The Republican-led House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group today mailed its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review the May 31 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. 

In a filing obtained by Metro Weekly, BLAG asks the Supreme Court, which must agree to consider the case, to take the appeal for three reasons: (1) the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 is "an issue of great national importance" and raises separation-of-powers questions; (2) the First Circuit decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson and other appellate decisions; and (3) the First Circuit "invented a new standard of equal protection review." 

In the course of the filing, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, BLAG states that "[t]he executive branch has ... abdicated its traditional role of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes."

BLAG, which voted 3-2 to defend DOMA in court challenges, is made up of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Pelosi and Hoyer have objected to the filings.

Paul Clement, of Bancroft PLLC, is the counsel of record in the filing. Clement argued on BLAG's behalf in front of the First Circuit's three-judge panel, which held unanimously that DOMA's definition of "marriage" and "spouse" as only including one man and one woman was unconstitutional.

Judge Michael Boudin, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, wrote for the court: "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."

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

BLAG is asking the Supreme Court to consider two questions: (1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (2) Whether the court below erred by inventing and applying to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act a previously unknown standard of equal protection review.

BLAG has intervened in several court challenges to DOMA following the Feb. 23, 2011, decision by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder not to continue defending Section 3 of the 1996 law after concluding that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation, like DOMA, should be subjected to a "heightened" form of court scrutiny.

As of 5 p.m. today, the filing was not on the Supreme Court's docket, but the House General Counsel's office confirmed to Metro Weekly that the filing had been "deposited" today. Metro Weekly reported earlier this month that BLAG's lawyers told a court in another DOMA case in Connecticut that it would be filing the Supreme Court petition by the end of June.

In a statement, Pelosi criticized the filing, saying, "Democrats have rejected the Republican assault on equal rights, in the courts and in Congress. We believe there is no federal interest in denying LGBT couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to all couples married under state law. And we are confident that the Supreme Court, if it considers the case, will declare DOMA unconstitutional and relegate it to the dustbin of history once and for all."

Other parties have 30 days from the date the petition is received to file their view of whether the Supreme Court should take the case. The cases, which were decided jointly by the First Circuit, involve a challenge to the law brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and a challenge brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services.

The GLAD plaintiffs, Massachusetts, the Department of Justice and other interested individuals and organizations will be able to give their input as to whether the court should take the case. The court then will consider whether it wants to take the case, a question most scholars expect it to answer in the affirmative as the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. It could, however, hold the case in order to await a decision on one of the further DOMA challenges.

ALSO: On June 18, Metro Weekly provided an extensive update on the status of several of the challenges to DOMA.

READ:

[NOTE: This article was updated and expanded, with the final update at 7:35 p.m.]

A spokesman for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the coalition of groups working to defend the state's recently passed civil marriage law, said the coalition is undeterred by the number of signatures opponents have successfully collected to force a November referendum aimed at repealing the law.

Opponents of marriage equality, led by the Maryland Marriage Alliance (MMA), announced on MMA's Facebook page and Twitter feed on June 25 that they had submitted a new round of 39,743 signatures from petitions they had been circulating to force a referendum.

Opponents had previously submitted 113,000 signatures, more than the 55,736 needed under guidelines set by the Maryland State Board of Elections. As of June 21, the Board of Elections had validated 109,313 signatures from the first batch.

But Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said a referendum was expected.

"As we expected, our opponents met the legal signature threshold and the Civil Marriage Protection Act will be on the ballot this fall," Levin said in a prepared statement. "Since all Maryland families deserve the dignity and respect that marriage brings, we're focused on building a smart, strategic campaign to amplify and mobilize the 57 percent of Maryland voters who support the new same-sex marriage law. Committed, loving gay and lesbian couples should be treated fairly under the law."

In his statement, Levin referenced a May 2012 poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP) that showed that, following President Obama's endorsement of marriage equality, attitudes among Marylanders had shifted. According to the poll, 57 percent of Marylanders saying they would vote to uphold the marriage equality law, and 37 percent saying they would vote to overturn it, up from a 52-44 margin in March. The poll also showed 55 percent of African-American Marylanders would vote to uphold the law, up from only 39 percent two months earlier.

The marriage equality law was signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley (D) on March 1, following a contentious battle in the General Assembly that saw the measure pass each chamber with one vote to spare. It passed the House of Delegates on February 17 by a vote of 72-67 and the Senate on February 23 by a vote of 25-22. 

