Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" -- is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled today. The decision by a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States, is the first instance of a federal appellate court striking down any portion of the 1996 law.

Writing that "Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely," the appeals court has stayed, or put on hold, the implementation of its decision pending any appeal.

Judge Michael Boudin, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, wrote for the court: "[M]any Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

[For more, read: "News Analysis: The DOMA Decision Is A Narrow One -- Which Could Be Key at the Supreme Court," also by Chris Geidner.]

The decision follows oral arguments that were held in the cases on April 4. Today's decision upholds U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro's July 8, 2010, decision finding the federal law defining marriage as consisting of only one man and one woman to be unconstitutional.

In these cases, the appeal of which were heard together on April 4, the lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Mary Bonauto, was joined in opposing the law by two government lawyers: Department of Justice Civil Division Chief Stuart Delery and Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Civil Rights section chief Maura Healey. 

Because DOJ stopped defending Section 3 of DOMA in February 2011, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- controlled 3-2 by Republicans --  voted to defend the law. Paul Clement, a lawyer for Bancroft PLLC, was hired to do so, and was the sole lawyer defending the law in Boston on April 4.

Although some of the parties seeking to strike down the law had urged that the court apply a form of "heightened scrutiny," similar to the examination courts make to laws classifying people based on race or sex, for example, the court held that it was limited by its own earlier decision in a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" challenge, as well as the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has not chosen to use a higher standard of review yet.

In the absence of heightened form of scrutiny, courts traditionally seek only a rational basis to uphold the validity of a law. Looking at a series of cases that "stressed the historic patterns of disadvantage suffered by the group adversely affected" -- most recently, the Romer v. Evans challenge to Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 -- the court noted another route: "These three decisions did not adopt some new category of suspect classification or employ rational basis review in its minimalist form; instead, the Court rested on the case-specific nature of the discrepant treatment, the burden imposed, and the infirmities of the justifications offered."

Applying this standard -- sometimes called "rational basis with teeth" -- the court held that none of the potential reasons for upholding Section 3 of DOMA passed constitutional muster.

As to the federalism principles -- questions relating to the allocation of powers between and among the federal government and the states -- that were primarily advanced by Massachusetts in its case, Boudin wrote for the court, "In our view, neither the Tenth Amendment nor the Spending Clause invalidates DOMA; but Supreme Court precedent relating to federalism-based challenges to federal laws reinforce the need for closer than usual scrutiny of DOMA's justifications and diminish somewhat the deference ordinarily accorded."

After examing the potential justifications offered by BLAG, the court held, "Several of the reasons given do not match the statute and several others are diminished by specific holdings in Supreme Court decisions more or less directly on point. If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test."

Boudin did so despite holding that the court "do[es] not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality."

Boudin was joined in the decision by Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Judge Juan Torruella, appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said today of the decision, "There's no question that this is in concert with the president's views." He went on to note that the Department of Justice participated in the oral arguments defending its view that Section 3 is unconstitutional.

BLAG will now need to decide if it wishes to ask all of the judges of the First Circuit to review the decision en banc -- which Bonauto noted in a conference call today is unlikely due to the fact that the small size of the court, five active judges, makes reversal extremely unlikely -- or whether it immediately move to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case in a process called certiorari.

A second DOMA challenge, Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is scheduled for oral arguments in early September. It was struck down by Judge Jeffrey S. White earlier this year. A third DOMA decision, in Dragovich v. Department of Treasury, was issued on May 24, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as it impacts the ability of same-sex couples to participate in a California pension fund program.

Additionally, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has a pending challenge, McLaughlin v. Panetta, and the Southern Poverty Law Center has its own challenge, Cooper-Harris v. United States, challenging DOMA's application to servicemembers and veterans' benefits. Both are still at the trial-court stage.

READ the opinion: Gill-FirstCircuit.pdf

[Photo: 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 by Chris Geidner.)]

[NOTE: This post was updated and expanded, with the most recent update at 1:05 p.m.]

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU each filed a lawsuit today seeking equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in Illinois, as Metro Weekly first reported last night. The lawsuits, which have been brought in the names of 25 couples altogether, both were filed in state court against Cook County Clerk David Orr and are based on alleged violations of the Illinois -- and not the United States -- Constitution.

Both lawsuits argue that under the Illinois Constitution, it is unconstitutional to allow same-sex couples only to enter into civil unions when opposite-sex couples have marriage, as well as civil unions, available to them.

Lambda Legal's National Marriage Project director, Camilla Taylor, said in a statement, "One year ago same-sex couples across the state were joined in civil unions. The experiences of the couples and the children in this suit show the hurt, confusion, and private bias that they have encountered as they have lived their lives."

John Knight, the director of the ACLU of Illinois' LGBT Project, explained his organization's lawsuit in a statement, saying, "Creating civil unions -- a separate, novel and poorly understood status for gay and lesbian couples -- does not honor the devotion of our families, nor fully protect them, but instead sends a powerful message that our families are inadequate and undeserving. It is time for Illinois to join the growing list of states that provide same-sex couples with the dignity and respect that can only come through marriage."

All of the 16 couples in the Lambda Legal lawsuit requested but were denied marriage licenses by Orr's office over the course of the past several months. One of the nine couples in the ACLU challenge was told that they would be denied a marriage license if they sought one, another couple also wishes to marry, five couples entered into civil unions but would like to marry, and two couples were married in Canada but their marriages are not recognized by Illinois.

In terms of the legal arguments advanced, the Lambda Legal challenge claims that Illinois law, which allows opposite-sex couples to marry or enter into a civil union but only allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil union, violates the Illinois Constitution's guarantees of equal protection because it discriminates against the same-sex couples based on both sexual orientation and sex.

Lambda Legal's complaint in Darby v. Orr also alleges that the state law violates the Illinois Constitution's due process guarantee by limiting the fundamental right to marry and, as the complaint states, the protection of the "guarantees of liberty, privacy, and autonomy" within the context of "familiy integrity" and decision-making about personal relationships.

Finally, the Lambda Legal complaint claims that the marriage laws in Illinois violate the Illinois Constitution's protections against passage of "special legislation" -- the law banning same-sex couples from marrying and only allowing them civil unions -- when a general law -- the state marriage law -- could easily apply to them.

The ACLU complaint -- Lazaro v. Orr -- is similar, focusing on many of the same provisions in the Illinois Constitution. Brought on behalf of nine same-sex couples, the challenge claims that the couples' equal protection, due process and privacy rights are infringed by allowing the couples to enter into civil unions but withholding from them the ability to marry.

The state-court, state constitution-based challenges distinguish the lawsuits from the ongoing Perry v. Brown appeal of the challenge brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to Proposition 8 in federal court in California and the Sevcik v. Sandoval federal-court challenge brought by Lambda Legal to Nevada's marriage amendment. Although Illinois has no marriage-limiting constitutional amendment like those present in California, Nevada and more than two dozen other states, it does have a statutory ban on same-sex couples marrying.

The other ongoing marriage equality lawsuit is in New Jersey, was brought by Lambda Legal, alleges both state and federal constitutional violations and is pending in state court there. New Jersey has neither a constitutional amendment nor a statutory ban on same-sex couples marrying, but the state's governor, Chris Christie (R), vetoed a marriage equality bill earlier this year.

Attorneys with Mayer Brown LLP are assisting the ACLU attorneys as co-counsel in Lazaro. Attorneys with Kirkland & Ellis LLP are assisting the Lambda Legal attorneys as co-counsel in Darby.

READ THE COMPLAINTS:

• Lambda-Illinois-Darby.PDF
• ACLU-Illinois-Lazaro.pdf

[Photo: Screen capture of Lakeesha Harris and Janean Watkins, two of the plaintiffs in the Lambda Legal-backed Illinois lawsuit seeking marriage equality filed today.]

[UPDATE: Read Metro Weekly's full report from Wednesday, May 30: "Lambda, ACLU Lawsuits Claim Same-Sex Couples' Marriage Inequality Violates Illinois Constitution."]

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU plan to announce two separate lawsuits on Wednesday seeking equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in Illinois.

The state passed a civil union law in 2011, but both Gov. Pat Quinn (D-Ill.) and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) are supporters of advancing full marriage equality in the state.

Lambda Legal also has marriage equality lawsuits pending in New Jersey and Nevada.

Lambda Legal's Marriage Project director, Camilla Taylor, said in a statement, "Tomorrow same-sex couples from across the state will be on hand to share their stories about why it's just time for Illinois to allow them to marry."

The LGBT Project director for the ACLU of Illinois, John Knight, said in a statement regarding the second planned suit, "We look forward to introducing tomorrow our clients, the committed and courageous couples who will take the first step to marriage.

"It is time for Illinois to recognize the love and commitment of these couples and thousands of others by allowing them the freedom to marry."

News conferences are planned for Wednesday morning in both Chicago and the state capital of Springfield to announce the details of the lawsuits.

[NOTE: This post was update at 8 p.m. to include details of the planned ACLU lawsuit.]

Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the coalition seeking to uphold the Free State's recently passed marriage equality law, issued a statement on May 29 outside the Maryland Secretary of State's office in Annapolis, in response to a 3 p.m. news conference by opponents of the law celebrating the submission of signatures on petitions calling for a referendum to repeal it.

"Given the low bar for petitioning a law to the ballot in Maryland, we've always expected same-sex marriage opponents to meet that threshold and then some – up to their stated target of 150,000," Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said in a prepared statement.

Derek McCoy, executive director for the Maryland Marriage Alliance, the organization spearheading the effort to overturn the law along with several churches and religious groups, told radio station WBAL 1090 AM that the group had collected 113,000 signatures to be validated by the state, more than double the 55,736 signatures required to send the issue to a referendum.

McCoy told WBAL that signature collection efforts will continue through June. He also said a majority of signatures have come from Baltimore County.

According to the Maryland State Board of Elections, no more than half of all signatures seeking a referendum may be from any one county or Baltimore City. Those seeking to place the law on the 2012 ballot must submit 18,579 signatures by June 1, with the remaining signatures to reach 55,736 submitted by July 1.

But Levin warned opponents of marriage equality that their celebrations may be premature.

"Don't confuse meeting the legal requirement with intensity or measure of support," Levin said in his statement. "It's clear those opposed to marriage equality are losing ground."

On Thursday evening, a federal judge in California held that the Defense of Marriage Act and a provision of tax law unconstitutionally limit same-sex couples and domestic partners from participating in the long-term care plan offered by the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS.

The May 24 decision in the class-action lawsuit came from U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California whose chambers are located in Oakland, and is the first federal court decision relating to the 1996 marriage-defining law since President Obama announced on May 9 that he believes that same-sex couples should be able to marry.

Wilken joins a growing group of federal judges to find DOMA unconstitutional. Judge Joseph Tauro reached a similar conclusion in 2010 in a case out of Massachusetts that is on appeal, and Judge Jeffrey S. White in California reached the same conclusion earlier this year in a case slated for appeals arguments in September.*

In the order issued Thursday evening, Wilken found that Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" -- "violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff same-sex spouses" and that subparagraph (C) of Section 7702B(f) of the Internal Revenue Code "violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff registered domestic partners." Specifically, the court found that "both provisions are constitutionally invalid to the extent that they exclude Plaintiff same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners from enrollment in the CalPERS long-term care plan."

In conclusion, Wilken ordered CalPERS not to use DOMA or the relevant tax provision to deny enrollment to same-sex spouse and registered domestic partners in the state. She also ordered that the federal government not disqualify CalPERS's plan from the beneficial tax treatment for following the court order. Finally, Wilken established in Thursday's ruling that the decision would be stayed, or put on hold, during an appeal of her decision if one is sought.

The plaintiffs and class in the case were represented by the Legal Aid Society -- Employment Law Center attorneys William McNeill III, Elizabeth Kristen and Claudia Center.

Because of the indirect nature of the constitutional challenges involved in this case, Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, the case was unlike many of the other direct challenges to Section 3 of DOMA that are ongoing in several other federal courts. Both federal and state government entities and individuals were named as defendendants, for starters.

The case comes about because, even if CalPERS wanted to allow the participation of same-sex married couples or domestic partners in its long-term care program, Section 7702B(f)(2) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) disqualifies a state-maintained plan from favorable tax treatment if it provides coverage to individuals other than those specified under the tax-code provision, which was signed into law a month before DOMA was in 1996. As Wilken noted, "The list of eligible individuals in Section 7702B(f)(2)(C) includes state employees and former employees, their spouses, and individuals bearing a relationship to the employees or spouses which is described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of 26 U.S.C. § 152(d)(2)." Wilken found the decision to include subparagraphs (A) through (G) -- and not (H) -- of the underlying tax provision relevant because subparagraph (H) would have allowed for coverage for domestic partners, among others. 

