to securing equal rights for all LGBT Americans, and that is why he has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act."

As a candidate for president, though, Obama told an LGBT political group in 2008 that -- in addition to supporting the passage of ENDA -- he would "support" a "formal written policy of non-discrimination that includes sexual orientation and gender identity or expression ... for all Federal contractors" if elected president.

The survey, on which Metro Weekly exclusively reported at the beginning of March, was submitted to the Houston GLBT Political Caucus and signed by Obama on February 25, 2008. It contained four separate questions about employment nondiscrimination -- questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 -- covering the candidate's campaign policy and whether it included sexual orientation and gender identity and would apply to his office if elected, whether the candidate would "support such a policy for all Federal employees," whether the candidate would "support such a policy for all Federal contractors," and whether the candidate would support ENDA.

At the time, Obama stated that his campaign had and office would have such a nondiscrimination policy. In one-word "yes" answers, he stated that he would support such a policy for federal workers and for federal contractors. As to ENDA, he stated he would "place the weight of my administration" behind "a fully inclusive" ENDA.

On Thursday, however, Carney told reporters that "our approach is to focus on trying to build and expand support for passage of ENDA." As to the proposed executive order, he says, "I can tell you that at this time we are not considering such an executive order."

Does the decision, announced on Wednesday, April 11, not to sign such an executive order at this time constitute Obama having broken his commitment to support a federal contractor nondiscrimination policy as president?

Unlike his commitment to ENDA, the president did not explicitly state his support for signing an executive order to realize his stated support for federal contractor sexual orienation and gender identity employment nondiscrimination.

At the same time, however, an executive order is the means by which federal contractor nondiscrimination policy has been set in the United States for more than 50 years. Since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has ensured that all federal contractors doing more than $10,000 in government contract work in a year comply with the executive order's equal employment opportunity policy. This prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. 

What's more, the call to expand Executive Order 11246 is similar to the expansion that President Bill Clinton made in May 1998 by adding "sexual orientation" to Executive Order 11478, which prohibits discrimination in the federal workforce.

As such, it's hard to believe -- and no administration officials have claimed -- that another administrative route to promulgating a policy of protecting federal contractors from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is in the works. 

It also is true that the administration announced only that Obama would not be signing such an executive order "at this time" and could decide later to sign such an order. That, technically, might prevent a group like Politifact from deeming a "broken pledge" claim to be true. 

But, unlike the legislative commitments made by a candidate, this was a request to commit to supporting a policy as president. Obama responded "yes" -- without condition -- and there is no other institutional barrier, such as Congress, to prevent the signing of an executive order implementing that policy.

Asked today whether Obama believes the decision not to pursue the executive order at this time constitutes a broken pledge, White House and Obama campaign spokespeople did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

READ the questionnaire: Houston GLBT Political Caucus.pdf

Two Kentucky men have been indicted in what the Department of Justice says is the first case to involve sexual orientation charged under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The three-count indictment given by a federal grand jury in London, Ky., charges David Jason Jenkins, 37, and Anthony Ray Jenkins, 20, for the April 4, 2011 kidnapping and assault of Kevin Pennington, and for conspiring to commit the kidnapping, a DOJ statement read. 

The indictment charges the men with committing a hate crime in violation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which, once signed by President Obama in 2009, expanded federal jurisdiction to include certain assaults motivated by someone's sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. This case marks the first federal hate crime charge alleging a violation of the sexual orientation provision of the statute.

According to the indictment, the defendants enlisted two women to trick Pennington into getting into a truck with the defendants, so that the defendants could drive him to a state park and assault him, a DOJ statement read. According to the indictment, the defendants then drove Pennington a secluded area of the Kingdom Come State Park in Kentucky and assaulted him.

If convicted, the defendants could face life in prison.

White House press secretary Jay Carney faced nearly eight minutes of questioning at today's White House briefing on the White House's announcement on Wednesday evening, April 11, that President Obama would not be taking action to sign an executive order to ban sexual orientation and gender identity employment discrimination by federal contractors.

Questions began when Carney called on NBC News correspondent Kristen Welker and continued with follow-up questions from Metro Weekly and the Washington Blade.

Carney, with several takes on the same answer, said initially:

The president is dedicated to securing equal rights for all LGBT Americans, and that is why he has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act .... The president is committed to lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections and we plan to pursue a number of strategies to obtain that goal. Our hope is these efforts will result in the passage of ENDA ... which is a legislative solution to LGBT employment discrimination. And I would make the comparison here that that strategy, the passage of ENDA, is very similar to the approach the president took for the legislative repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Later, specifically as to the executive order proposal, he said:

I think that DADT repeal is instructive here in terms of the approach that we're taking at this time, and though it is not our usual practice to discuss executive orders that may or may not be under consideration, we do not expect that an EO on LGBT nondiscrimination for federal contractors will be issued at this time. 

WATCH the Think Progress video of today's White House briefing:

Carney did not, however, respond directly to any of the repeated questions asked by the White House press corps today.

The four main unanswered questions coming out of today's briefing were:

1. If the president supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- which would ban almost all private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity -- why would he not support an executive order to do so for a portion of the workforce?
2. If the president has been taking actions under the banner of "We Can't Wait" to address other areas where Congress has refused to act, why not do so in the case of this proposed executive order?
3. If the president believes this approach is similar to the approach taken with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, why not -- as was done with DADT repeal -- take an interim step to lessen the burden of waiting on the legislative action?
4. If the president thinks that ENDA is all that is needed to obtain "comprehensive" relief from LGBT employment discrimination, does he think the existing federal contractor executive order that prohibits such contractors from discriminating based on race, sex, religion and national origin -- Executive Order 11246 -- is redundant or unnecessary in light of the existence of Title VII?