If the marriage equality law is upheld, Maryland would become the eighth jurisdiction in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage. Currently, marriage equality is legal in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York and Washington, D.C.

Washington State, which passed a law similar to Maryland's, will also hold a referendum to repeal or uphold the law in November. Maine, which legalized marriage equality before a 2009 special election that repealed the law, will feature a citizen-backed initiative to restore those marriage rights in November. 

[Photo: Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson, fifth from right, poses for a photograph with servicemembers and veterans, including Ronnie Bryant, fourth from right, following the Pentagon's LGBT Pride Month Event on June 26, 2012. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Heading to the Pentagon today was "spectacular" for Ronnie Bryant.

The first-ever Pentagon LGBT Pride Month Event (transcript here), featuring a keynote address by Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson, took place at 1 p.m. today in the Pentagon auditorium. The auditorium, which seats 350, was packed, and the servicemembers, advocates and others in attendance also heard from a panel that included stories of past and present lesbian and gay service.

Talking with Metro Weekly after the event, Bryant, who retired from the armed forces after 20 years of service in the U.S. Army, said of today's event, "A few times I had to stop myself from crying. Just to have these young folks serve, openly -- be able to place a photo of a loved one. I had to lie."

Explaining how directly the policy had impacted him, he said, "I had my partner with me ... at promotion ceremonies and other events, but each time, I had to say, 'This is my brother,' and not my lover."

Today, Johnson, the Defense Department's top in-house lawyer, acknowledged the change that the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" meant to the military.

"For those servicemembers who are gay and lesbian, we lifted a real and personal burden from their shoulders. They no longer have to live a lie in the military," he told the attendees. "They will no longer have to somehow teach a child to lie to protect her father's career. As one Army chief warrant officer reported, her commander told her, 'This policy kept me from knowing you.'"

The policy's end came about, however, only after Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham served as the co-chairs of the Pentagon's 2010 working group that examined the effects of repeal and best ways to implement a repeal if it happened. Johnson spoke today about that effort -- which at times drew criticism from LGBT advocates -- noting, "I do not consider myself an activist on the matter of gay men and women in America."

Nonetheless, Johnson said, "By the end of the 10-month study -- during which I think we actually saw attitudes shift as we stirred the pot on this issue -- we had the overwhelming sense that, with proper education and leadership, the military could be ready for this change."

Johnson then looked at the implementation of repeal following the Dec. 22, 2010 signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and Sept. 20, 2011, end of the law, asking, "How has the military accepted this change?"

Answering his question, he told the audience, "Better than we anticipated," adding, "I attribute this to the strength of our military and its Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine leadership."

One of those attending, Air Force Reserves Major Jim Hatt, told Metro Weekly that his day-to-day work life at the Pentagon hasn't changed. "No difference," he said. "Life hasn't changed."

But, he added, "It's changed inwardly for me."

Looking at the crowd in the auditorium, he said, "I never thought I would see this day. I never thought it would be something where I didn't continually hide and lie and cover and be very cautious about what I did and said. I guess the big change is that there's this huge elephant that is no longer on my back."

As for the purpose of today's event -- the Pentagon's recognition of LGBT Pride Month -- Hatt admitted a little surprise. "I was not even expecting this, after the end of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' for another two, three, maybe four, five years," he said. "So, this is a huge surprise."

Bryant was enjoying the changed atmosphere from when he served, being one of several servicemembers and veterans who took the opportunity after the event to thank Johnson for attending and for his work leading to and implementing DADT repeal.

"It is a little unfortunate for me because I served under both the ban and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" he said after talking with Johnson. "But it's good for the new generation, and I appreciated all the kind words he had to say."

As Johnson acknowledged, though, more work remains to be done to ensure that lesbian and gay servicemembers are treated equally: "The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' exposes certain inequalities between similarly situated couples in the military community. This troubles many of our leaders."

National Stonewall Democrats today announced the group's first 25 endorsements -- including six out LGBT candidates. The partisan LGBT organization has a rolling endorsement process, so more endorsements are expected as the election season moves forward.

One prominent race in which the group did not issue an endorsement is Democrat Elizabeth Warren's effort to unseat Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) -- a race in which several other LGBT organizations already have issued endorsements.