More broadly, in this case, as with the others, the federal agencies being sued, who are represented by the Department of Justice, did not defend the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. Because of that, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) -- controlled by the House Republican leadership -- was permitted to intervene to defend it.

The federal government, however, continued to defend the tax code provision against a "substantive due process" challenge -- which protects people from the infringement of fundamental rights. DOJ argued in a court filing on February 21 that "the denial of eligibility for tax benefits associated with CalPERS's long-term care insurance does not infringe on a fundamental right or a significant liberty interest." The Department of Justice, which represents the federal defendants, went on to argue that "the ability and autonomy to engage in financial and long term care planning" was not a fundamental right.

Additionally, specifically as to domestic partners, the DOJ argued, "Section 7702B(f)'s non-inclusion of domestic partners as eligible relatives is not a classification based on sexual orientation or any other protected class. The term 'domestic partner' is not synonymous with a partner of the same sex because in the nine states that recognize domestic partnerships, only two limit it to same-sex couples."

Wilken disagreed with BLAG as to the DOMA challenge and with DOJ as to the domestic partner challenge, finding that denying married same-sex couples or same-sex domestic partners the ability to enroll in the CalPERS long-term care plan -- because the tax law and DOMA require such denial in order to remain a qualified long-term care plan -- violates the equal protection clause.

READ the order: DragovichOrder.pdf

* = A federal bankruptcy judge in California -- supported by several others -- also found that DOMA was unconstitutional insofar as it barred married same-sex couples from filing joint bankruptcy returns. The case initially was appealed but was withdrawn because neither DOJ nor BLAG wished to appeal the decision, and the DOJ later told Metro Weekly last year "that it will no longer seek dismissal of bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same-sex debtors who are married under state law." Bankruptcy judges -- unlike Wilken, Tauro and Smith -- are not "Article III judges" with lifetime tenure and had, thus, not been included in the initial post.

The State Department this morning released its 2011 Annual Report on Human Rights, the 36th such annual report.

Marking the release, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton mentioned LGBT people, saying, "Where LGBT people are mistreated and discriminated against, we're working to bring them into participation in their societies."

Michael Posner, assistant secretary with State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, wrote in the introduction to the report. He wrote, in part, "In many countries there was an uptick in discrimination against members of racial and ethnic minorities; people with disabilities; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people, all of whom were frequent targets of abuse, discrimination, and violence."

Within the pages of the report, several countries were cited for mistreatment of LGBT people.

"The Honduran police force had deep-seated and unaddressed corruption problems, and police officers targeted vulnerable persons, including LGBT people," the report states, for example. "The Iranian government … continued to mistreat women, LGBT people, and members of ethnic and religious minorities."

Since 1976, the State Department has been responsible for drafting these reports and submitting them to Congress. By law, U.S. foreign and trade policy must consider countries' performance on issues of human rights.

READ the report here.

A strong majority of Marylanders would vote to uphold Maryland's recently passed marriage equality law if it is taken to a referendum in November, a new poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows.

The poll of 852 likely voters, taken between May 14 and May 21, shows 57 percent of Marylanders would vote to uphold the law, while 37 percent would vote to overturn it. That marks a 12-point shift from a March PPP poll that showed support for marriage equality leading by a slimer margin of 52 percent to 44 percent. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent.

The poll, done by PPP on behalf of the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition, also includes an oversample of 398 African-Americans. 

According to the crosstabs, 55 percent of African-Americans would vote to uphold the law, while 36 percent would vote against it. That marks a significant 36-point shift from PPP's March survey, which found 56 percent of African-Americans saying they would vote against the law while only 39 percent would vote to uphold it. The margin of error for the African-American sample is plus or minus 4.9 percent. In the current survey, 58 percent of whites would vote to uphold the law, and 39 percent would vote against it.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signed the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which grants same-sex couples the right to marry in Maryland, into law on March 1. The bill will not take effect until January 1, 2013, and is expected to be subject to a referendum in November. 

Opponents of the law, led by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, have vowed to collect the 55,736 signatures needed to force the bill to go to referendum. Opponents are required to submit more than one-third the total number of required signatures, or 18,579, by June 1. The rest must be submitted by July 1.

The poll comes on the heels of President Obama's May 9 announcement that he supports marriage equality and was taken in the midst of the May 19 vote by the NAACP board of directors to endorse marriage equality.

Tom Jensen, the director of PPP, says in a memo that the big shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage among black voters in Maryland is reflective of what's happening nationally right now. Jensen notes that a new ABC/Washington Post poll finds 59 percent of African-Americans support same-sex marriage. Another PPP poll taken in Pennsylvania last weekend found a shift of 19 points in favor of same-sex marriage among black voters.

Jensen writes, "While the media has been focused on what impact President Obama's announcement will have on his own reelection prospects, the more important fallout may be the impact his position is having on public opinion of same-sex marriage itself."

Additional crosstabs show marriage equality with a large margin of support in the 301 area code, which PPP classifies as "Western Maryland." Sixty-one percent of the voters in that geographic area -- which covers the state's western panhandle, the Washington, D.C. suburbs in Frederick, Montgomery and Prince George's counties, and southern Maryland, including Charles and St. Mary's counties -- would uphold the marriage equality law, while 34 percent would vote against it.

In the region covered by the 410 area code, labeled "Eastern Maryland," which includes Baltimore City, the Eastern Shore and Baltimore, Harford, Carroll, Howard, Anne Arundel and Calvert counties, 54 percent would vote to uphold the law and 40 percent would vote against it.

The poll also asks a separate question, "Generally speaking, do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same legal rights as traditional marriages in areas such as inheritance and hospital visits?"

In response to that question, 52 percent of Marylanders say they believe same-sex marriages should be recognized and 39 percent say they should not be recognized, with 9 percent saying they are unsure.

"Things are moving in Maryland," Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said in a statement. "We're approaching a supermajority who want to uphold the state's new marriage law. The message of stronger families and greater fairness is resonating, and we're confident Maryland will be the first state to win a ballot measure on marriage equality and religious freedom."

[Photo: Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) after the Maryland House of Delegates voted to pass the marriage equality bill earlier this year. (Photo by Justin Snow.)]

Retired Gen. Colin Powell -- the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose voice in 1993 in support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was used by those fighting to uphold the law in Congress and the courts up until its repeal in 2010 -- is as strong a sign as any of the changing views of the country on marriage equality.

Today, in an interview clip just released, the former secretary of state told CNN's Wolf Blitzer of same-sex couples that he knows, "[T]hey are as stable a family as my family is ... [a]nd so I don't see any reason not to say that they should be able to get married."

Powell served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, and his name was raised often as a potential Republican presidential or vice presidential candidate -- although he declined interest in either role.

The news comes two weeks after President Obama announced on May 9 that he had "evolved" on the issue and now believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Blitzer referenced Powell's role in "installing" DADT and then asked, "Are you with the President in supporting gay marriage?"

Powell responded, "I have no problem with it. And, it was the Congress that imposed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' though it was certainly my position and my recommendation to get us out of an even worse outcome that could have occurred, as you'll recall. But as I've thought about gay marriage, I know a lot of friends who are individually gay but are in partnerships with loved ones, and they are as stable a family as my family is, and they raise children. And so I don't see any reason not to say that they should be able to get married."

WATCH (h/t Think Progress):

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese was on double duty today, serving as the main speaker on the launch of the Obama for America campaign's LGBT outreach today. Earlier this year, Solmonese had been announced as one of the co-chairs for the campaign for President Obama's re-election, which HRC endorsed in 2011.

Answering questions in his campaign role, more than once Solmonese mentioned HRC efforts and, in response to a question about whether the campaign was attempting to win over LGBT Republicans, spoke almost exclusively about HRC's efforts in that regard. Solmonese's HRC successor, Chad Griffin, is slated to start at the nation's largest LGBT political organization, headquartered in DC, on June 12.

Much of the call's opening, in which Solmonese was joined by campaign spokesman Clo Ewing and campaign national LGBT vote director Jamie Citron, was focused on a detailing of Obama's accomplishments in his first term, from this past week's support for marriage equality to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to Obama's recording of an "It Gets Better" video.

Metro Weekly led off the question-and-answer portion of the call with a look forward, asking what effort there will be during the campaign to lay out a plan for LGBT equality aims in the second term of an Obama administration.

Solmonese responded generally, talking about collective decision-making regarding priorities, but did specifically mention the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as "landmark issues" that remain to be addressed.

"One of the things I've really been inspired by the president and the administration -- and this goes back to the days that we met with them in the transition offices before we were in the White House, and quite frankly, it goes back to during the campaign in the general election -- one of the things that was always clear to me, and it came from the president, was that the agenda was really a collective conversation between the president and the administration, us as a community and our allies on Capitol Hill in the House and the Senate," he said. "And that collective agreement and collective sense of where we were had everything to do with why we moved hate crimes first, we moved 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' second. So, I think that collective understanding of where we're going is how we're really going to shape the agenda for the next administration.

"Obviously, we have landmark issues that we need to continue to address, continue to move on, like the repeal of DOMA, like the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA.

"So, that's the kind of ongoing conversation that we'll have. I think one of the things that we all recognize, and I think the president recognizes this, and we saw this during the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' is that the makeup of Congress is going to have a lot to do with that. And that is why those fights and the fight that we do everything we can to take back an LGBT-friendly House of Representatives are going to have a lot to do with how that agenda gets shaped. And hold what we have in the Senate, and hopefully add to those numbers."

On April 11, it was Solmonese who came away from a White House meeting dissatisfied, being one of several LGBT advocates told by White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett that Obama would not be issuing an executive order at this time to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That day, he said, "We are extremely disappointed with this decision and will continue to advocate for an executive order from the president."

A week later, Solmonese sent out an email to HRC's supporters, arguing that they should "[t]ell our leaders in Washington there can be no excuses for inaction on vital workplace protections." Specifically, he noted, "Armed with the power of the Executive Order, the President can significantly expand the reach of non-discrimination policies by telling all companies that do business with the federal government that they can't discriminate against LGBT employees.  Such an order would bring these companies' policies in line with the best practices of major American businesses, including the top five federal contractors – all defense-related companies."

Today, however, Solmonese did not mention the executive order on the Obama campaign's call.

Other questions on the call included a focus on the political impact in states from Ohio to Florida of the president's May 9 announcement that he believes that that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Ewing noted that the main aim of the LGBT outreach efforts is to "mobilize folks for November," but, as to whether Obama's stand on marriage would affect the vote in swing states, she said, "One of the things that I would do is point you to a lot of recent polls that really show that the support for gay marriage and marriage equality is growing across the country. That being said, what polls also show is that same-sex marriage is not the most important issue that will effect people's vote come November. It's not the first issue, it's not the second issue, and it's not the third issue."

As The Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted, the result of recent polling shows that, outside of questions about marriage specifically, Obama's standing in the polls has improved slightly since the May 9 announcement. Over at The Village Voice, Steven Thrasher spoke with ABC News's pollster, Gary Langer, about the impact of Obama's decision on black voters, which ABC's poll taken after the May 9 announcement found that "59 percent of African-Americans in this survey express support for gay marriage."

UPDATE @ 6P: Even as the polls were revealing this information, Richard Grenell, the short-lived spokesman for Mitt Romney, penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, explaining, "While there are many reasons not to vote to re-elect President Obama, gay marriage is not one of those issues. National and economic security absolutely are." He also appeared on Fox News today, speaking about his op-ed and related issues.

Citron, meanwhile, announced that the Obama campaign was launching an LGBT-specific campaign page as well.  

WATCH the campaign's LGBT outreach video posted today:

[Photo: HRC president Joe Solmonese and President Obama at the HRC National Dinner on October 1, 2011. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

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

This year's White House LGBT Pride Month Reception, an annual happening at the Obama White House, is slated for June 15 this year, the White House confirms this evening.

Invitations were received today by several individuals who have been invited to attend this year's White House LGBT Pride Month reception. According to the invitation, the event is due to be held at 4 p.m. June 15.

This year's event, which will be held a little more than a month after President Obama announced that he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, also comes as advocates continue to press for action on other issues, including a reversal of the April 11 decision not to issue an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The 2011 reception was held on June 29, and Obama there told attendees, "I've met my commitments to the LGBT community. I have delivered on what I promised." With "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gone and the president on the side of marriage equality, it's no doubt that more attendees will agree with that assessment this year than did last year.