Finally, the overarching question that is ignored in the administration's stance relates to the current political status: The president's party controlled both chambers of Congress when the White House was arguing for a "durable" solution to DADT. The president does not, however, have a House leadership that is supportive of ENDA in this Congress, and the bill has no chance of passage. Further, if the president does not take this action now, and loses re-election, that likely means Congress will not be controlled by pro-ENDA leadership and ENDA will be unlikely to become law until at least January 2017.

The final question, then, is simple: Is the president OK with that possibility?

* * *

READ the full briefing exchange below the jump.

President Obama does not plan to sign an executive order at this time banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, according to a statement from Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. A senior administration official confirmed the news to Metro Weekly.

"Earlier today, we were told that the Administration is not ready to move forward with a federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order at this time," Solmonese said of the meeting first reported by Metro Weekly. "We are extremely disappointed with this decision and will continue to advocate for an executive order from the president. The unfortunate truth is that hard-working Americans can be fired simply for being gay or transgender. Given the number of employees that would be covered by this executive order, it represents a critical step forward."

The move is a blow to advocates, many of whom had been pushing for action over the past several months. Tico Almeida, the founder of Freedom to Work, had told Metro Weekly repeatedly that he was confident the president would sign such an order -- by this June at the latest.

Center for American Progress executive vice president Winnie Stachelberg told Metro Weekly, "Today's news that the White House will not immediately issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policies is disappointing."

The White House, which has endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- a bill to prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity-based workplace discrimination for most private employers -- had refused to comment publicly on the executive order proposal.

Today, however, a senior administration official tells Metro Weekly, "While it is not our usual practice to discuss Executive Orders that may or may not be under consideration, we do not expect that an Executive Order on LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors will be issued at this time. We support legislation that has been introduced and we will continue to work with congressional sponsors to build support for it."

Of the White House effort, Stachelberg says, "The White House will instead launch a multipronged effort to better address workplace discrimination against gay and transgender Americans. However, just as Congress should pass ENDA now, the President should now use his executive authority to extend existing nondiscrimination requirements of federal contractors to include sexual orientation and gender identity."

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey concurred with Stachelberg's assessment, noting, "While we all continue to work towards federal employment protections through legislation, we know the need is immediate and the president can take action now to protect LGBT workers across the country. Federal contractors receive billions of dollars from federal taxpayers every year and an executive order would extend LGBT-inclusive employment protections to millions of workers."

Stachelberg added, "A wide range of research by the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Williams Institute, and others clearly demonstrates that gay and transgender people face high rates of discrimination and policies that create fair workplaces are good for business. These types of policies are supported by nearly 75 percent of Americans, many of the nation's leading and largest corporations, and nearly two-thirds of all small business owners, based on a CAP survey from 2011."

Metro Weekly has reported in March that, when a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama said he would support a sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policy for federal contractors if elected president.

Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the coalition of labor, religious, civic and political groups and organizations working to ensure marriage equality in the Free State, announced today that political strategist Josh Levin has been named campaign manager, just as the organization seeks to defend Maryland's recently-passed marriage equality law at the ballot box in November.

Levin previously served as a congressional campaign manager for Tammy Duckworth, a Democratic congressional candidate from Illinois and former Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio). He also served as the state director for American Against Escalation in Iraq in Illinois, a Get Out the Vote (GOTV) director in Milwaukee, Wis., for America Coming Together, and a regional field director for Dean for America, the presidential campaign for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D).

"I am thrilled to be part of the historic effort to ensure all families and their children have the same legal protections," Levin said in a prepared statement. "We have a number of advantages this election year, and the momentum is with us. We're confident of victory."

Sultan Shakir, the campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality who led the legislative effort, will become political director for the referendum. 

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), the marriage equality law's chief proponent, praised Levin’s appointment in a statement.

"Josh's campaign experience will be invaluable," O'Malley said. "I am confident voters this fall will come down on the side of human dignity. All of our children deserve the opportunity to be protected equally under the law."

Maryland State Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery Co.) said, "Throughout his career, Josh has demonstrated a fundraising prowess and an ability to put together a formidable GOTV program -- critical skills we're going to need in the fall. I am very much looking forward to working with him.”

Levin takes the helm of the campaign just as a new poll by Hart Research shows a majority of Maryland voters support upholding the recently passed law. According to the poll, 51 percent of voters would vote for the referendum -- meaning to uphold the law -- while 43 percent would vote against it.

The campaign's hopes are also bolstered by data from the poll indicating that supporters of President Obama, who is expected to win Maryland handily, are more likely to vote in favor of the referendum. The poll shows 70 percent of Obama voters and 30 percent of Romney voters support marriage equality. The poll of 604 Maryland voters was conducted from March 18-23.

[UPDATE: White House Says No Federal Contractor Nondiscrimination Executive Order "At This Time"]

At 3 p.m. today, LGBT advocates went to the White House to attend a meeting being led by White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett to discuss advocates and the administration's work addressing anti-LGBT workplace discrimination, according to two sources familiar with but not attending the meeting.

Among those attending the meeting were Winnie Stachelberg, of Center for American Progress; Rea Carey, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Tico Almeida, of Freedom to Work; Joe Solmonese and David Smith, of the Human Rights Campaign; and gay Democratic lobbyists Steve Elmendorf and Robert Raben. Also invited was a representative from the National Center for Transgender Equality. None of the attendees seen entering the meeting were willing to provide comment at this time on the purpose of the meeting.

The LGBT organization advocates attending the meeting and others have been pushing President Obama to issue an executive order banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity among federal contractors. Metro Weekly reported exclusively in March that President Obama had told the Houston GLBT Political Caucus more than four years ago that he would support such a policy as president.

Although the White House has endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the House Republican leadership opposes the bill and the Senate did not move the bill in the 111th Congress, when it had more Democrats in the chamber. 

The government also has another route -- the executive order path -- in the case of a not insignificant number of employers. Because 22 percent of the jobs in this country are with employers who contract with the federal government, according to Freedom to Work's Almeida, the Department of Labor has some authority to redress discrimination by federal contractors.