Senate:

• Tammy Baldwin – Wisconsin 
• Sherrod Brown – Ohio 
• Shelley Berkley – Nevada 
• Dianne Feinstein – California 
• Kirsten Gillibrand – New York 
• Bernie Sanders – Vermont 

House of Representatives:

• Ami Bera – CA-7 
• Tim Bishop – NY-1 
• André Carson – IN-7 
• David Cicilline – RI-1 
• Steve Cohen – TN-9 
• Keith Ellison – MN-5 
• Rush Holt – NJ-12 
• Sheila Jackson-Lee – TX-18 
• John Lewis – GA-5 
• Michelle Lujan-Grisham – NM-1 
• Jerrold Nadler – NY-8 
• Nancy Pelosi – CA-12 
• Mark Pocan – WI-2 
• Jared Polis – CO-2 
• Jan Schakowsky – IL-9 
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz – FL-23 
• Mark Takano – CA-41 
• Trevor Thomas – MI-3 
• Dina Titus – NV-1 

Six of the endorsed candidates are out LGBT individuals: Baldwin, Cicilline, Pocan, Polis, Takano and Thomas.

Of the four out members of the current Congress, all are in the House. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is not running for re-election, however, and Baldwin is seeking a Senate seat -- leaving Polis and Cicilline as the only out incumbents seeking re-election. There are no out LGBT Republicans in the 112th Congress.

Log Cabin Republicans, meanwhile, have endorsed in two races thus far. LCR endorsed Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) on the day that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ended, Sept. 20, 2011, for his 2012 re-election. This March, the group also endorsed out LGBT candidate Richard Tisei in his run to unseat Rep. John Tierney (D) in the sixth district of Massachusetts. 

The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race earlier this year.

An official with Stonewall Democrats did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the group's apparent decision not to endorse Warren at this time.

UPDATE at 12:05A TUESDAY: Regarding the lack of a position taken in the Brown-Warren race, Stonewall Democrats executive director Jerame Davis tells Metro Weekly, "Our process requires that all non-incumbent candidates complete our endorsement questionnaire in order to be considered. We didn't get the questionnaire to her campaign in time to be completed for this round of endorsements. We will be announcing more endorsements throughout the summer, so there's plenty of time."

[NOTE (added at 7:30P TUESDAY): After this story was published, it was edited within the hour to include more information about the race between Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Elizabeth Warren (D) -- including the addition to the headline referencing the race. This was an addition to the initial story, but did not change any of the initially reported facts, so was not referenced as an update. Twenty minutes after those additions were made, Davis responded with his comment, which was posted immediately as an update.]

Today, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070, holding that three of the four provisions at issue were preempted by federal law and that the final provision -- the "show your papers" provision -- was not preempted by federal law but would need to be carefully implemented by the state in order to avoid being found unconstitutional in the future. 

Today's ruling sparked a strong statement from more than 30 LGBT and HIV/AIDS organizations noting specific challenges faced by LGBT immigrants, calling the remaining provision "clearly discriminatory" and calling for Congress to pass "a path to legalization for the nation's undocumented immigrants."

For his part, President Obama said that he is "pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law." Of the remaining provision, he said, "I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like."

Obama's presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, said in a statement, "Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy," adding that he viewed Obama as having failed to do so. Romney did not address whether he agreed or disagreed with any parts of the decision.

The joint statement by dozens of organizations that work on LGBT and HIV/AIDS issues, led by the Center for American Progress and Lambda Legal, and including the Human Rights Campaign and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, drew on the organizations' specific focus while also advocating for wholesale immigration reform.

"The 'show-me-your-papers' provision in SB 1070 is clearly discriminatory but unfortunately was not struck down. LGBT immigrants and LGBT people of color remain particularly vulnerable because this provision in SB 1070 requires police to stop and question people based on their appearance. The LGBT community knows all too well how easily people who are perceived to 'look different' or 'act different' can be singled out for harassment and persecution," they state. "The law particularly threatens LGBT people of color and LGBT immigrants, many of whom already experience heightened hostility, harassment, and even violence based on their appearance, behavior, dress, and other characteristics. This wrongful treatment often occurs at the hands of local officials who lack a basic understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression diversity."