UPDATE @ 9:15P: Politico's Byron Tau also notes that the Obama campaign is beginning its LGBT campaign outreach with a conference call featuring outgoing Human Rights Campaign president and Obama campaign co-chair Joe Solmonese -- along with the campaign's LGBT outreach director, Jamie Citron -- on Wednesday morning, May 23.

The Department of Justice has accepted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's April 20 ruling that claims of gender identity discrimination are a type of sex discrimination that is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a ruling that could set in motion a series of changes in the way transgender people are treated by the federal government. 

The ruling, first reported by Metro Weekly on April 23, arose from a complaint brought by the Transgender Law Center on behalf of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who lives in California, against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Macy claims that she was denied employment with the ATF after the agency learned of her transition, which took place after she left her previous job with the Phoenix Police Department.

The ATF Office of Equal Opportunity sent a letter to Macy dated May 18, a copy of which was received today by TLC and reviewed by Metro Weekly, stating that it was accepting for investigation Macy's claims of discrimination "based on gender (female), gender identity, gender stereotype, and or transgender status." Initially, ATF, which is within the Department of Justice, had stated that Macy's gender identity and "transgender status" claims were not able to be brought under Title VII, which led Macy to appeal her complaint to the EEOC, which found that her claims could be brought under Title VII.

In the May 18 letter, ATF states, "In accordance with the [EEOC]'s decison dated April 20, 2012, we are processing your entire complaint under Title VII." Under the EEOC procedure for such complaints, the ATF -- or Macy -- had 30 days from the receipt of the EEOC decision to request that the EEOC reconsider its decision. That deadline would have fallen sometime this week.

Macy's complaint, according to the letter, is now going to be investigated by a "Contract EEO Investigator" hired by the ATF. 

Although the ruling from the EEOC is not the same as a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the question of whether transgender people are protected under Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination, the decision has substantial impact because it is binding on the EEOC, all its field offices and all federal department and agencies. The EEOC's interpretation of Title VII and other civil rights laws are given significant deference by federal courts.

In a statement, TLC executive director Masen Davis says, "This is a historic day for human rights in the United States. From the Deep South to my home state of Missouri, starting today transgender and gender non-conforming people now have legal recourse if they face discrimination on the job. We no longer have to be silent when we are fired or not hired simply for being who we are."

Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, points out that the EEOC ruling did not come out of nowhere. 

"This is how it's been going. So, in some ways, this was just an inevitable step touched off by Schroer [v. Billington, a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia] and [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decision in] Glenn v. Brumby," she said, referencing two of several court cases in recent years reaching similar conclusion to that reached by the EEOC in Macy's appeal. "This [EEOC decision] is not the first step, by any means."

Looking ahead, she says, "There's still a lot more steps to go. We still need [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act]. We still need an executive order [to ban federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity]. We still need a hell of a lot of training." A hearing on ENDA is scheduled in the Senate Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee for June 12, but White House officials have said that President Obama does not plan to issue such an executive order at this time.

As to implementation of the EEOC decision, Keisling notes, "The EEOC needs to make sure all of their own people are trained. The Office of Federal Programs, which does all of the federal government work, needs to make sure that all of the EEO officers throughout the federal government and ... [Office of Personnel Management] needs to make sure all of the chief human capital officers] understand this decision."

Keisling adds that the EEOC may need to issue guidance, as it does in other situations, to clarify the effect of this ruling on private employers -- a possibility raised by Freedom to Work founder Tico Almeida previously. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which is in the Department of Labor, she says, "in theory, should be interpreting the existing federal contractor rules [that ban sex discrimination] to include trans people" -- a point advanced recently in a report issued by the Williams Institute.

Asked what the immediate next steps for her organization are, she says, "We keep educating employers that they now have a legal obligation to follow this. We keep educating trans people that they have rights that they may not have thought they did have."

Practically, as Masen puts his advice to trans people, "If you think you are being targeted with harassment or discrimination at work, I urge you to contact your local EEOC office and file a complaint."

[Photo: Mia Macy, left, and her wife, Trish. (Photo courtesy of the Transgender Law Center.)]

Following the May 19 endorsement of a resolution by its board of directors supporting marriage equality, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)'s president, Benjamin Todd Jealous, called the decision "one of the key civil rights issues of our time."

Jealous told reporters today in Baltimore that he hoped that the NAACP's resolution, coupled with the organization's standing in the black community, would advance the issue of marriage equality.

"I hope this will be a game-changer," Jealous said. "There is a game being played right now to try and enshrine discrimination in state constitutions across this county, and if we can change that game and help ensure that our country's more recent tradition of using federal and state constitutions to expand rights continues, we will be very proud of our work."

Speaking at a news conference today at NAACP headquarters in Baltimore, Jealous told an assembled group of reporters that despite a long history of opposing constitutional amendments that he said "restrict rights" in states like North Carolina and California, the board's approval of the resolution marks the first time that the organization has made a full statement supporting marriage equality itself.

Coming on the heels of a referendum where 61 percent of North Carolina voters cast their ballots to ban same-sex unions, despite there being a law banning same-sex marriage already in place, and President Obama's announcement that he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, the NAACP board members voted to approve a resolution clarifying their opposition to policies and initiatives "that seek to codify discrimination or hatred into the law." The resolution went a step further, also stating the group's support of marriage equality as "consistent with equal protection under the law," as provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Jealous said the NAACP also opposes the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- as it had since it was being considered by Congress in 1996 -- and budgetary tactics in Congress to this day that seek to restrict marriage equality. Citing the organization's history of standing up for people's constitutional rights, he said the NAACP will also oppose efforts by Congress or any future president pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"We want it to be on record that the NAACP firmly opposes all efforts to restrict marriage equality," Jealous said. "Civil marriage, like all civil rights provided by the government, must be provided equally to all."

All representatives for the organization pointed out that they were not seeking to inflame the ire of or dictate practices to religious groups or individuals who have religious opposition to marriage equality. 

"The NAACP did not issue its support of marriage equality from a personal, moral or religious perspective," said Roslyn Brock, chair of the board of directors for the NAACP. "Rather, we deeply respect differences of personal conscience and a religious definition of marriage, and we strongly affirm the religious freedom of all, as protected by the First Amendment.

"When people ask why the NAACP stands firm for marriage equality, we say that we have always stood against laws that demean, dehumanize or discriminate against any person in this great country. That is our legacy," Brock added.

As to the specifics of the vote on the resolution, Brock characterized it as an "overwhelming" vote, but did not provide vote tallies. However, in response to a reporter's question on rumors that there were "several nays" from members of the board of directors, Jealous said it was not true. Maxim Thorne, a former NAACP senior vice president, wrote on May 19 that the resolution was passed with only two members of the 64-member board opposed.

At one point, Jealous choked up, referencing how his own parents, married in 1966 as an interracial couple, were at one time banned from marrying in their hometown of Baltimore due to anti-miscegenation laws.

When asked if Obama's stated support of marriage equality had compelled the NAACP to adopt the resolution, Jealous said that it did not. Rather, it was simply the first time that the board had met since North Carolina's ban on same-sex unions passed.

Jealous told reporters that the board realized that there were several other measures similar to North Carolina's that would be occurring this year, and that the board wanted to prevent marriage equality from being used as a wedge issue, particularly among members of the African-American community.

"The intention was to get out ahead of what seemed to be a tidal wave of attempts to put discrimination in state constitutions across the country," he said. "We felt it was time for us to speak up."

Jealous later told Metro Weekly that the board was not pressured to endorse the resolution, either from outside supporters of marriage equality or internally by more liberal members of the board.

"You don't get an overwhelming vote from the Board of Directors of the NAACP unless the board members overwhelmingly want to vote that way," he said. "These are skilled advocates. You can't push them around."

Gerald Stansbury, president of the Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, said he hoped that Marylanders would understand that the NAACP views the issue as a constitutional issue, not a religious one, echoing earlier statements by Brock and Jealous. Stansbury also said the organization was "not taking sides either way" on marriage, but was instead advocating that every person's rights should be protected under the law.

Stansbury said that there has not been much discussion about a possible referendum to overturn the state's recently passed marriage equality law. When asked if the NAACP would get involved, either officially or unofficially, with the fight to uphold the law, Stansbury said he believed people need to be educated about what the law does -- in his view, protect rights.

Following the press conference, Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition, of which the Baltimore branch of the NAACP is a member, released a statement affirming the NAACP's support.

"The tide is turning," Nix said in the statement. "A majority of Marylanders support committed gay and lesbian couples getting married and protecting their children equally under the law. President Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage, along with this weekend's NAACP Board vote, will help continue to change hearts and minds in all communities, including among African-Americans .... People see that this issue is about love, commitment and making families stronger."

[Photo: Brock, left, and Jealous.]

Today, the board of directors of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People endorsed the rights of same-sex couples to marry, stating in a resolution that the national civil-rights organization "support[s] marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Although NAACP leaders like former board chair and board member Julian Bond have been on the record as strong supporters of marriage equality, today's move represents the first time the organization took a position in support of marriage equality.

The full resolution, which former NAACP senior vice president Maxim Thorne wrote was passed with only two members of the 64-member board opposed, states:

The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the "political, education, social and economic equality" of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.

Thorne, who has worked for both the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign, tweeted, "The NAACP Board of Directors has just endorsed marriage equality unequivocally. Only two opposed! An historic moment."

In a statement released by the NAACP, Roslyn Brock, NAACP board chair, said, "The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure the political, social and economic equality of all people. We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law."

Benjamin Jealous, the president and CEO of the NAACP, added, "Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people. The well-funded right wing organizations who are attempting to split our communities are no friend to civil rights, and they will not succeed."

The move by the group that bills itself as the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization comes 10 days after President Obama announced that he now believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

HRC president Joe Solmonese celebrated the news, saying in a statement, "We could not be more pleased with the NAACP's history-making vote today -- which is yet another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community. It's time the shameful myth that the African-American community is somehow out of lockstep with the rest of the country on marriage equality is retired -- once and for all. The facts and clear momentum toward marriage speak for themselves."

Quentin James, the national director of the Sierra Student Coalition, is a board member of the NAACP, and tweeted, "I've never been more proud to be a member of the NAACP Nat'l Board! #MarriageEquality #Progress #Forward."

Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, noted both the prominence of the NAACP -- and the effort uncovered earlier this year by the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage equality for same-sex couples, to drive a wedge between black and gay voters.

"The NAACP has long been the nation's conscience and champion for an America where all share equally in the promise of liberty and justice for all," he tells Metro Weekly. "Today the NAACP resoundingly affirmed that the freedom to marry is a civil right and family value that belong to all of us, and that discriminatory barriers to marriage must fall. The toxic tactics of anti-gay groups like NOM to 'drive a wedge between blacks and gays' will be washed away in the wave of righteous affirmation."

An NAACP spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment on the two "no" votes.

[NOTE: This story was expanded, with the final update at 4:50 p.m.]

Maryland's highest court today held that a lesbian couple who had been married in California can get divorced in Maryland, echoing and making law a 2010 Attorney General's opinion that same-sex couples legally married outside of Maryland would have their marriage recognized in Maryland.

Today's opinion from the Maryland Court of Appeals was unanimous and applies regardless of the outcome of the expected November referendum on Maryland's marriage equality bill, which was passed earlier this year.

Setting up the question, Justice Glenn Harrell writes for the court:

Appellant, Jessica Port, and Appellee, Virginia Anne Cowan, married in California in 2008. Approximately two years later, Port and Cowan agreed mutually to separate. Port filed ultimately a divorce complaint, on the ground of voluntary separation, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (at the time, she was a resident of the County). Cowan answered the complaint in a "no contest" manner. The court denied the requested relief, explaining in its written order that the marriage was "not valid" and "contrary to the public policy of Maryland."

The question before the appeals court, the court noted, was, "Must the Circuit Court grant a divorce to two people of the same sex who were validly married in another jurisdiction and who otherwise meet the criteria for divorce under Maryland law?"

Looking at the status of Maryland treatment of same-sex couples -- which the court says "may be characterized as a case of multiple personality disorder" -- the court notes that it need not look at the recent passage of the "Civil Marriage Protection Act" passed earlier this year, but likely subject to a referendum this fall, to allow same-sex couples to marry in Maryland.

Saying that the issue is a matter of "comity," which relates to states' respect for other states' judgments, the court held:

The parties' California same-sex marriage is valid. Therefore, in order for their marriage to be valid for purposes of whether Maryland will adjudicate its dissolution, it must not run afoul of either exception [to recognizing out-of-state marriages]: it cannot be prohibited by statute or "repugnant" to the public policies of Maryland. For the following reasons, Port's and Cowan's entitlement, on this record, to a Maryland divorce from their California same-sex marriage is not prohibited, as a matter of law and on this record, by these exceptions.