The White House, however, has been silent on the possibility of such an order, leaving unanswered repeated questions from the White House press corps about the possibility -- as recently as this week.

Since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has ensured that all federal contractors doing more than $10,000 in government contract work in a year comply with the executive order's equal employment opportunity policy. This prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not include sexual orientation or gender identity.

Almeida, CAP, the Williams Institute and others have been pushing for Obama to sign an executive order that would expand Executive Order 11246 to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. The move is similar to the expansion that President Bill Clinton made by adding "sexual orientation" to Executive Order 11478, which prohibits discrimination in the federal workforce, in May 1998.

Several sources outside the administration familiar with the process told Metro Weekly in January that a proposed expansion of the federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order to include sexual orientation and gender identity has been given the OK 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. The White House has not confirmed the claim.

Check back at Metro Weekly for more as this story develops.

[Photo: Stacy Lambe, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Adam Smith, texting and loling, on April 10, 2012. (Photos from Texts From Hillary.)]

Two gays walk into a bar ...

... and out they walk, less than a week later, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office, laughing all the way.

It's an "only in D.C." story, but for Stacy Lambe, Adam Smith and Texts From Hillary, that's how it happened.

The two communications professionals -- Lambe works on clean energy and Smith on campaign finance reform -- went for drinks a week back. It was that recent? Yes. "We were on the rooftop of Nellie's last Wednesday," Smith tells Metro Weekly.

The photo of Clinton looking tough, calm and in charge "in a military C-17 plane from Malta bound for Tripoli, Libya October 18, 2011," as the original Reuters story captions it, became the topic of discussion. 

Once Lambe returned home and launched the Tumblr site, the meme was born. Diana Walker's black-and-white photo shot for Time and Kevin Lamarque's photo for Reuters became the underlying foundation of an internet laugh that has outlasted many others. Besides cats.

Looking at the many Anna Wintour, Meryl Streep (below, left), Rachel Maddow and Arianna Huffington posts on the Tumblr, one can't help but notice a bit of a pattern.

"I just kept coming up with perfect results of people like Anna Wintour and Meryl Streep on their phones, and there's just this natural alignment. I think a lot of people associate those three women in similar circles," Lambe says by phone this afternoon. "Having seen a couple of videos of Meryl Streep introducing Hillary Clinton at the women's summit, there's just this camaraderie there. There's just so much respect between those two women, you can't help but have this awesome little exchange that you think might happen.

"I may be only speaking for me, but I'm sure a lot of gay men, gay women too, have a lot of respect for them."

Talking with Smith today after he and Lambe left their meeting with Clinton, he laughs.

"It was sort of unbelievable. Her staff had emailed us yesterday, said that they liked the site and that the Secretary wanted to meet us. They asked if we could come over to the State Department, and we of course said, 'Sure, we'd love to!'"

Lambe tells Metro Weekly, "Because the initial outreach came through email, I think both of us were in disbelief that it was even real. We Googled the name, asked if it was real. I was like, 'Is this a really bad version of Punk'd?'

"It was very surprising to get any kind of outreach from her office, let alone a submission -- which they definitely had to tell us a few times, 'Hey, that really is from her,'" he says.

Smith says that Secretary Clinton's staff sent over her submission to the site (above, right) on Monday, April 9, and he and Lambe met her press staff today before meeting Clinton. 

"[W]e went up to her quarters and then she came out and she was all smiles and she told us she liked the site and shook out hands," Smith says.

Lambe marvels: "For her to ... walk up to us and know us by name and shake our hands and greet us and everything, it was just absolutely divine."

Smith: "Then, she said, 'I have this idea for a picture I want to do.' Her assistant gave us our phones back because they have to take them when you go into her office. They gave us our phones back and we just took pictures pretending that we were texting."

With her sunglasses on.

"Right."

Lambe says, "It was a wild moment."

He adds: "She said her favorite post was the Ryan Gosling one, so of course I was excited because that was one of the ones that I happened to come up with after being inspired by several requests for a Ryan Gosling post."

As for the future of the Tumblr, Smith says, "That's a good question. Everyone will just have to look at the site tomorrow morning for an update."

We're waiting.

[Image: Screen capture of Santorum and family on April 10, 2012.]

The presidential campaign of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) came to an end today at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

With his family behind him on stage, Santorum said he made the decision with his family in recent days.

"We made a decision over the weekend that, while this pres race for us is over," he said, announcing that he is suspending his campaign, "we are not done fighting."

Talking about his successes, he said that people asked him, "How were we able to come from nowhere?" He was a "witness of" people's aims for the country, he said, and "miracles" happened with his primary wins.

"We have tried to be a witness not just for your story or your voice but to try to bring a positive message ... reflecting the hopes of Americans, not the fears of Americans." He pointed to his attempts to address "radical Islam" and a "sluggish economy."

His also noted that his campaign was about "the moral enterprise that is America."

Despite the news today, he did note the victories that he had achieved over the course of the primary -- beginning with his surprising victory in Iowa, which was initially called as a win for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republican Party. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) remain in the race, though they trail Romney substantially.

"Against all odds," Santorum said today, "we won 11 states."

He went on to talk about his aim to help the Republican Party win the White House, take control of the Senate and keep control of the House.

Without mentioning Romney by name, Santorum took no questions before leaving the stage.

Today, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund took what one of its lawyers calls "a strategic step" in the national effort to advance marriage equality by filing a federal lawsuit in Nevada seeking equal marriage rights for eight same-sex couples in the state.

The lawsuit, Sevcik v. Sandoval, marks the first time that Lambda Legal has sought equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples in federal court, although a staff attorney with the group, Tara Borelli, notes that another case filed by Lambda Legal in state court in New Jersey includes federal claims as well.