Of the broader picture of America's immigration policy, they note, "SB 1070, and the copycat laws it has spawned in other states, exacerbate the fear and distrust that dissuade many LGBT immigrants and LGBT people of color from seeking protection from -- or offering to assist -- law-enforcement officials.

"While leaving the 'show me your papers' provision in effect is a setback for the cause of civil rights in America, the court left the door open for advocates to challenge this bad part of the law by showing that it discriminates and harms people.  Along with other advocates devoted to immigrant rights and racial justice, we will fight to protect basic civil rights and we won't stop until we win respect, dignity and equal treatment under the law for everyone."

In conclusion, the group of organizations look forward to future efforts at reform: "Today's mixed ruling strikes down key parts of a bad law. But the fact remains that our nation's immigration system is broken, and we need comprehensive immigration reform that is fair to everyone, and is inclusive of LGBT immigrants and their families. We will work with our allies in the immigrant rights community to make this reform a reality, and call on Congress to move swiftly to correct the flaws riddling the present immigration system and provide a path to legalization for the nation's undocumented immigrants."

The full list of signatories includes Lambda Legal; LGBT Progress at the Center for American Progress; AFL-CIO - Pride at Work; Atticus Circle; Center Link: The Community of LGBT Centers; COLAGE; Consortium of Higher Education Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Professionals; Equality Federation; Family Equality Council; Freedom to Marry; GLAAD; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD); Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA); Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN); HIV Law Project; Human Rights Campaign; Immigration Equality; International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.; Latino Commission on AIDS; PFLAG National (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays); Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE); The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD); National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC); National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE); National Coalition for LGBT Health; National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance; Out & Equal Workplace Advocates; and Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF).

Although Immigration Equality was a signatory to the joint statement, which noted that the court "left the door open" for civil-rights lawsuits regarding the remaining provision, the group's executive director, Rachel Tiven, said in a statement on behalf of Immigration Equality alone that the Supreme Court "has condoned targeting immigrant families for prosecution, and potential separation based on what they look like."

The Task Force's executive director, Rea Carey, added in a statement on behalf of the Task Force alone, "SB 1070 and laws like it only serve to divide us by opening the door to racial profiling, infringement of civil rights, and harassment and violence against those seen as 'different.'"

READ the whole joint statement below the jump.

As ABC's Jake Tapper reported earlier this afternoon, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Mary Cheney, married her longtime partner, Heather Poe, today.

The couple are raising two children and live in Virginia, where the constitution was amended in 2006 to limit marriages to one man and one woman, but married today in DC, where marriage equality has been legal for more than two years.

In a statement provided to The Daily Caller, the former vice president and his wife, Lynne, said, "Mary and Heather have been in a committed relationship for many years, and we are delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognized. Mary and Heather and their children are very important and much loved members of our family and we wish them every happiness."

When the newlyweds return to Virginia, however, that relationship will not be recognized.

The Virginia Constitution states: "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

In addition to the fact that the Cheney-Poe relationship is not recognized in Virginia, the status of their children's relationship with their parents in Virginia, which Lambda Legal states does not allow second-parent adoptions, is unclear. According to The Daily Caller, "Cheney gave birth to a son in 2007, and a daughter in 2009."

Equality Virginia's executive director, James Parrish, tells Metro Weekly, "Equality Virginia is happy that Mary Cheney and her long-time partner Heather Poe were able to marry in Washington DC. Unfortunately none of those relationships are legally recognized in Virginia because of the so-called marriage amendment. We will continue to work on the state and national level to achieve marriage equality for all."

Equality Virginia details the complexities of family recognition for same-sex parents here.

Over the past day, much has been made of the GOProud board's decision to endorse Mitt Romney for president. The gay conservative group is known for being more conservative than Log Cabin Republicans and has often attracted attention with brash moves.

What wasn't clear from the group's release was how close the endorsement came to not happening at all. Or how little gay support it had from the board.

GOProud board member and executive director Jimmy LaSalvia noted in the press release the group's disagreement with Romney's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment but added, "The truth is that this election is too important to wait or to sit on the sidelines. We plan on spending every day between now and November working to make Obama a one term President."

From Dan Savage to Pam Spaulding to Stonewall Democrats, voices on the left have ranged from apoplectic to dismissive about the gay conservative group's decision. Savage went so far as to refer to the group as the "GOP's house faggots" -- which led to its own fallout.