When looking at why this is so despite Maryland's current law (in place until the outcome of a referendum on the marriage equality bill) limiting in-state marriages to opposite-sex couples, the court notes:

Other states intending to prevent recognition of valid foreign same-sex marriages have done so expressly and clearly, rather than by implication, subtlety, or indirection. For example, the Pennsylvania Code provides, "A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth."

Although not controlling the court's opinion, the court does mention and discuss the Attorney General's opinion, issued in 2010 by Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler (D), that concludes that this court would recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages valid where they were entered.

The court concludes:

[N]o still viable decision by this Court has deemed a valid foreign marriage to be "repugnant," despite being void or punishable as a misdemeanor or more serious crime were it performed in Maryland. The present case will be treated no differently. A valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce, according to the applicable statutes, reported cases, and court rules of this State.

READ the opinion: 69a11.pdf

UPDATE @ 2:30P: The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Michele Zavos represented Jessica Port, and NCLR's Shannon Minter argued the case. Lambda Legal and Mark Scurti represented Virgnia Cowan and Lambda's Susan Sommer argued for them.

In a joint statement by NCLR and Lambda, Minter said: "There are many same-sex spouses who married elsewhere who now live in Maryland. This ruling ensures that they have all the same rights as any other married couple in Maryland. This is a powerful decision that will provide enormous security and protection to thousands of families."

Sommer added: "The high court of Maryland confirmed today in this divorce case that out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples are entitled to legal recognition under longstanding principles of comity, allowing this couple the same access to a divorce as other married couples whose relationships have ended. The Court of Appeals’ ruling establishes that Maryland law respects marriages of same-sex couples entered elsewhere, bringing clarity to the legal recognition due these marriages."

Today, the Obama administration announced that it has finalized regulations implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act. According to an executive summary provided to members of the media and a conference call held with reporters, the regulations include provisions relating to "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and gender nonconforming inmates" -- a development a leading LGBT advocate calls one of the most important LGBT advancements in the administration.

Although the administration -- in a memorandum released today by President Obama -- has concluded that the PREA "applies to all Federal confinement facilities," the administration is allowing other agencies -- including the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for administering immigration detention facilities -- to "work with the Attorney General" to propose their own rules in this area in the next 120 days.

A senior White House official told reporters that the PREA does apply to "DHS immigration confinement facilities" and said, "There will be a separate rulemaking by DHS. They'll work with [the Department of Justice] on the standards, they'll publish proposed standards within 120 days as directed by the presidential memorandum."

Specifically relating to LGBTI people, as part of efforts to prevent prison sexual abuse, the Department of Justice states that facilities subject to the PREA "incorporate unique vulnerabilities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and gender nonconforming inmates into training and screening protocols."

The rule's executive summary, which was provided to reporters today, expands upon this area. In a section relating to "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI) and Gender Nonconforming Inmates," the summary states: "The standards account in various ways for the particular vulnerabilities of inmates who are LGBTI or whose appearance or manner does not conform to traditional gender expectations. The standards require training in effective and professional communication with LGBTI and gender nonconforming inmates and require the screening process to consider whether the inmate is, or is perceived to be, LGBTI or gender nonconforming. The standards also require that post-incident reviews consider whether the incident was motivated by LGBTI identification, status, or perceived status."

National Center for Transgender Equality executive director Mara Keisling tells Metro Weekly of the news, "This is a really, really big fucking issue."

Talking about a Bureau of Justice Statistics report released today, Keisling said they show that, of recent parolees, almost 40 percent of the gay- and bi-identified men reported having been the victim of a sexual assault in their most recent incarceration. She said that NCTE estimates that the numbers are roughly the same for transgender inmates, which NCTE had to estimate based on available information because "they didn't break trans people out."

NCTE policy counsel Harper Jean Tobin adds that, "The rates of victimization were lower for lesbian and bi women than for the other categories of LGBT folks, but they were still -- lesbian and bi women still were sexually abused by staff at twice the rate of straight women."

One change from the proposed rule, according to the executive summary is with regards to dedicated units for LGBTI people in facilities. According to the summary, "[T]he final standards do not allow placement of LGBTI inmates in dedicated facilities, units, or wings in adult prisons, jails, or community confinement facilities solely on the basis of such identification or status, unless such placement is in a dedicated facility, unit, or wing established in connection with a consent decree, legal settlement, or legal judgment for the purpose of protecting such inmates. As in the proposed standards, such placement is not allowed at all in juvenile facilities."

Regarding searches conducted of transgender people, the summary states, "The standards impose a complete ban on searching or physically examining a transgender or intersex inmate for the sole purpose of determining the inmate's genital status. Agencies must train security staff in conducting professional and respectful cross-gender pat-down searches and searches of transgender and intersex inmates."

Asked about this provision by Metro Weekly, a senior DOJ official said, "With regards to transgender inmates, the general assumption -- and this is discussed at some point in the broader 270-page document -- is that the rules of the housing unit would apply. If the inmate is in a female housing unit, then the rules that would apply to other female inmates would apply. If the inmate were in a male housing unit, then the rules that would apply to male inmates would apply. In other circumstances, at intake, for example, staff should ask, make their own individualized assessment and take into account the preferences of the inmate to the extent possible when conducting the search."

Regarding housing and showering decisions, the rule summary states, "In deciding whether to assign a transgender or intersex inmate to a facility for male or female inmates, and in making other housing and programming assignments, an agency may not simply assign the inmate to a facility based on genital status. Rather, the agency must consider on a case-by-case basis whether a placement would ensure the inmate’s health and safety, and whether the placement would present management or security problems, giving serious consideration to the inmate’s own views regarding his or her own safety. In addition, transgender and intersex inmates must be given the opportunity to shower separately from other inmates."

Looking at the broad picture relating to today's rule, Keisling said, "It's not just about the misery that sexual assault causes, it's also about HIV transmission, it's also about good order in incarceration issues. This is one of the most important things that we've gotten done in the LGBT community because these are really vulnerable people who are really getting messed up.

"This is a really humongous deal," she said, noting the people have been working on these rules since the legislation passed in 2003. "There's a lot of really good LGBT stuff in it."

She added, however, "We didn't get everything we wanted," referring primarily to the decision to allow DHS and other agencies to issue their own rules to comply with PREA. "This has been the big fight for the last six months, trying to get it to cover immigration detention."

To that end, Obama wrote in the presidential memorandum, "Today, the Attorney General finalized a rule adopting national standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape. This rule expresses my Administration's conclusion that PREA applies to all Federal confinement facilities, including those operated by executive departments and agencies (agencies) other than the Department of Justice, whether administered by the Federal Government or by a private organization on behalf of the Federal Government."

However, Obama then noted the reasoning for having each agency set its own implementing regulations of the PREA standards.

"Each agency is responsible for, and must be accountable for, the operations of its own confinement facilities, and each agency has extensive expertise regarding its own facilities, particularly those housing unique populations," he wrote. "Thus, each agency is best positioned to determine how to implement the Federal laws and rules that govern its own operations, the conduct of its own employees, and the safety of persons in its custody."

Of the decision that PREA applies to all agencies but that they will now establish their own rules implementing that, Tobin said, "They're trying to split the baby."

READ the executive summary: Prison Rape Elimination Act EMBARGOED Final Rule Executive Summary.pdf

READ the presidential memorandum: 2012prisonrape.mem.rel.pdf

The House -- over White House opposition -- today passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act on a 222-205 vote. Among the provisions excluded from the House bill that are a part of the Senate bill passed this past month are several affecting minority populations, including LGBT people.

In a statement, Vice President Joseph Biden said, "The House has passed a version of the Violence Against Women Act that will roll back critical provisions to help victims of abuse. I urge Congress to come together to pass a bipartisan measure that protects all victims. VAWA has been improved each time it's been reauthorized, and this time should be no different."

The House vote came after Politico reported that 13 "senators – all female – called for an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill, which garnered 68 votes in the Senate late last month. The lone Republican who signed on to the letter was Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska."

The White House has stated that, should the House version be presented to President Obama, his "senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said, "Today, House Republicans put partisan politics above the well-being of victims of domestic abuse. It is unfortunate – though not surprising – that some lawmakers refuse to acknowledge the basic dignity and respect LGBT domestic violence victims deserve."

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey added in a statement, "The Violence Against Women Act passed by the Senate and supported by the White House is a model bill designed to meet the needs of all victims of domestic violence in the country. The House version coldly and unnecessarily puts people at risk at a time when they are most vulnerable.

"Whether it's access to health care or access to life-saving services, House leadership keeps turning their backs on the people, and on our common humanity. This is unacceptable. We urge the conference committee to put the critical provisions for LGBT people and our families back into the bill."

[Photo: Murkowski.]

In an ongoing fight with Republicans over the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the White House laid out a veto threat this afternoon, stating that the House version of the legislation -- which lacks LGBT-inclusive measures contained in the Senate version -- was unacceptable.

According to the Statement of Administration Policy:

The Administration urges the House to find common ground with the bipartisan Senate-passed bill and consider and pass legislation that will protect all victims.  H.R. 4970 rolls back existing law and removes long-standing protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault – crimes that predominately affect women.  If the President is presented with H.R. 4970, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Specifically, the statement notes of the House version, "The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs."

Additionally, the administration issued its views on the House Armed Services Committee-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. For several provisions, including those that the administration states "would impinge on the President's ability to implement the New START Treaty and to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy," a veto threat was issued.

Regarding two provisions opposed by LGBT advocates, the language was less definitive. According to the Statement of Administration Policy:

Protection of Certain Religious and Moral Beliefs: The Administration strongly objects to sections 536 and 537 because those provisions adopt unnecessary and ill-advised policies that would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law.  Section 536 would prohibit all personnel-related actions based on certain religious and moral beliefs, which, in its overbroad terms, is potentially harmful to good order and discipline.  Section 537 would obligate DOD to deny Service members, retirees, and their family members access to facilities for religious ceremonies on the basis of sexual orientation, a troublesome and potentially unconstitutional limitation on religious liberty.

Today, Evan Wolfson received the Barnard Medal of Distinction at Barnard College's commencement ceremony. The founder and president of Freedom to Marry, who began his work toward marriage equality while still a student at Harvard Law School, was honored alongside another Harvard Law School graduate, President Obama -- who just this past week said that he believes same-sex couples should be able to marry.

What did Wolfson think of Obama's comments last week to ABC's Robin Roberts?

"It was just such a pitch-perfect way to bring the nation along — and to celebrate our contribution to making a better America," he tells Metro Weekly this evening.

Wolfson would know, having spent much of his career since his law school days working to advance marriage equality -- first at Lambda Legal, where he served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs challenging Hawaii's marriage laws, and then by founding Freedom to Marry. 

Of the day, Wolfson tells Metro Weekly this evening, "It just really felt like we were seeing our cause embraced in the heart of the country, as well as in the wave of the next generation."

Receiving his medal from former New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye, Wolfson was praised for that work and more, including having argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of James Dale's effort to be an out gay assistant scoutmaster with Boy Scouts of America.

Obama was introduced by Barnard College President Debora Spar, who noted Obama's recent support for same-sex couples' marriages, as Wolfson stood feet away, smiling broadly.

Wolfson says of the president's comments at the Barnard commencement and later at a fundraiser also held in New York City: "It's obviously really gratifying to see how far we've come and to have the president's weight pushing against the barriers we still have to overcome."

Of the commencement itself, Wolfson says, "It was just incredibly moving, to stand on the stage in front of these amazing young women graduates, with President Obama, receiving an award from Judge Kaye, in the week that the president embraced the freedom to marry. Really, it doesn’t get much better than that. 

"And it was especially moving for me because I had my family there — [including] my husband."

READ the full exchange below the jump.

Tonight, for the first time in a public address, President Obama referred to same-sex couples seeking equal marriage rights to opposite-sex couples as "marriage equality."

From the transcript of tonight's New York fundraiser hosted by Ricky Martin at the Rubin Museum of Art:

     And at root, so much of this has to do with a belief that not only are we all in this together, but all of us are equal in terms of dignity and in terms of respect, and everybody deserves a shot.  (Applause.)  So part of what we’ve been spending a lot of time doing is just making sure that those ideals that we profess are made real. 