According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the lead plaintiffs in the new lawsuit -- Beverly Sevcik, 73, and Mary Baranovich, 76, of Carson City, Nevada -- have been together for more than 40 years. As the complaint notes, "When Beverly and Mary committed their lives to each other on October 2, 1971 and bought rings to signify their relationship, they were careful not to purchase matching rings for fear of having their relationship discovered." 

The couple, nonetheless, went on to raise three children and have four grandchildren, despite the constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2000 and 2002 limiting marriage in the state's constitution to "a male and a female person." Same-sex couples have been able to receive many of the same benefits and privileges of marriage but not the status itself, however, since the legislature passed comprehensive domestic partnership benefits over the veto of then-Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) in 2009.

Lambda Legal's federal lawsuit against Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) was filed electronically in Nevada overnight today, and it stands as a sign of the significant ground movement on marriage equality in the country in recent years. 

Less than three years ago, when word came on May 27, 2009, that a brand new organization -- the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) -- had filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn California's Proposition 8, the response from the legal groups was not at all positive. The day the AFER lawsuit -- then Perry v. Schwarzenegger and now Perry v. Brown -- was announced, Lambda Legal and several other legal, political and educational LGBT organizations released a statement warning that "that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back." Specifically questioning lawsuits "based on the federal Constitution," the groups were concerned that "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."

With today's filing, Lambda appears to have acknowledged that Perry has helped lay that groundwork. By filing the case in Nevada, any appeal of a trial-court decision would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- which agreed in February with the trial-court judge in Perry that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

At the same time, Borelli makes clear that Lambda sees this as another -- and not the final -- step in seeking marriage equality through the courts.

"This lawsuit seeks the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in the state of Nevada and is tailored to be a responsible building block for future marriage equality work," she tells Metro Weekly from Las Vegas on the eve of the filing. "We've always believed that it's important to take strategic steps that build on each other, and that's exactly what this case is designed to do."

According to the complaint, "No legitimate, let alone important or compelling, interest exists to exclude same-sex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage, especially where the State already grants lesbians and gay men access to almost all substantive spousal rights and responsibilities through registered domestic partnership."

Explaining the claim, Borelli says, "One of the reasons that we're suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It's the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status -- in this case, domestic partnership. That shows just how irrational that state's decision is to shut same-sex couples out of marriage."

From today's White House press briefing, press secretary Jay Carney was asked about the couple, Jarrod Scarbrough and Les Sewell, who attended today's White House Easter Egg Roll and hoped to ask the president to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

As Metro Weekly reported exclusively in March, President Obama had pledged to support such a policy as president when he was a candidate in 2008. He has taken no action as president to do so, however, and the White House, in repeated questioning from members of the LGBT media including Metro Weekly, has refused to comment on such a proposed order.

Today, a reporter from NBC News asked about the proposed order in regards to the visiting couple:

Q    And on a separate note, Jay, a New Mexico same-sex couple brought their eight-year-old daughter to the White House today for the Easter Egg Roll, in part to send a message to the President that he should sign an executive order that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Does he plan to sign this executive order?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have any updates for you on possible or proposed executive orders.  I would note that we're delighted that that couple and many others were able to attend the Easter Egg Roll and -- again, I don't have anything more on the executive orders.

Q    Does the President have a reaction to the fact that they're here and that they came with a message?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, they’re here because they were invited, and the President -- many, many people -- families of all kinds are invited to this wonderful event.  And the President is delighted that they and others were able to attend.

Q    But, Jay, as you know, they've been speaking out.  They've been speaking to various members of the press about this issue, and looking for a reaction --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I don't have anything for you on a specific executive order.  What I can tell you is I think the President's position on LGBT issues is -- or record, rather, is well known and one that he and we are very proud of.

The Obama campaign has announced its opposition to the marriage amendment that will be on the November ballot in Minnesota that would restrict marriage only to opposite-sex couples there, echoing a theme from its earlier opposition to such an amendment in North Carolina that will appear on the May primary ballot.

If there was any question whether the March 16 statement by North Carolina Obama campaign spokesman Cameron French stating the Obama campaign's specific opposition to the marriage amendment there was an intentional move to take a stand on the issue in the state, today's statement would appear to answer that.

According to a statement released today by Obama for America Minnesota Communications Director Kristin Sosanie, she said, "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."

In the statement provided to Metro Weekly, she continued, "That's what the Minnesota 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."

The language is the same as that used by French in March regarding the North Carolina proposal.

The proposed Minnesota marriage amendment reads: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota." Unlike the proposed North Carolina amendment, it does not address recognition of other relationships like civil unions or domestic partnerships. Same-sex couples cannot marry currently, however, in either state.

In October 2011, when President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign's national dinner, he referenced the amendments -- but not by name.

Of opposition to LGBT equality, he said then, "And I don't have to tell you, there are those who don't want to just stand in our way but want to turn the clock back; who want to return to the days when gay people couldn't serve their country openly; who reject the progress that we've made; who, as we speak, are looking to enshrine discrimination into state laws and constitutions -- efforts that we've got to work hard to oppose, because that's not what America should be about."

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 the statements by French and Sosanie.

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."

Today's news comes even as White House press secretary Jay Carney recently, in response to a question from Metro Weekly, stated that First Lady Michelle Obama -- in referencing how Supreme Court decisions will impact whether people can "love whomever we choose" -- was not making a comment about marriage equality. Her husband, though "evolving" in his views on marriage equality, opposed marriage equality and supported civil unions in his 2008 election campaign.

Although Obama has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court challenges as president, he has not stated support for marriage equality or any other change in his evolution during this year's re-election campaign.

The National Organization for Marriage and New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz (D), a prominent opponent of New York's marriage equality law, have spoken out in defense of the organization after previously confidential NOM documents released by the Human Rights Campaign this past week moved many civil rights advocates and activists and the The New York Times to criticize the organization. 

An April 2 New York Times editorial stated that NOM's strategy to "drive a wedge between gays and blacks" was a "poisonous political approach." This condemnation did not sit well with either NOM or New York Senator Ruben Diaz. 