In GOProud's initial statement announcing the endorsement, it noted, "GOProud is the first and only organization representing gay Americans to endorse Governor Romney's Presidential bid."

What has not been noted thus far -- because the vote was not public beyond a mention that two people voted no -- is that only a bare majority of the board's seven members at the time voted for the endorsement. What's more, half of the board's gay or lesbian members voted against endorsing Romney.

Of the seven GOProud board members, only four supported the endorsement. Only two gay or lesbian board members voted in favor: LaSalvia and Bruce Carroll.

The other two gay or lesbian board members voted against the endorsement, and two straight board members voted yes. One straight board member did not vote, LaSalvia tells Metro Weekly.

Chris Barron, the former board president and co-founder of GOProud, told Metro Weekly, "I voted no and one other board member voted no." LaSalvia tells Metro Weekly that Jessica Lee, who is a lesbian, was the other vote against the endorsement.

In addition to LaSalvia, Bruce Carroll tells Metro Weekly that he voted yes; Board Chair Lisa De Pasquale, who is straight, tells Metro Weekly that she voted yes; and Bob Carlstrom, another board member who is straight, was described as a Romney supporter in The Wall Street Journal in the midst of the primaries. The final board member, Kathryn Serkes, is straight and the head of the Doctor Patient Medical Association and did not vote, LaSalvia confirms.

GOProud did add an eighth person to its board on the night of the vote, Dennis Duquette, who is gay, but he did not participate in the endorsement vote.

In the news release, Barron is quoted as saying, "While I voted to endorse Governor Gary Johnson, and will continue to personally support his campaign, I understand and respect the decision of the GOProud Board. I appreciate the thoughtfulness the Board of Directors of GOProud put into this decision."

The news release's opening description of the group states that it is "an organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights." Releases issued by the group before DePasquale came on as board chair had described the group as "the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies."

LaSalvia echoed the more recent sentiment when asked about the lack of a majority of LGBT support for an endorsement, telling Metro Weekly this evening, "GOProud represents gay and straight conservatives. Every member of our board's vote counts the same regardless of their sexual orientation. That's the definition of equality."

Despite the vote count, however, LaSalvia added, "At the end of the day, our board is united in our effort to defeat Barack Obama."

[Photo: GOProud co-founders Christopher Barron, left, and Jimmy LaSalvia. (Photo by Todd Franson.)]

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), running to take retiring Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)'s seat, has launched her first ad, Roll Call reports, and it focuses on Wisconsin paper industry jobs, sanctions on China and bipartisanship.

Baldwin has no primary challenger, whereas Republicans -- including former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-Wis.), who has fared the best against Baldwin in early polling -- will have a primary fight.

Other Republicans running include Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann, and businessman Eric Hovde, and the primary election is Aug. 14.

If elected, Baldwin would be the first out LGBT senator.

[Photo: Adm. Mike Mullen testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Dec. 2, 2010. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

On Sept. 18, retired Admiral Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will join Servicemembers Legal Defense Network aboard the USS Intrepid in New York City to mark the one-year anniversary of the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the group is telling supporters today.

In an email being sent to supporters today, SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis wrote of the fundraising event, "This historic and emotional event presents a unique -- indeed, a once in a lifetime -- opportunity to reinforce the meaningful part that Admiral Mullen played in the DADT repeal process."

Mullen took the lead on making the case to Congress to repeal DADT, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 2, 2010, that he supported repeal -- and made a moral case for doing so.

"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," he told the committee. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity: Theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Of the troops, Mullen added: "I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to adapt."

The strong, personal statement by Mullen set the tone for the debate, standing in stark contrast to statements by previous military commanders, including then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell during the 1993 debate that led to the passage of DADT.

When President Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act into law on Dec. 22, 2010, it was Mullen who received some of the loudest applause at the event. Of his leadership, Obama thanked him, saying Mullen "spoke from the heart and said what he believed was right."

Vice President Joe Biden, who introduced Obama, had made the first comments at the signing about Mullen, saying, "I want to pay particular respect, just as a personal note -- as we used to say, I used to be allowed to say in the Senate, a point of personal privilege -- Admiral Mullen, you're a stand-up guy." When he did so, the applause was such that Biden first told Mullen, "I think they like you," and then, when the applause continued, affectionately told the attendees of the signing, "He already has enough power. Don't."