     The first bill I signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Act -- a simple proposition -- equal pay for equal work.  I don’t want my daughters treated differently than my sons.  (Applause.)  That’s the reason why we’re fighting for comprehensive immigration reform -- because I believe that a child who’s here, raised with our kids, playing with our kids, has as much talent as our kids, the notion that somehow they would not have the capacity, the ability to proclaim themselves Americans and to fulfill their American Dream -- that’s not who we are and that’s not what we’re about.  (Applause.)

     The announcement I made last week about my views on marriage equality -- same principle.  The basic idea -- I want everybody treated fairly in this country.  We have never gone wrong when we expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody.  That doesn’t weaken families; that strengthens families.  (Applause.)  It’s the right thing to do.

     On each and every one of these issues there is a fundamental difference between the candidates.  And when we passed health care reform, we did it because a country this wealthy, we shouldn’t have 30 million people without health insurance.  That’s not an efficient way to go.  We shouldn’t have people showing up at emergency rooms that we end up having to pay for indirectly because we couldn’t give them preventive care.  I don’t want women being charged more than men for their ailments.  That’s not right.  I want to make sure that seniors who have been paying into Medicare, that they’ve got Medicare that they can count on in their Golden Years.  (Applause.)  And we’ve got to make some changes, but we’re not going to voucherize that program. 

     It’s been said that this election is going to be about values, and I absolutely agree.  It’s about the economic values we have, about the values that I believe are what makes America so special -- the idea that everybody gets a fair shot, everybody does their fair share, everybody plays by the same set of rules.  So everything we do -- from Wall Street reform, making sure that banks aren’t taking risks with other people’s money that taxpayers may have to end up bailing out later, to repealing DOMA -- (applause) -- to getting the DREAM Act passed, to investing in our schools, to rebuilding manufacturing in America -- all of these things are designed to make sure that we’re restoring middle-class security for all those folks out there that are struggling for their small portion of the American Dream.

     And the good news is I think the American people are on our side on this.  When you ask them specifically about all these issues, they ultimately choose the vision that I’m presenting over the one that the other side is presenting.

[Photo: Obama (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

[Photo: President Barack Obama at the graduation ceremony for Barnard College. (Photo from Barnard College/Asiya Khaki.)]

President Obama today gave the commencement address for Barnard College moments after the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, Evan Wolfson, was awarded the Barnard Medal of Distinction by the women's college.

In Obama's address, given less than a week after he said that he believed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, the president appears to be fully integrating "gay rights" -- although there was no direct mention of transgender equality -- in his speeches.

In part, Obama said:

Remember that making your mark on the world is hard. It takes patience. It takes commitment. It comes with plenty of setbacks and it comes with plenty of failures. 

But whenever you feel that creeping cynicism, whenever you hear those voices say you can't make a difference, whenever someone tells you to set your sights lower, the trajectory of this country should give you hope.

Previous generations should give you hope. What young generations have done before should give you hope. Young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and sat in, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall, didn't just do it for themselves. They did it for other people.

That's how we achieved women's rights, that's how we achieved voting rights, that's how we achieved workers' rights, that's how we achieved gay rights, that's how we've made this union more perfect.

And if you're willing to do your part now, if you're willing to reach up and close that gap between what America is and what America should be, I want you to know that I will be right there with you. If you're ready to fight for that brilliant, radically simple idea of America that no matter who you are or what you look like, no matter who you love or what god you worship, you can still pursue your own happiness, I will join you every step of the way. 

Seneca Falls is a reference to the Seneca Falls Convention, often looked to as the birthplace of the fight for women's equal rights, while Selma, Alabama -- most notably the Selma to Montgomery march --  is seen as a turning-point in the national fight for racial equality. Obama here is linking those fights to the riots at the Stonewall Inn, where police had raided a gay bar in June 1969, in a move often cited as the launch of the modern LGBT equality movement. 

With employment, housing, lending and other areas of public life still not subject to nondiscrimination laws that include sexual orientation or gender identity, and with the Defense of Marriage Act still on the books, Obama's use of "achieved" with "gay rights" is overstating the legal reality, but advances -- from the president to polls to daily life -- are there. The same, for that matter, could be said of women's rights, voting rights and workers' rights.

The speech comes two days after the presumptive Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, gave the commencement speech at Liberty University, where he reiterated his opposition to marriage equality.

In part, Romney said:

The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family. As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate. So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

[NOTE: This post was expanded with the final update at 2:50 p.m.]

[Photo: President Obama after his Barnard College commencement address, with Evan Wolfson, second from right.]

On their way to New York City, where President Obama is about to address the graduates of Barnard College, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked by the press corps about the Newsweek cover image of Obama with a rainbow halo:

Q    Is the President aware -- see the Newsweek magazine cover this week, and if so, does he have any thoughts about that?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't know that he's seen it and I haven't spoken to him about it. 

Q    I think in the past he's said that he's read Andrew Sullivan's blog -- have you seen the blog item, and what do you  -- what's your --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I saw -- I did see -- I haven't read the story yet, but I certainly saw his incredibly powerful and moving blog post last week in the wake of the President's interview with Robin Roberts.  But I have not seen the story.  Look, I think --

Q    Do you have -- does the White House have a reaction to that cover?  I mean, does it minimize the debate at all or does it --

MR. CARNEY:  What we said last week and what the President said and what we've said all along about his firm commitment to the rights of all Americans and the rights of gay and lesbian Americans and the LGBT community is reflected in the support that he has in that community.  And that commitment has been incredibly strong from day one since he became President. 

And he'll continue to fight for the rights of all Americans and oppose efforts to deny rights to individuals or to discriminate against groups of individuals.

Obama's commencement address is to begin at 1:10 p.m. and is slated to be livestreamed here at the White House website, as well as here at Barnard's website (which is live now).

Sullivan's post was titled, "Letting Go of Fear," and, in part, noted:

The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama's journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships. Yes, there was politics in a lot of it. But not all of it. I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees - as we all see - that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman's son as his equal as a citizen. It was a moment - way off the record at the time - that clinched my support for him.

Arizona's Paul Babeu -- the Pinal County sheriff who came out amid allegations that he had threatened an ex-boyfriend with deportation -- is dropping his bid for the Republican nomination for an Arizona congressional seat and will be running instead for his current position as sheriff.

From a statement posted on his website today:

When I announced my candidacy for Congress, I promised the citizens of Pinal County that I would ensure continuity of leadership in the Sheriff’s Office. Chief Deputy Steve Henry’s candidacy not only ensured continuity of leadership, it also safeguarded the improved service we’ve delivered to Pinal families with the same passion and commitment since taking office.  

The federal Office of Special Counsel has advised Chief Henry that because our office receives federal funds and Steve supervises those who are in control of federal funds, he is not able to run for Sheriff while serving as our Chief Deputy.  

Chief Henry was left three choices, resign his position as Chief Deputy and run for Sheriff, withdraw his candidacy for Sheriff or transfer to a non-leadership position within our office where he would not supervise anybody who handles any federal funding. Forget the politics, none of these options are good to maintain continued success of our Sheriff’s Office. I have decided to end our congressional campaign and seek re-election as Pinal County Sheriff. Yesterday, I informed my campaign staff and our finance team of my decision to run for re-election.

President Obama's announcement that he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to marry has opened the doors to several other Democrats and has solidified the party's position -- at least among its leadership -- on the matter.

At this point, all of the elected leaders of the national Democratic Party support marriage equality.

On the Senate side, both Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) now say that they support civil marriage equality.

Reid's initial statement was more than a bit contorted:

My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married.  The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd.

In talking with my children and grandchildren, it has become clear to me they take marriage equality as a given. I have no doubt that their view will carry the future.

I handled a fair amount of domestic relations work when I was a practicing lawyer, and it was all governed by state law.  I believe that is the proper place for this issue to be decided as well.

Today, though, he cleared it up. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Reid said he would vote for marriage equality:

On Thursday, reporters asked Reid if he would vote to legalize same sex marriage if it was on the ballot in Nevada and he nodded yes, even though he previously voted for the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Rhode Island's Reed -- representing the rare New England state without marriage equality -- was more clear in a tweet:

I support same sex marriage and will cosponsor the Respect for Marriage Act.

Then, this afternoon, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) gave marriage equality another boost, in a statement invoking the history of marriage in this country:

One of the first votes I cast as a member of the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was to repeal the anti-miscegenation statute that remained Maryland law. It was a legacy of a discriminatory history of prejudice and segregation. It was my feeling then and now that individuals have a right to choose their partners, and society must accord them that freedom.

We now confront a variation of that miscegenation issue, and that has been what to call the relationship between two people of the same gender. The word ‘marriage’ has held a specific meaning for centuries as the union between a man and a woman. But it has also meant, in a broader sense, a commitment of one person to another, recognized by each of them and by society.  

I have believed that the phrase "civil union" was an appropriate definition of a relationship that is both different and the same between two people of the same sex. And I have believed strongly that such couples must be treated equally under the law.  

Because I believe that equal treatment is a central tenet of our nation, I believe that extending the definition of marriage to committed relationships between two people, irrespective of their sex, is the right thing to do and will not, in any way, undermine the institution of marriage so important to our society nor impose a threat to any individual marriage. It will, however, extend the respect due to every one of our fellow citizens that we would want for ourselves and our children.

What this means, yes, is that all of the elected leaders of the national Democratic Party now support marriage equality.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has long supported marriage equality and was the first national elected official to announce support for a marriage equality plank in the Democratic party's platform in response to a question posed to her office by Metro Weekly.

Senate Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) also supports marriage equality. Senate President Pro Tempore, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), supports marriage equality, too.

Outside of Congress, the heads of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee do as well. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) at the DNC, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) at the DCCC and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) at the DSCC all have been supporters of marriage equality.

All three groups -- the DNC, DCCC and DSCC -- have sent out emails in support of the president's position in the day since his announcement in an interview with ABC's Robin Roberts.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, headed by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) will be holding hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on June 12, a committee spokesperson tells Metro Weekly.

"Every American deserves an equal opportunity to earn a good living, judged by their talent, ability and qualifications free from discrimination. Workplace discrimination based on an employee's sexual orientation or gender identity is reprehensible and has no place in our nation," Harkin said in a statement announcing the hearing.

"This upcoming HELP Committee hearing will provide an excellent opportunity to build on the Committee's previous work and help advance our shared goal of equal rights for all Americans," he said. "I am hopeful that working together, we will reach a point where lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons enjoy the same rights and protections, and full equality, as all our fellow Americans."

The announcement comes on the heels of Greg Sargent's report in The Washington Post this morning that a bipartisan group of senators was calling on Harkin to schedule such a hearing.

Sargent wrote:

Today Dem Senators Jeff Merkley and Bob Casey and GOP Senators Mark Kirk and Susan Collins (who are both Republicans) will release a letter calling on the Senate health and labor committee to hold hearings on ENDA.

Following that report, the Human Rights Campaign echoed their call, with president Joe Solmonese saying in a statement, "What matters in the workplace is how you do your job but unfortunately no federal law bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. We encourage the Senate HELP Committee to schedule a hearing on this critical bill."

HRC, Freedom to Work and others have been calling on the Senate to schedule this hearings and hold a mark-up on the bill.

On April 16, Freedom to Work founder Tico Almeida told Metro Weekly that more would be needed than holding a hearing.

"A hearing alone is not enough," he said. "They should follow it up with a mark-up, just as Sen. [Patrick] Leahy of Vermont [(D)] did with Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate Judiciary Committee."

A mark-up allows amendments to be offered to the legislation and would set up a committee vote on the legislation.

On Thursday, May 10, Metro Weekly is publishing my cover story, "How It Ends," a special report that looks at what LGBT equality means, where "the movement" is going ... and how it ends. Especially after today's historic news made by President Obama, it feels particularly important to take this step back and look broadly at the efforts being made to advance equality, who's being left out and how it might be able to be done differently.

READ "HOW IT ENDS."

As a rare personal aside, I would like to thank the many people I talked with for this story, all of whom have amazing stories and were so gracious with their time.

A preview:

Connecting the dots is difficult within the LGBT community, but not the least of all because — as Cleveland attorney Leslye Huff and others say — the LGBT movement is not an organic movement. Although there are extensive similar problems faced by lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and transgender people, the difficulty of connecting the dots only becomes more difficult once it becomes clear that not everyone is attempting to create the same drawing.

From defining equality and looking at who’s left out, to considering electoral politics, strong advocates of LGBT equality across the country are picturing, thinking about and working from very different ideas of what the LGBT movement is aimed at accomplishing.  