In a statement released April 5, NOM responded to the criticism. "NOM didn't create this issue," the statement read. "The African American and Hispanic communities have always opposed same-sex marriage. It is the gay marriage activists and Democratic party elites who have forced the issue, ignoring the voices of Black and Hispanic voters."

In a statement posted on his website, Sen. Diaz also responded to the controversy and reiterated his support for NOM. "Brian Brown and NOM have done something, that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate," the statement read. "You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage -- a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us."

He continued by commenting on the Times article. "No New York Times editorial, nor anyone else will be able to sow seeds of dissension between us and NOM in this great effort to protect marriage."

Contrary to NOM and Sen. Diaz's remarks, a March 29 statement released by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) showed that a 2010 Bendixen & Amandi International poll found that 74 percent of Latinos support marriage equality or other forms of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, and a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released in March 2012 revealed that 50 percent of African-Americans support the issue.

[Photo, above: Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders lawyer Mary Bonauto, left, apeaks with reporters along with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), right, and her Civil Rights Division chief, Maura Healey, outside the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston on April 4, 2012. Photo, below: The Gill case plaintiffs outside the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston on April 4, 2012. (Photos by Chris Geidner.)]

At points in today's appellate arguments over the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act, the four lawyers arguing the two cases to three judges appeared to be operating from different worlds. One of the only points of complete agreement was that DOMA was an unprecedented attempt by Congress to define marriage across all federal laws.

Whether arguing over the rationales advanced for DOMA's passage, the level of scrutiny from which courts should review laws that classify people based on sexual orientation, or the impact of Section 3 of DOMA on married gay and lesbian couples, the gulf between the lawyers at times prevented the sort of fireworks one might expect at a debate over a hot-button issue like "gay marriage," as it was called when DOMA was passed in 1996.

In a somewhat surprising move, the Department of Justice went a step further than it has in the past when Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today that DOJ would not be defending the constitutionality of the 1996 law regardless of the level of scrutiny the court found appropriate for reviewing a law like DOMA that classifies people based on sexual orientation.

[ADDITIONAL COVERAGE:

• Metro Weekly's preview of today's argument
• Metro Weekly's interview with plaintiff Dean Hara, the surviving spouse of former Rep. Gerry Studds
• Partial audio of today's argument (mp3 from the court)]

Delery, representing the federal defendants in the two cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States, was in the unusual position of agreeing with the plaintiffs on most points because of President Obama's February 2011 decision that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional because such laws should be subjected to heightened scrutiny and that, accordingly, DOJ would stop defending DOMA in court.

The head of Department of Justice's Civil Division, Delery told Chief Judge Sandra Lynch and Judges Juan Torruella and Michael Boudin today that Congress's intent to single out gay and lesbian couples for discrimination was clear from the name of the bill itself: "It's a defense against something, and that defense was [against] same-sex couples." 

As to the DOJ's prior position that DOMA should be found constitutional if subjected to the lowest level of scrutiny -- known as rational basis -- Delery noted that DOJ's prior briefs defending the law were superseded by its more recent filings and, hence, no longer the government's position. Specifically asked by Judge Boudin whether the law should be upheld under rational basis review, Delery said, "I'm not here to defend it on any basis."

When Paul Clement, representing the House Republican leadership-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, made his case defending DOMA, he pointed to the "uniqueness of the dynamic that Congress was facing in 1996" -- when Hawaii courts were considering whether same-sex couples were required to be allowed to marry under Hawaii law. Clement argued that Congress had a rational basis to act to "preserve its prior legislative judgments" by, in anticipation of a change in Hawaii law, preventing any federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Clement also argued that, in accepting states' marriages for federal purposes prior to DOMA, there was both "uniformity" in the provision of federal benefits and "deference" to states' decisions about marriage -- but that the pending Hawaii decision at the time justified the congressional action in deciding to choose uniformity over deference.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders lawyer Mary Bonauto, representing the plaintiffs who brought the Gill lawsuit arguing that DOMA Section 3's federal definition of marriage violates constitutional equal protection guarantees, disagreed, telling the court, "The one constant of marriage law has been change."

Noting that even as states across the country disagreed in the past on whether interracial marriages should be recognized, "the federal government never weighed in for or against."

Bonauto went on to discuss how Clement's argument about uniformity didn't make sense to GLAD, stating, "Of course there's uniformity, but what is the reason for singling out one group? That's the question BLAG does not answer."

In his rebuttal argument, Clement did not directly respond to that, instead focusing on making the more general case that DOMA isn't an anti-gay law. Although DOJ, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and GLAD argues that DOMA was motivated by anti-gay sentiment -- "animus," in court lingo -- Clement argued that the impact of DOMA was not all bad.

"In some cases," he said, "it's a net financial benefit to the same-sex couple; in some, it's not."

Maura Healey, the head of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office's Civil Rights Division, had made the opposite case in her time before the judges, arguing that, for Massachusetts residents, DOMA mandates the creation of "two different, unequal" types of marriage -- one for opposite-sex couples and another lacking in all federal recognition for same-sex couples.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), who died in October 2006, was the first out gay member of Congress back in 1983. He was one of only three out gay members of Congress when, in 1996, the U.S. House of Representatives considered the Defense of Marriage Act.

One day before the House voted overwhelmingly to pass DOMA, Studds stood on the floor of the House and put the debate in very personal terms, "I have paid every single penny as much as every Member of this House has for that pension, but my partner, should he survive me, is not entitled to one penny.

"I do not think that is fair, Mr. Speaker," he continued on June 11, 1996. "I do not believe most Americans think that is fair. And that is real. Yet that is what the second section of this bill is about, to make sure that we continue that unfairness."

The second part of the bill, which was enacted as Section 3 of DOMA in September 1996, did become law.

Sixteen years later, Studds's widower, Dean Hara, will be arriving at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston, where his "act of defiance" as he puts it -- seeking the same benefits as would be given to the surviving opposite-sex spouse of a former member of Congress -- will be the subject of an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this morning.

[UPDATE: Read Metro Weekly's report from Boston after the oral arguments on Wednesday, April 4.]

Talking with Metro Weekly on the afternoon before the oral arguments in Gill v. Massachusetts, Hara says of the 1996 debate on DOMA, "It was the last summer before Gerry retired, and I remember going to the House for dinner in the Members' Dining Room, then up to the gallery and listening to the debate. They were literally voting for discrimination completely in the abstract at that point.

"When this came up, especially in an election year, by Republicans, it really cried out for what it was, and that's what Gerry spoke about on the floor."

Looking at the decade that he and Studds spent together after the vote, he marvels, "I never, in a million years, thought that in the next 10 years that I would get married, legally, but then also become a widow. It's part of life, and I don't regret any of it, but, life changes."

As Studds had said on the House floor, Hara says today: "Even getting married, of course, we kind of knew that what it meant, in that we would still be treated as second-class citizens.

"It is -- it's interesting to have been through the part where it was abstract, and now it's very concrete to me, as an individual."

Extremely concrete, as Hara has been denied the Social Security lump-sum death payment available to a surviving spouse, the federal spousal survivor annuity that would be available to a surviving spouse and the federal health insurance benefits available to a surviving spouse -- which led him to be one of the plaintiffs in the Gill lawsuit that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed on March 3, 2009.

Talking about the lawsuit, though, Hara looks to the other plaintiffs, noting, "I think one of the things that I most admire in a lot of the co-plaintiffs -- I mean, I had been in the spotlight -- but they just kind of stood up and said, 'This isn't right,' and just won't take no for an answer."

Among those plaintiffs are Nancy Gill, a postal worker, and her wife, Marcelle Letourneau; Mary Ritchie, a state police lieutenant, and her wife, Kathy Bush; and Al Koski, a retired Social Security claims representative, and his husband, Jim Fitzgerald.

For himself, though, Hara says, "I think the first time was, was probably just an act of defiance. Because I knew what would happen."

Saying the lawsuit has been "in some ways, very cathartic, kind of like healing," Hara says, "People have asked me, 'What would Gerry think?' And I, I think that he'd be very proud -- my friends say that he'd be very proud.

"But, he got into office because of the Vietnam War. He stood up and said somebody has to do it -- and he ended up running for Congress. That's the story in a nutshell. You kind of just do what you have to do."

He stops.

"I think a lot of people would do the same thing. I do."

[UPDATE: Read Metro Weekly's report from Boston after the oral arguments on Wednesday, April 4.]

On Wednesday morning, April 4, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will be considering whether the 1996 law defining "marriage" in federal law as only including opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional. The arguments, the first time a federal appellate court has considered the issue, will pit some of the leading lawyers in the nation against one another.

The questions posed by the challenges to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act are, on a surface level, quite simple: Does DOMA unconstitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples? Does DOMA unconstitutionally infringe on states' rights?

HOW DID THE CASES GET HERE?

The path that the cases have taken to get to this point, however, is very unusual. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, in early 2009, filed the lawsuit challenging DOMA. Later, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) filed a similar challenge. When the cases -- Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States -- were considered before U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, the federal government -- as the defendant in the cases -- defended DOMA in court. In fact, the Department of Justice, after losing before Tauro in July 2010, appealed the cases to the First Circuit. 

Then, on February 23, 2011, DOJ's head, Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) informing him that President Obama and DOJ had determined -- in connection with another case -- that classifications based on sexual orientation like DOMA's Section 3 should be subject to a heightened scrutiny when examined by courts. Under this heightened scrutiny, Holder said, DOMA's federal definition of marriage should be found to be unconstitutional and, as such, DOJ would no longer be defending DOMA in court. 

Following that decision, the House Republican leadership, holding a 3-2 majority on the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, took on the defense of DOMA in several ongoing court challenges -- and new challenges raised since then. As such, BLAG will be defending DOMA in court in the morning, and DOJ will be -- with a few exceptions -- arguing that Section 3 of DOMA should be struck down.

Janson Wu, an attorney with GLAD who has worked on the case, tells Metro Weekly on the eve of the arguments, "It's certainly been a bit of a roller coaster. It's been two years since Tauro's decision came out, and in that intervening time, our plaintiffs have continued to be harmed and families across the country continue to be harmed." 

The legal issues underlying the answers to the straight-forward questions -- particularly those raised in the Massachusetts case -- are more complex. Paul Clement, fresh off his U.S. Supreme Court arguments arguing against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, will be doing his best on BLAG's behalf to show the First Circuit that DOMA was a proper exercise of congressional power.

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto, arguing for the Gill plaintiffs, and Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Civil Rights section chief Maura Healey, arguing on behalf of Massachusetts, will be arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional. 

DOJ's Civil Division's acting chief, Stuart Delery, will be arguing that GLAD is -- mostly -- right and that Massachusetts is right -- and wrong.

HAVE COURTS ALREADY DECIDED THE OUTCOME HERE?

A prelimary question is whether a Supreme Court case -- Baker v. Nelson -- or a First Circuit case -- Cook v. Gates -- control the outcome in these cases. 

GLAD and Massachusetts, as well as DOJ and the lower-court judge, have stated that they believe they do not. BLAG disagrees. 

Baker was a case from 1972 in which the Supreme Court held, without argument, that a constitutional claim raised by a Minnesota same-sex couple seeking equal marriage rights did not present "a substantial federal question." Since the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Romer v. Evans, where the court struck down an anti-gay Colorado constitutional amendment in 1996, and Lawrence v. Texas, in which the court invalidated sodomy laws as unconstitutional in 2003, many court observers -- and lower courts -- have questioned whether Baker remains good law.

BLAG's lawyers argue, "The lower-court opinions declining to follow Baker, on which Plaintiffs rely, make basic errors this Court should not replicate." In explaining that, however, the BLAG lawyers primarily resort to declaring that Baker remains good law because Lawrence did not explicitly overrule it.