Talking with one of the first out lesbian law professors, Rhonda Rivera, and the first out Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, one gets a glimpse into that history Huff values. Hearing from a 17-year-old high-school senior in Idaho, Marisol Cervantes, and the director of a program that works with homeless LGBT youth, Mark Erwin, adds further insights, as do the voices of trans activist and law professor Dean Spade and undocumented activist and law student Prerna Lal. Rory O’Malley performs on Broadway but is working for marriage equality with Broadway Impact, and Mimi Planas helps the Log Cabin Republicans in Miami open up the pathway for more conservative voices for equality. Finally, as his time at the helm of the Human Rights Campaign comes to an end, Joe Solmonese shares his thoughts on what has been accomplished — and why. 

From Seattle to Miami, from Boise, Idaho, to New York City, these activists and advocates of all stripes believe that much is happening. Some like Spade, though, don’t necessarily see what’s happening as all good — and see a dramatically different direction that would be best for the pursuit of social justice.

Read the whole story here.

Today, in light of the discussion of whether President Obama would be finishing "evolving" on marriage equality -- he did -- his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, was asked about his view. Romney reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage -- as well as to civil unions "if they are identical to marriage other than by name."

Well, now Richard Grenell, the short-lived Romney foreign-policy spokesman -- has weighed in on today's moves. In a statement provided to Metro Weekly, he writes:

President Obama's decision to personally support gay marriage means he will be on the right side of history. He deserves credit for finally taking a stand in favor of equality. Nevertheless, it's important to keep politicians from playing politics with a group's civil rights. Democrats and Republicans continue to calculate the political implications of their positions, and the timing of the president's announcement suggests his position is a political move too. While the president could have evolved when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate or even yesterday before the swing state of North Carolina voted on the issue, Republicans should also remember that young people and many Christians believe in civil equality.

[Photo: ABC's Robin Roberts talks with President Obama on May 9, 2012. (Photo by Pete Souza/The White House.)]

Much is being made -- from Gawker to Mother Jones -- of President Obama's statement today that he believes marriage is a state issue.

Specifically, both pieces point to the line in the ABC News article about the interview: "The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own."

As happened this past June when Obama spoke about marriage in New York, his comments tend to be read outside of the context of other actions being taken by the administration. 

The context, however, turns the critical analysis on its head.

On Feb. 23, 2011, the Obama administration -- through a letter written by Attorney General Eric Holder -- announced that Obama and Holder had reached a decision that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

To reach that conclusion, the letter sent by Holder to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) first analyzed how classifications based on sexual orientation should be assessed under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which is applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment).

Holder wrote, "the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny." Under the equal protection clause, laws classifying people are subjected to one of three levels of scrutiny – rational basis, intermediate scrutiny like that applied to sex-based classifications, or strict scrutiny like that applied to race-based classifications.

With some level of heightened scrutiny applied to sexual orientation classifications, as Obama and Holder decided was appropriate based on their analysis of several factors considered when determining the level of scrutiny to apply, the decision that DOMA's definition of marriage was unconstitutional was relatively straightforward. Department of Justice lawyers have since argued in federal cases from California to Massachusetts that heightened scrutiny should apply to sexual orientation classifications and that, accordingly, DOMA's federal definition of marriage should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Although being argued in the context of DOMA, however, the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications would apply across the board -- to federal, state and local laws, ordinances and practices.

In fact, on July 1, 2011, in Karen Golinski's lawsuit seeking equal health insurance benefits for her wife as are offered to an opposite-sex spouse, DOJ filed a significant brief explaining the reasoning behind the Feb. 23, 2011, decision. In it, the administration acknowledged the significant role of both federal and state sexual orientation-based discrimination.

In the Golinski brief -- and in several others since -- DOJ lawyers spent multiple pages laying out the history of state-based discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

It is here where Obama's enunciated policy position -- today and this past June -- crosses the path of the legal pursuits of the administration. 

If the administration were still defending DOMA and had taken no position on the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications, then Obama's statement might mean that his view is that states have unfettered rights to legislate as they they wish on marriage.

But, that is not the circumstances in which he makes these comments. Instead, Obama's position now is three-fold: (1) he personally supports same-sex marriage; (2) he believes as a policy matter that state, and not federal, law should define marriages, as it always has been in this country; and (3) he believes that there are federal constitutional limitations on those state decisions.

It is true that the administration has not tidily wrapped those strands together. Doing so, by filing an amicus brief in a state marriage lawsuit like the challenge against California's Proposition 8 would make this point clear to all.

But, even in the absence of such a public declaration, lawyers working on and judges considering these cases already have acknowledged the importance of the DOJ position on DOMA in state-law cases. The day that the DOJ decision was announced in February 2011, lawyers for the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 told the judge that the DOJ's decision represented a "material," or significant, development.

As the lawyers then wrote, "The conclusion of the United States that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation is unquestionably correct. Proposition 8 cannot survive the requirements of heightened scrutiny because its invidious discrimination against gay men and lesbians could not conceivably further an important government interest."

As that brief -- filed by Ted Olson, David Boies and the other lawyers representing those plaintiffs -- makes clear, Obama's legal, policy and personal views are not in any way contradictory and present a clear path forward toward the advancement of marriage equality across the country.

[Photo: Obama (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

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

President Barack Obama today announced his support for the right of same-sex couples to marry, ending an evolution in which he told reporters and bloggers he had been engaged since 2010, in an interview today with ABC's Robin Roberts.

Saying that he thought civil unions would be "sufficient," he then told Roberts, "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

The interview, which The New York Times reports was hastily scheduled on Tuesday of this week, brought the Good Morning America anchor to the White House to discuss a broad range of topics. The key issue on many minds, however, was marriage equality.

Until this past weekend, the administration's line had been that there was no news on the president's position, which had been "evolving" on the topic since late 2010.

Then, Vice President Joseph Biden appeared on Meet the Press.

Biden there told host David Gregory that it was his belief that marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals all came down to the same roots of love and loyalty. He went on to say he was "absolutely comfortable" with that, and -- due to some backtracking from the administration and Obama campaign -- the questions of Biden and Obama's views on marriage equality started and did not end until today's announcement.

Notably, the move comes one day after North Carolina voters amended their constitution to prohibit not just same-sex couples from marrying but also all unmarried couples from having any recognition of their relationships.

Obama's evolution, to use his phrase, is somewhat unusual in that he supported marriage equality while running for state senate in Illinois in 1996. 

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," Obama told Chicagoans in a letter to the Outlines newspaper dated Feb. 15, 1996.

Since he began running for federal office, however, Obama had supported civil unions but not marriage equality.

Running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage for "strategic" reasons.  

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue," then-Senate candidate Obama bluntly told Chicago's Windy City Times in 2004. "I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation."

Throughout his presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008, Obama heavily sought LGBT support despite still opposing marriage equality and, after being elected president on the same night that Proposition 8 ended marriage equality in the state of California, Obama continued pushing his LGBT bona fides.

At a news conference in December 2008, Obama declared that "it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans."

Not even six months into his presidency, however, his Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, filed a brief in Smelt v. United States, a challenge to DOMA, declaring at one point that "DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits."

The outcry from the LGBT community was immediate -- and harsh. An unusually vocal Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese criticized the filing, and others were far less charitable than he.

As "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal heated up, however, the attention turned to pressuring Obama to act on that front. In late 2010, however, attention returned to marriage -- first with AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay, then with The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld, and then with the whole press corps -- Obama stated then that his position on the issue was "evolving." 

The day that he signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act into law he was asked by ABC News's Jake Tapper about marriage equality. Obama replied, "As I've said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving."

Then, on Feb. 23, 2011, Obama -- in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- declared that he believed Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional and Holder stated that the administration would no longer defend that definition in court.

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

Since that time, the administration has filed briefs in several cases challenging Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of marriage -- and has sent senior Department of Justice lawyers to hearings to oppose the law in court.

WATCH THE VIDEO at ABC News.

At 1:30 p.m. today, President Obama is due to sit down with ABC's Robin Roberts, and the topic of marriage equality is expected to be discussed.

As The New York Times reported, the interview was hastily arranged:

The sudden booking suggests an interest on the part of the White House to get Mr. Obama in front of cameras, albeit in a carefully controlled interview setting, as soon as possible.  

ABC secured the interview with Mr. Obama on Tuesday afternoon, according to two people involved in the planning. It will take place at the White House. The interview was so hastily arranged, in fact, that Ms. Roberts was still in New York on Wednesday morning to co-host “Good Morning America”– and was planning on returning to New York right after the interview, because her mother is visiting and the two have dinner plans on Wednesday evening.

The interview comes as Metro Weekly reported on Tuesday that White House press secretary Jay Carney -- after two solid days of questions about the president's "evolving" position on marriage equality -- was suggesting just such a move:

Echoing a line from Monday's press briefing that was highlighted by Metro Weekly, Carney appears to be signaling that comments from the president -- further evolution toward supporting marriage equality or not -- will be forthcoming: "I'm sure it is the case that he will be asked again at some point when he gives interviews or press conferences about this issue, and I'll leave it to him to describe his personal views."  

That this is the second day in a row that Carney has gone beyond simply saying that the president has previously commented on the matter gives some indication that the White House is aware the Obama is going to have to address the issue directly before this November's election.

The interview comes just three days after Vice President Joseph Biden told Meet the Press host David Gregory that it was his belief that marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals all came down to the same roots of love and loyalty.

Marc Ambinder, often a source for administration trial balloon and leaks, tweeted today:

Obama, who supported marriage equality while running for state senate in Illinois in 1996, has supported civil unions but not marriage equality since running for federal office. In late 2010, first with AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay, then with The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld and then with the whole press corps -- Obama stated that his position on the issue was "evolving." 

Now, LGBT advocates and the rest of the country are awaiting word of the president's current views on the topic -- one day after North Carolina voters amended their constitution to prohibit not just same-sex couples from marrying but also all unmarried couples from having any recognition of their relationships.

[Photo: President Obama, with Vice President Biden, at the signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act on Dec. 22, 2010. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

This morning, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke at the Center for American Progress. 

After a submitted question about marriage equality was not selected to be asked of the secretary, Metro Weekly posed the question to Napolitano directly as she was leaving the event.

"Do you support marriage equality?"

She looked at the questioner, did not answer, and moved to stand in the back of the elevator behind her accompanying security and other staff until the doors closed in front of her.

On Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan became the second member of the president's cabinet to publicly state his support for marriage equality. In November 2011, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan was the first sitting cabinet member to announce such support and did so in an interview with Metro Weekly.

In 2008, as governor of Arizona, Napolitano had opposed the state's constitutional marriage amendment, which banned same-sex couples from marrying, because she believed it was unnecessary. At the same time, however, she reiterated her opposition to marriage equality.

[Results as of 9:15 p.m.]

North Carolina voters went to the polls today and passed the first statewide marriage amendment since Arizona, California and Florida voters passed amendments in 2008.

The amendment, Amendment 1, reads:

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

The Associated Press called the vote in favor of passage at 9:15 p.m.

Live results can be tracked here (the ballot measure is the final item listed) or on this detail page (of vote type) or this detail page (of geographic distribution).

[NOTE: This post was originally posted at 7:50 p.m. and updated after the AP called the vote.]

In a conference call town hall held tonight with constituents, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas), in response to a question about interstate marriage rights for same-sex couples, said that he "will be offering an amendment to prevent this administration from arguing in court against traditional marriage."

The Human Rights Campaign earlier in the evening had learned that Huelskamp was planning to offer such an amendment. Specifically, he plans to offer an amendment to a House spending bill for the Justice Department that would prohibit the agency from using any funds to oppose the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in court, as it has done since President Obama decided the 1996 law was unconstitutional in February 2011.

According to communications the organization is sending to House offices, obtained by Metro Weekly, the amendment could be proposed as early as this evening. Human Rights Campaign vice president for communications Fred Sainz confirmed that the email was being sent to all Democratic and "friendly" Republican offices.

"This is a blatant attempt at intimidation, clearly Rep. Huelskamp isa trying to intimidate the Justice Department into not opposing the indefensible and it should be seen for what it is," Sainz tells Metro Weekly. 

Huelskamp, according to the email being sent to offices, plans to offer an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that would bar the Justice Department from using funds to oppose DOMA.

Referring to same-sex couples being allowed to marry as a "strange new definition[]" of marriage, Huelskamp noted in the call with constituents, into which Metro Weekly called, that he helped write the Kansas marriage amendment earlier in his career.

Bolded in HRC's email is the line: "The Human Rights Campaign urges your boss to oppose this amendment and will consider this a key vote."

On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to announce the administration's decision.

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

Since that time, the administration has filed briefs in several cases challenging Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of marriage -- and has sent lawyers to hearings to oppose the law in court.