In Cook, the First Circuit considered in 2008 the constitutionality of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and, in so doing, discussed the level of scrutiny to apply to the sexual orientation classifications. 

GLAD's lawyers argue to the First Circuit, though, "The Cook court stated only that the Supreme Court's rulings in Romer and Lawrence did not 'mandate' heightened review." The Gill plaintiffs argue also that the decision regarding sexual orientation classifications was not necessary to the court's decision because it related to due process and not equal protection rights -- making the court's writings on equal protection "dictum," and not binding precedent.

BLAG responds that the issue was litigated sufficiently enough to be contained in the opinion. As for the latter point, BLAG's lawyers write, "Nor can Cook’s conclusion that rational basis scrutiny applies to sexual-orientation classifications be dismissed as mere dictum."

Assuming the court gets passed these preliminary questions, full attention will turn to DOMA.

IS THERE A REASON FOR DOMA?

In the first case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, GLAD, on behalf of several same-sex couples and surviving spouses of same-sex marriages, argue directly that federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples are unconstitutionally denied to same-sex married couples. 

[READ ALSO: Metro Weekly's interview with one of the plaintiffs, "In Dean Hara's Mission to Defeat DOMA, Echoes of His Deceased Husband, Rep. Gerry Studds"]

In Judge Tauro's decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA, he wrote, "[T]his court is soundly convinced ... that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without footing in the realities of the subject addressed by [DOMA]."

Among the rationales cited by Congress in 1996 were: (1) encouraging responsible procreation and child-bearing, (2) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage, (3) defending traditional notions of morality, and (4) preserving scarce resources.

Those, for the most part, have fallen to the wayside in the defenses of the law. Among the reasons given by DOJ in its initial defense of the law were that Congress could have chosen to adopt a "wait and see" approach to the vigorous debate over whether same-sex couples would have their marriages recognized in this country. 

Of that, Tauro wrote, "But this assertion merely begs the more pertinent question: whether the federal government had any proper role to play in formulating such policy in the first instance." And, to that secondary question, he decided, "The states alone have the authority to set forth eligibility requirements as to familial relationships and the federal government cannot, therefore, have a legitimate interest in disregarding those family status determinations properly made by the states."

DOJ also argued that DOMA advanced the goal of "consistency in the distribution of federal marriage-based pecuniary benefits." Because of the broad application of DOMA's federal defintion of marriage to all uses of the word "marriage" or "spouse" in federal laws or rules, Tauro decided that such a rationale "strains credulity."

On appeal, BLAG has reiterated several of these rationales in its defense, highlighting the "cautious" approach taken by Congress in 1996.

"Congress could choose either to continue to adopt state definitions or continue to employ the traditional definition for federal law purposes, but it could not have it both ways," the BLAG lawyers wrote to the First Circuit. "If rational basis means anything, the choice as to which ... was surely one for Congress to make."

BLAG also reiterated "fiscal prudence" and "uniformity" as the "uniquely federal issues" that justify DOMA, but it is the question of whether rational basis review or some form of heightened scrutiny applies that could form the crux of Wednesday's arguments -- and the court decision to follow.

In a letter sent by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Lois Capps (D-Calif.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and 69 other lawmakers to President Obama today, the Democratic lawmakers -- including all four out LGBT lawmakers -- ask Obama to sign an executive order that would protect employees of federal contractors from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In part, they ask the president:

[W]e are writing to ask that you sign an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating in the workplace based on an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. This order would extend important workplace protections to millions of Americans, while at the same time laying the groundwork for Congressional passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a goal that we share with you.

They also note:

[R]ecent polling shows that the American public would support this executive order. A second poll from [the Center for American Progress], for example, found that approximately three out of four likely 2012 voters support protecting LGBT individuals from workplace discrimination. Further, this poll showed that the support for such protections transcends partisan, age and religious lines.

Tico Almeida, founder of Freedom to Work, said that he has been in contact with several Republican offices who are interested in the executive order but that this specific letter -- particularly its opening -- was too supportive of Obama for them to sign on to it.

READ the letter: LGBT Workplace Non-Discrimination EO Letter To President Obama.pdf

In an editorial to appear in The New York Times on Tuesday, April 3, the editorial board lays out its view of the National Organization for Marriage memos unsealed in a Maine court case this past week, memos analyzed earlier at Metro Weekly.

The NYT board writes:

When a light is shined into the dark corners of American politics, it's never pleasant to see what scurries away. Last week, a federal judge in Maine unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most prominent groups fighting against same-sex marriage.

Noting the marriage pledge signed by several of the candidates for president, the board concludes:

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have publicly aligned themselves with the group and signed its pledge to work aggressively from the White House against same-sex marriage.

Now that the group's poisonous political approach is out in the open, Mr. Romney and the others should be racing to make clear their disapproval.

We detect no stampede.

The campaigns thus far have made no effort to distance themselves from the organization.

This past week, the petition site Change.org hosted a 500,000-signature petition asking the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to remove its "R" rating from director Lee Hirsch's anti-bullying documentary, Bully. The film's producers, The Weinstein Company, ultimately decided to release the film unrated and AMC Theaters CEO Gerry Lopez pledged to show the film so "guests [can] engage in the dialogue its relevant message will inevitably provoke."

According to Box Office Mojo, the movie brought in more than $115,000 this past weekend, despite only being shown in five theaters -- giving it the highest per-theater average among the top movies released this weekend.

Questions remain, however, about the unrated film's viability.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek reporter Caroline Winter, AMC Theaters are requiring children under 17 to have a parental guardian or a signed parental permission slip to see the film. The largest theater chain in the U.S. (Regal) is treating Bully like an R-rated film. The third largest (Cinemark) never shows unrated films, in support of the MPAA system.