At the same time, after the administration's decision, Boehner soon took action to defend the law. Convening the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- a five-member body of House leaders controlled by the Republican majority -- the body authorized the House counsel to defend the federal definition of marriage in ongoing challenges. The House BLAG brought on the services of former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, now with Bancroft PLLC, to defend DOMA in court.

Neither the DOJ nor the White House responded immediately to emailed requests for comment.

Watch Metro Weekly for more news on this development.

[Photo: Huelskamp]

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) plans to introduce an amendment on Wednesday to the National Defense Authorization Act in a mark-up of the bill before the House Armed Services Committee that is aimed at creating "a conscience protection clause" for military chaplains in the wake of the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." According to an email obtained by Metro Weekly that was apparently sent by one of Akin's staff members, a second amendment -- relating to the Defense of Marriage Act -- will be introduced as well in a plan that was organized with several anti-LGBT organizations on the right.

In a release today, Akin said, "Since the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, we have heard stories of military chaplains facing censorship for their opposition to the liberal agenda. Chaplains and servicemembers should not face recrimination or persecution in the military for standing strong on their religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality. A military chaplain is charged with meeting the religious needs of all of those under his or her care, but that chaplain must also remain true to their own faith."

In the email obtained by Metro Weekly, the authenticity of which Akin's office would not confirm, Akin's legislative director, Justin Johnson, wrote to several House staff members and outside advocates on May 1 about the Republicans' plans to offer two amendments -- not just Akin's amendment -- to address concerns about the post-DADT military.

Johnson wrote, per the email, "On the chaplain/DOMA issue, the plan is to split the consensus language into two amendments: a conscience protection clause and the application of DOMA to military bases. Rep. Akin is planning to offer the conscience protection clause amendment, and Rep. [Steven] Palazzo is planning to offer the DOMA on military bases amendment. We believe that having two amendments gives us the strongest hand going into conference with the Senate."

Palazzo's office did not respond to a request for comment from Metro Weekly.

Human Rights Campaign vice president for communications Fred Sainz tells Metro Weekly, "We have been working hard today with the offices of members of the House Armed Services Committee, including favorable Republicans, to provide them with any information needed to explain why they should vote against these harmful amendments."

Similar amendments adressing military chaplains and DOMA were offered and adopted in the House version of the NDAA in 2011, but they were not included in the Senate version and did not become law.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network spokesman Zeke Stokes, whose organization fought for DADT repeal, tells Metro Weekly, "It's clear that there are a few opponents of equality on Capitol Hill that want to roll back the progress we have made and are looking for new ways to make our gay and lesbian service members second-class citizens. But their views are out of step with the American people and out of step with our nation's military leaders who have made it clear that the implementation of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is proceeding smoothly."

Johnson went on in the email to note potential legal questions with the language the offices had been considering using: "Our current plan is to offer the consensus language as drafted. However, when we asked Legislative Counsel to put it together, they did suggest some changes to the conscience protection amendment to make the language consistent as well as some structural changes to make the intent more clear. Our initial thought is not to make any changes, however because some of these edits do seem logical, I wanted to send the comments out to the group. Again, I don't want to open a can of worms, and we can always revert to the original language, but I did think it might be worth discussing some of these suggestions."

It is not clear which version of the language Akin will be offering in the committee on Wednesday.

Among the advocates included in the planning for the amendments being offered and from whom Johnson was seeking input were Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness; Brian Duggan, a lobbyist for the National Organization for Marriage; Austin Nimocks and Daniel Blomberg, lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund; Arthur Schulcz, a Virginia lawyer who brought a lawsuit on behalf of chaplains claiming religious discrimination even prior to the repeal of DADT; Tom McClusky from the Family Research Council; Doug Lee and Ron Crews from the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty; members of the Archdiocese for the Military Services; Nathaniel Bennett, the director of government affairs for the American Center for Law and Justice; and the president of the Associated Gospel Churches, which has highlighted on its main page a link to the organization's "Resolution on Homosexuality and the Military." FRC has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Jeff Krehely, vice president for LGBT Research and Communications at the Center for American Progress, expressed concern upon seeing the list of those consulted on the language, saying, "It is remarkable that HASC Republicans consulted with extremely conservative and anti-gay organizations in drafting these amendments. This issue is clearly not about the troops or national security, it’s about advancing the right-wing’s attack on equal rights for gay people."

[Photos: Akin, right. Palazzo, left. (Photos from House websites.)]

On their way to Albany, New York, today, White House press secretary Jay Carney took some more questions about the president and vice president's views regarding the rights of same-sex couples to marry -- as well as the president's visit with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who received significant praise for his work in support of New York's marriage equality law in 2011.

Echoing a line from Monday's press briefing that was highlighted by Metro Weekly, Carney appears to be signaling that comments from the president -- further evolution toward supporting marriage equality or not -- will be forthcoming: "I'm sure it is the case that he will be asked again at some point when he gives interviews or press conferences about this issue, and I'll leave it to him to describe his personal views."

That this is the second day in a row that Carney has gone beyond simply saying that the president has previously commented on the matter gives some indication that the White House is aware the Obama is going to have to address the issue directly before this November's election.

On Monday, Carney had been questioned for most of the on-camera briefing about the comments made by Vice President Joseph Biden on Sunday's Meet the Press that he is "absolutely comfortable" with marriage equality and President Obama's ongoing "evolving" status on his views about marriage equality.

From the transcript of today's off-camera questioning about Air Force One, it's clear the questions are not done yet:

     Q    On the gay marriage issue, Jay, has the intensity of interest in this and the statements from some of the President's supporters led him to consider clarifying his position?  And considering that his views are evolving, does he want to maybe consider his views more thoroughly? 

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't have a readout of any conversations involving the President on that issue.  I can tell you that I'm sure it is the case that he will be asked again at some point when he gives interviews or press conferences about this issue, and I'll leave it to him to describe his personal views. 

I think it's important to note, as I attempted to do yesterday, that what is abundantly clear is this President's firm commitment to the protection of and securing of the same rights and obligations for LGBT citizens as other Americans enjoy.  He has been a strong proponent of LGBT rights, and I think that's demonstrated by his record, which is unparalleled, as President in support of those rights.

     Q    Jay, you said yesterday on this issue in reference to Vice President Biden's remarks and the President's, that the President's personal views obviously were evolving, and you stressed the personal views.  I guess is there maybe a disconnect between his policies and his personal views in terms of maybe his policies are ahead of his personal views on this?

     MR. CARNEY:  No, I don’t think so.  I think the President's absolute commitment to the rights of LGBT citizens demonstrated by the path he took to ensure the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the opposition that he and his administration have expressed towards DOMA and the fact that he believes it ought to be repealed.  It is also the case that the President and the Attorney General believe that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, which is why the federal government no longer defends Section 3.  And from hate crimes legislation to hospital visitation rights, the list of accomplishments is quite long and I think demonstrates his feelings about, broadly, this issue.

     Q    Do you think he'll talk about it with Cuomo considering he's received a lot of plaudits from the LGBT community?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think -- I don’t know what their conversations will contain.  I know that they'll focus on the issue that the President has come to discuss in upstate New York. I think the President has taken a position on some of these state issues, and I think he did on New York and he has in North Carolina.  And I think the position he takes has -- the positions he has taken are consistent with his belief that it is wrong to take actions that would deny rights to LGBT citizens or rescind rights already provided to LGBT Americans.  And that’s a position that you can fully expect him to maintain.

So, there is today's update on marriage.

At the end of the briefing, Carney did give an unequivocal answer -- relating to the death, reported by The New York Times, of illustrator and author Maurice Sendak, most famous for Where the Wild Things Are. Sendak was out and, as the Guardian notes today, "lived with his partner, Eugene Glynn, a psychoanalyst, for 50 years until Glynn's death in May 2007."

Although Carney had no news about the president's reaction to Sendak's death, he did have his own comments:

     Q    Do you know if the President had any reaction to the death of Maurice Sendak --

     MR. CARNEY:  Oh, I didn’t -- I was just with him and I don’t know if he's aware of it.  I'll ask him.  I know, as any --

     Q    Do you know if his daughters read the book? 

     MR. CARNEY:  I’m sure they have, and I know every parent must be a little bit in mourning today and every child who grew up with that book.  It's a sad day.

[NOTE: This post was updated and expanded at 2:50 p.m.]

[Image: Memorandum regarding LGBT workplace discrimination.]

Today, the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress and Williams Institute -- none of which are known as aggressive, left-wing groups -- made public a memorandum and hundreds of pages of research on LGBT workplace discrimination to help push the case for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act but also for the presidential executive order sought to ban sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by federal contractors.

The memorandum states in part that "[a] main theme of this research is that employment discrimination is a persistent and pervasive problem for LGBT workers. Forty-two percent of LGB workers report experiencing some form of discrimination on the job, as do an astounding 90 percent of transgender workers."

The research dump from CAP and HRC -- both of which are seen as close allies of the administration -- comes at a time when the White House is facing criticism on multiple fronts for failing to meet the aims of LGBT organizations, donors, advocates and activists on workplace and relationship-recognition issues.

READ the research here (very large pdf).

Today's White House press briefing focused extensively on the questions of where the president and vice president stand on marriage equality -- and left little resolved.

Although the questions didn't turn to marriage for a whole 3 minutes and 30 seconds into the briefing, once they start they are peppered throughout the remainder of the briefing.

Regarding the vice president's statements, although White House press secretary Jay Carney attempted to claim that Vice President Joseph Biden had said on Sunday's Meet the Press that his views on marriage were evolving, Metro Weekly corrected Carney and noted that it was a Biden spokesperson, not Biden, who claimed that the vice president was evolving on marriage.

Biden on Meet the Press had said that Americans are coming to understand that questions about marriage equality come down to a "simple proposition": "Who do you love and will you be loyal to the person you love."

After he continued by saying, "And that's what people are finding out is what all marriages at their root are about. Whether they're marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals," host David Gregory asked, "Is that what you believe now?"

Biden replied, "That's what I believe."

As for the president's position, among the most pointed questions came from NBC's Chuck Todd, who took Carney through the crazy-quilt of the administration's statements on marriage equality in what Metro Weekly has covered previously as "Obama's Adventures in Wonderland" -- following First Lady Michelle Obama's comments regarding the Supreme Court deciding "whether we can ... love whomever we choose" -- and "Through the Obama Administration's Marriage Equality Looking-Glass" -- following Vice President Joseph Biden's comments shown on Meet the Press on May 6.

In addition to the questions regarding Biden's statements, the briefing came just hours after Education Secretary Arne Duncan became the second member of the president's cabinet to publicly state his support for marriage equality. In November 2011, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan was the first sitting cabinet member to announce such support and did so in an interview with Metro Weekly.

After discussion of Duncan and Biden's statements, Carney was asked by the Associated Press what Obama would say if asked his personal views on marriage equality.

"The president is the right person to describe his own personal views," Carney said.

READ the extensive marriage-equality part of today's transcript after the jump.

WATCH the briefing:

To see Vice President Joseph Biden's own evolution on marriage equality, one need only look at the difference between his answer today to David Gregory on Meet the Press and his answer to a similar question at the end of 2010.

On Dec. 24, 2010, Biden talked with Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You said earlier - the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the President signing that. And, and in his press conference afterwards, he also dealt with the issue of gay marriage. In his remarkable answer, he said that his position was evolving. This is something he really struggles with. Where are you on that these days?"

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, I think, I think the country is evolving. And I think there's inevitability for a, a national consensus on - on gay marriage. That is my view. But this is the President's policy and, but it is evolving. I think the country's evolving. I remember, the first time he met with the joint chiefs, I was with him, met and he said, gentlemen, I want you to prepare now. I want to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And so, we prepared the ground so that it was so widely accepted as it is today by the military. And I think the same thing is happening across the country with regard to the issue of marriage.

Today on Meet the Press: 

BIDEN: The good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about is a simple proposition. Who do you love? Who do you love and will you be loyal to the person you love? And that's what people are finding out is what all marriages at their root are about. Whether they're marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.

DAVID GREGORY: Is that what you believe now?  

BIDEN: That's what I believe.

GREGORY: And you're comfortable with same-sex marriage now?

BIDEN: Look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights. All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.

* * *

READ Metro Weekly's full coverage -- including Biden's comments, the administration and Obama campaign's claim that the comments don't differ from President Obama's "evolving" position, and responses to the news:

• News Analysis: Through the Obama Administration's Marriage Equality Looking-Glass
• Biden's "Words Speak for Themselves" on His "Belief in Marriage Equality," Incoming HRC Head Griffin Says

Speaking with Metro Weekly just now, Chad Griffin -- the founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights who is due to become the president of the Human Rights Campaign on June 12 -- is praising Vice President Joseph Biden's comments about what Griffin is calling Biden's "belief in marriage equality" today.