A month ago, a Weinstein Company news release stated that an R-rating would not allow Bully to "be screened in U.S. middle and high schools, where it might otherwise reach a mass national audience of students and be used as a tool to stop an epidemic of physical, psychological and emotional violence."

But while the lack of a rating may help Bully get viewed in schools outside of the theater, the film's non-rating threatens its success while in the movie house.

Although Bully has an estimated production budget of $1.1 million dollars, more than half of the highest grossing NC-17 films of all time -- films in which no one under 17 is admitted -- have made less than a million dollars through combined ticket and DVD sales to date; most of them also feature graphic sex that parents might not want their children to see.

Although Bully only features swearing as opposed to adult sexual content, AMC is still offering only a limited release of Bully, with showings this past weekend in New York City's Lincoln Square AMC rather than the chain's nine other Manhattan locations, greatly reducing its potential audience. Despite its circumstances, a strong weekend opening could still help the film get a wider release. Michael Jones, deputy campaign director of Change.org called the AMC's parental slip requirement "testing the unrated waters" and "drastically new for the whole movie ratings system.

"What [The Weinstein Company] is hoping is that theaters will react to it like AMC," Jones said.

Filing what she described as the organization's "first big impact litigation," Immigration Equality's executive director, Rachel Tiven, tells Metro Weekly that the organization was "left with no choice but to sue" the Obama administration today in order to protect what it claims are the constitutional rights of same-sex married couples who are prohibited by the Defense of Marriage Act from receiving equal treatment in the green card application process.

Although other challenges regarding DOMA's constitutionality have been raised in the immigration context in federal courts in both California and Illinois, Immigration Equality filed its lawsuit today in federal court in New York, claiming that "no group" is better prepared than it to win such a case.

Explaining the timing of the lawsuit, Tiven says, "Because the administration continues to say no to holding green cards in abeyance ... we are left with no choice but to sue.

"We were really optimistic last year that they were going to put green card applications on hold," she adds, but says that recently it became clear that "[t]hey really weren't going to do it."

On its site, Immigration Equality states, "On April 2nd, we filed suit on behalf of five lesbian and gay couples, challenging Section 3 of DOMA, which prevents lesbian and gay American citizens from sponsoring their spouses for green cards. The lawsuit, filed on the couples' behalf by Immigration Equality and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, alleges that DOMA violates the couples' constitutional right to equal protection."

The lawsuit, Blesch v. Holder, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of Edwin Blesch and Timothy Smulian, Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda, Santiago Ortiz and Pablo Garcia, and Heather Morgan and Maria del Mar Verdugo. Eric Stone, a partner at Paul Weiss, signed today's complaint.

In the lawsuit, the couples' lawyers argue, "the five Plaintiff couples are like other married couples. They met, fell in love, and chose to build a life together. They too committed themselves to one another in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. They have honored and kept that commitment to one another. They have chosen to be together and to make the United States their family's home. However, because they are married to someone of the same sex, they are denied the federal immigration benefits to which different-sex married couples are entitled. They are at constant risk of being forced apart or forced to leave the United States to stay together."

Because of this, the lawyers argue, "Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to immigration laws, is unconstitutional."

Tiven said in a statement, "These families represent the tens of thousands of others like them who are threatened with, or have already been forced into, separation or exile. Their victory in court will end the threat that has hung over their families, their homes and their marriages for far too long."

Lavi Soloway, an attorney who represents same-sex binational couples and started Stop the Deportations, noted that this is the third case in a year to challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. Of the opportunity that this challenge presents, he said, "With the filing of this court case, all pending marriage-based petitions for gay and lesbian couples should be held in abeyance while the Department of Justice argues that DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to immigration benefits."

The Illinois case -- involving Demos Revelis, a U.S. citizen, and his husband, Marcel Maas, a native of the Netherlands -- has been under consideration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The judge in the case denied a motion to dismiss that case on procedural grounds in January of this year and granted the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group's motion to intervene in the case to defend DOMA. BLAG, controlled by the House Republican leadership, sought to intervene after the Department of Justice had stopped defending challenges to DOMA's constitutionality in February 2011.

As New York Law School professor Arthur Leonard wrote of the case in March, "This case thus joins pending DOMA challenges in the First Circuit Court of Appeals and district courts in Connecticut, New York, and California, but may be the first to proceed past a motion to dismiss in the immigration context." The couple's lawyer, Justin Burton, tells Metro Weekly that they will be responding by April 9 to a filing by BLAG seeking to dismiss the case. The Obama administration, he says, is expected to be filing a response to BLAG as well.

Back in September 2011, Metro Weekly reported on the California case, in which the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law brought a lawsuit on behalf of Hamdi Lui and Michael Ernest Roberts, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts but living in California, aimed at keeping Lui -- a citizen of Indonesia -- in the country and keeping the couple together. BLAG, in that case, has argued that a 1982 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Adams v. Howerton, controls in the case and prevents the couple from being recognized under immigration law. The case is ongoing.

In DOJ's filing in Lui's case, the administration told the court that DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security believe that longstanding judicial deference given to immigration decisions made by Congress and the executive branch should not apply to DOMA-related immigration challenges like this one. Questions about this issue, the plenary power doctrine, are likely to be raised by BLAG in defense of the law within the immigration context.

On the site, Immigration Equality appears to take aim at these other lawsuits, stating, "Our legal staff advises more LGBT immigrant families than any other organization in the country. We are the experts the experts turn to on matters impacting those families. There is no group, and no individual, better prepared to win this fight in the courts."

Tiven tells Metro Weekly, though, that the language is simply an attempt to assure interested parties that Immigration Equality, which is established in providing individual advice to those seeking information about LGBT immigration issues, is well prepared to succeed in today's lawsuit.

READ the Immigration Equality lawsuit complaint here.

EARLIER coverage of Immigration Equality's litigation strategy:

• National LGBT Immigration Strategy Meeting Set For Wednesday (May 17, 2011) 
• DOMA's Immigration Implications (March 8, 2011)