What's more, Griffin is dismissing attempts by the administration to claim that the comments mean otherwise.

"Is there even a question?" he says.

Agreeing with Metro Weekly's analysis of the comments, Griffin said, "Only in Washington and in politics could someone attempt to parse the words of what the vice president of the United States said on Meet the Press today."

Griffin explains: "His words speak for themselves -- and they send an incredibly important message outside Washington to the young LGBT teenager hearing the vice president of the United States talk about his belief in marriage equality and the fact that he or she can grow up and have the same dreams and aspirations as their friends, their colleagues, their parents.

Griffin, who is a member of the Obama for America finance team and recently attended a re-election campaign fundraiser in Los Angeles at which Biden was the guest, said of today's Meet the Press interview, "When I watched that and saw that, I had the grandest smile of pride on my face -- and it had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with what message that sends to real live people across this country who day in and day out, they are directly and intentionally discriminated against by their government. That, to me, is the importance and the power of what came from the vice president's mouth today."

Looking at the responses from the administration since the interview, which Metro Weekly described as a look "through the Obama administration's marriage equality looking-glass," Griffin was likewise incredulous.

"His words can speak for themselves," Griffin says. "I don't think anyone in America -- or, I should say, I don't think anyone outside Washington -- would have any question what the vice president was saying."

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

This morning, on Meet the Press, Vice President Joseph Biden was asked about marriage equality -- and opened another day of debate about which words mean what that takes everyone down the rabbit hole to Obama's Adventures in Wonderland.

Biden told host David Gregory, "The good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about is a simple proposition. Who do you love? Who do you love and will you be loyal to the person you love? And that's what people are finding out is what all marriages at their root are about. Whether they're marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals."

That prompted Gregory to follow-up more directly. "Is that what you believe now?"

Biden: "That's what I believe."

Gregory: "And you're comfortable with same-sex marriage now?"

Here, Biden pivots to talking about the administration while restating a personal comfort level.

"Look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy," Biden said. "I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights. All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that."

[FULL METRO WEEKLY COVERAGE: 

• Compare Biden's answer today with one in 2010: Biden on Marriage Equality: From "Evolving" in 2010 to "Absolutely Comfortable" Today
• Take a look at American Foundation for Equal Rights founder Chad Griffin's thoughts: Biden's "Words Speak for Themselves" on His "Belief in Marriage Equality," Incoming HRC Head Chad Griffin Says]

Of course, Obama himself has made it clear that he is comfortable with men marrying men and women marrying women. He thought New York's marriage equality outcome was a "good thing"; he's recognized married gay couples both as a group at the LGBT Pride Month reception at the White House and on an individual basis.

Nontheless, asked if the administration would push for marriage equality in a second term, however, Biden told Gregory today, "I can't speak to that."

The Meet the Press exchange led Freedom to Marry's president, Evan Wolfson, to send out lavish praise.

"I've known Vice President Biden since interning for him in the Senate in 1976. The personal and thoughtful way he has spoken about his coming to support the freedom to marry reflects the same journey that a majority of Americans have now made as they've gotten to know gay families, opened their hearts and changed their minds," he said in a statement. "President Obama should join the Vice President, former Presidents Clinton and Carter, former Vice Presidents Gore and Cheney, Laura Bush, and so many others in forthright support for the freedom to marry."

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese was more ambiguous about what Biden had said in his praise, saying in a statement, "We are encouraged by Vice President Biden's comments, who rightly articulated that loving and committed gay and lesbian couples should be treated equally. Now is the time for President Obama to speak out for full marriage equality for same-sex couples."

Then, the clarifications began -- and the world saw the interview through the Obama administration's marriage equality looking-glass.

Initially, NBC News's Chuck Todd tweeted, "VP Biden on @meetthepress indicates he's comfortable with gay marriage. Going farther publicly than POTUS," and then: "Biden's office tells me he was speaking for his own evolving on marriage not for the admin."

David Axelrod, communications director with Obama's re-election campaign, quickly shot back: "What VP said-that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights-is precisely POTUS's position."

A spokesperson with the vice president's office also tells Metro Weekly the same thing, but then went slightly further -- adding in a note suggesting that the vice president has not reached a position of supporting full marriage equality.

"The Vice President was saying what the President has said previously -- that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights," the spokeserson said. "That's why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it.

"Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country."

It's there that the unworkable nature of the administration's position is, once again, made clear. 

As when First Lady Michelle Obama's comments about the Supreme Court in coming years having an impact on "whether we can ... love whomever we choose" led to acrobatics from White House press secretary Jay Carney -- who claimed the comments were merely a reference to the president's position opposing the Defense of Marriage Act -- these comments show that the administration's leaders are comfortable with marriage equality. And that includes President Obama himself.

The attempted distinction, to which the administration appears desperately to be clinging, is that there is a difference between being comfortable with marriage equality and supporting it.

It is as if the administration wants to be on record not opposing marriage equality -- while at the same time not actually supporting it, either.

But, the vice president did support it.

Biden told Gregory that he believes all marriages, "of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals," are, at their root, about love.

To claim that the man who said that is still "evolving on this issue," as Biden's office is trying to do, is -- as with the first lady's comments in March -- only possible by taking an adventure into Wonderland.

The April 20 decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the federal law banning sex discrimination in the workplace includes discrimination based on gender identity is likely to have several effects outside the decision itself and the EEOC, but one of the more clear implications, a trio of legal scholars says, is that "the decision will almost certainly impact the enforcement of Executive Order 11246" -- the existing federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order.

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.

Because it did not explicitly include sexual orientation or gender identity, advocates have been seeking to have President Obama expand the executive order or issue a new, similar executive order to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. On April 11, however, the White House told LGBT advocates -- and later White House press secretary Jay Carney confirmed on the record -- that Obama was not planning to issue such an order "at this time."

Nine days after Obama's decision was announced, the EEOC decision was made in a case brought by the Transgender Law Center on behalf of Mia Macy against the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In the decision, the EEOC found 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.

On April 23, Metro Weekly broke the news of the EEOC decision, noting that the decision could alter the legal landscape for transgender workers and would be binding on all federal agencies and departments as to their interpretation of sex under Title VII. Outside of Title VII itself, however, several agencies and departments look to Title VII to inform their interpretation of related statutes. 

Since April 27, Metro Weekly has been asking the Department of Labor to detail the implications for OFCCP of the Apr. 20 EEOC decision and has not received any information from Labor as of this report.

In a report to be released later today, May 4, however, three scholars from the Williams Institue -- Nan D. Hunter, Christy Mallory, and Brad Sears -- write that "[t]he OFCCP has an explicit policy of interpreting the nondiscrimination requirements of EO 11246 in a manner consistent with Title VII principles, and has followed EEOC regulations and guidance in enforcing EO 11246."

On Wednesday, May 2, Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was in Philadelphia to join with the city's mayor, Michael Nutter, to announce that a total of 300,000 employment opportunities would be available over the summer to "low-income and disconnected youth" as part of the administration's Summer Jobs+ initiative -- a partnership between the federal government and state, local and private employers.

Asked by Metro Weekly about the program today, however, a Labor Department spokesman says that there is no nondiscrimination requirement for employer participation beyond applicable laws -- meaning that LGBT applicants could potentially be shut out of jobs being promoted by this government initiative.

"This is an entirely voluntary program," Labor spokesman David Roberts says. Referring to sexual orientation or gender identity nondiscrimination requirements, he adds: "Those elements are not part of the participation requirements."

The White House promoted the program announcement itself, and White House spokesman Shin Inouye tells Metro Weekly on May 2, "The White House is pleased that so many private and public partners have stepped up to help provide hundreds of thousands of summer jobs and employment opportunities for our youth. All participating partners must follow current federal and state employment laws, and we hope that youth from all backgrounds will consider taking part in the program."

Because the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has not passed Congress, however, federal employment laws allow employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Federal employment laws may, however, provide protection for those facing discrimination based on gender identity. An April 20 decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the case of Mia Macy found that Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination in employment includes discrimination based on gender identity.

Asked specifically whether the White House views the "current federal ... employment laws" as forbidding discrimination based on gender identity, a White House spokesman did not provide any comment.

Beyond requiring nondiscrimination policies as a condition of participating in the Summer Jobs+ initiative, Metro Weekly asked if the federal government had done anything to determine if employers involved in the program include sexual orientation or gender identity in their nondiscrimination policies.

Labor spokesman Roberts only reiterated that there was no requirement, and the White House provided no comment beyond Inouye's initial response.

On April 12, however, when responding to questions about President Obama's decision not to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, White House press secretary Jay Carney had talked about the federal government working to expand information about and knowledge of workplace nondiscrimination issues.

Carney said at the time, "We’re deeply committed to working hand-in-hand with partners in the LGBT community on a number of fronts to build the case for employment non-discrimination policies including by complementing the existing body of compelling research with government-backed data and analysis, building a coalition of key stakeholders and decision-makers, directly engaging with and educating all sectors of the business community -- from major corporations to contractors to small business -- and raising public awareness about the human and financial costs of discrimination in the work force."

With the Summer Jobs+ initiative, though, no official can point to any effort to "build the case for employment non-discrimination policies" or to make efforts "engaging and educating" employers about discrimination.

[Photo: Solis (Photo from Department of Labor website.)]

The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group today sought to intervene, as expected, in the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act and related laws brought by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on behalf of LGB servicemembers and veterans and their spouses. The intervention in McLaughlin v. United States comes after the Department of Justice announced in February that it would not be defending Section 3 of DOMA or the related laws -- found in the veterans benefits section of the U.S. Code -- in the lawsuit.

The move is similar to BLAG's action in a similar case brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Cooper-Harris v. United States, in which equal veterans benefits are being sought. BLAG, which is controlled by the House Republican leadership, has intervened in several DOMA challenges to defend the 1996 law after the Obama administration stopped defending the federal definition of marriage in February 2011, when Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder concluded the law was unconstitutional.

In a statement today, SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis said, "Speaker Boehner's request to defend this case in the wake of the ongoing harm done to military families by these discriminatory laws is reprehensible and callous."  

Referencing a visit paid to the speaker's office by Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) Charlie Morgan, a member of the New Hampshire National Guard and a plaintiff in the SLDN lawsuit who also is battling incurable stage IV breast cancer, Sarvis said, "The Speaker has turned a deaf ear to the urgent pleas of CW2 Charlie Morgan and countless families like hers, who are living with the day-to-day realities of a military that has been forced to create two classes of service members."  

Reviewing the filing, unlike in other cases brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the plaintiffs here are not consenting to the intervention by BLAG.

[Photo: The McLaughlin plaintiffs at the SLDN dinner in 2012. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[CORRECTION: BLAG must file a motion asking the court to grant it intervention; the original story did not reflect this process.]

The Washington Post's Right Turn blog reports that the Romney campaign's high-profile gay spokesman, Richard Grenell, has resigned today.

Grenell was named on April 19 as the spokesman for the campaign on national security and foreign policy issues, having served as the spokesman for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration.

According to the Post, he writes:

I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.

Grenell did not immediately respond to Metro Weekly's request for comment on whether his mention of "personal issues" was relating to his tweets -- which have been the subject of criticism -- or his sexual orientation -- which also has drawn fire -- or something else altogether.

At the time of his naming, 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."

GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia said at the time that Grenell was "the best person for the job," and Log Cabin Rebublicans's Clarke Cooper said Grenell would be "a tremendous asset" to the Romney campaign.

UPDATE @ 5:10P: LCR's Cooper said in a statement today: "Ric made the choice that he feels is best for the Romney campaign, and I respect his decision. It is unfortunate that while the Romney campaign made it clear that Grenell being an openly gay man was a non-issue for the governor and his team, the hyper-partisan discussion of issues unrelated to Ric's national security qualifications threatened to compromise his effectiveness on the campaign trail.

"As a Bush Administration colleague of Ric, I can attest to his experience and qualifications in the national security portfolio.  Ric was essentially hounded by the far right and far left. The Romney campaign has lost a well-known advocate of conservative ideas and a talented spokesman, and I am certain he will remain an active voice for a confident U.S. foreign policy."

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart, meanwhile, took a different view -- continuing in his sparring with Grenell today and concluding his post by writing, "Grennell chose power over principle when he took the Romney gig. Now he has neither."