Mullen continued to lead on the issue during the implementation period, signing the certification on July 22, 2011, that the military was ready for repeal, which then took place on Sept. 20, 2011.

The event, which SLDN spokesman Zeke Stokes says will be a fundraiser for SLDN, will be the lead event of a week of events by the group to mark the anniversary.

Lawyers for the House Republican leadership today told a federal court that the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group plans to ask the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling from May 31 striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Although the Supreme Court request had been expected, it was unclear when such a request, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, would be made since the deadline for the filing is not until Aug. 29.

The news came today in another challenge to DOMA's federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" contained in Section of the 1996 law. That case, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, was brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and BLAG's counsel today asked the court to put that case on hold.

One of the reasons for doing so, BLAG's lawyers said, is because a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA would answer the questions raised in the Pedersen challenge.

That potential Supreme Court case, BLAG details, is Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the appellate case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision on May 31.

Referring to that decision, BLAG's lawyers wrote today in the Pedersen filing:

The House now is preparing a petition for certiorari in the Massachusetts case, a petition which it intends to file by the end of this month. Massachusetts is a good candidate for Supreme Court review, as the First Circuit itself recognized: "Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely." If  the Supreme Court grants certiorari in Massachusetts, which we think is likely,  the Court likely will docket the case for briefing, argument and decision during  the October 2012 Term.

Most legal experts have suggested that timeline in discussions about the Massachusetts case, which was brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, and was heard and decided alongside another case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, which was brought by GLAD. That timeline would result in a decision likely by no later than this month in 2013.

Of course, the Supreme Court first would have to decide to take the case.

After BLAG files its petition, other parties have 30 days to file their view. The GLAD plaintiffs, Massachusetts, the Department of Justice and other interested individuals and organizations will be able to give their input as to whether the court should take the case. The court then will consider whether it wants to take the case, a question most scholars expect it to answer in the affirmative as the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. It could, however, hold the case in order to await a decision on one of the further DOMA challenges.

BLAG is defending DOMA in court challenges because President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder announced a decision in February 2011 that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and, therefore, stopped defending it in court challenges. 

BLAG appointed outside counsel, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, to defend the law. Since that appointment, the three-judge panel of the First Circuit and three federal trial-court judges have struck down the law as unconstitutional despite his defense of it.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) referred questions about the litigation strategy to their attorneys.

Recent decisions from the Obama administration suggest that the government is taking tentative first steps to gear up for the day when an American with a same-sex spouse who wants to immigrate to the U.S. will be able to get a green card for that foreign spouse.

Over the past month, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is a part of the Department of Justice, has taken action in several cases involving same-sex binational couples that has the result of delaying the cases for now and potentially setting up the foreign partner of the couples to be granted a marriage-based green card should the Supreme Court declare Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, Metro Weekly has learned.

Lavi Soloway, an attorney arguing several of the cases, tells Metro Weekly the move, which sends the cases back for further fact-based investigations to determine whether the couples would be eligible for relief were it not for DOMA, is "historic" and reflects DOJ's apparent view that "there may very well be, a year from now, a post-DOMA world."

The decisions by the BIA in four cases reviewed by Metro Weekly, three of which involve visa requests and one of which involves a request to reopen an immigration case in removal proceedings, require similar follow-up action and use almost identical language despite appearing to have been signed by three different BIA members on behalf of the board.

More than a year ago, on May 5, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder intervened in a BIA case, vacating a decision by the BIA related to the application of Paul Wilson Dorman in which the BIA had applied Section 3 of DOMA to his case to deny his petition. Dornan was in a civil union with his partner, and Holder, among other questions, had asked the BIA to resolve "whether [Dorman]'s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a 'spouse' under New Jersey law" and "whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent's same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a 'spouse' under the Immigration and Nationality Act."

In the four cases reviewed by Metro Weekly, all of which are being litigated by Masliah & Soloway, PC, the BIA appears to have taken Holder's questions, begun applying them to all cases appealed to the board that involve DOMA-based denials and gone a step further to confirm whether the marriages themselves are valid.

In one of the BIA decisions, for example, the BIA states:

Although the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider the constitutional arguments raised by the petitioner, we do find it appropriate, in light of the Attorney General's decision in Matter of Dorman, 25 I&N Dec. 485 (A.G. 2011), to remand this matter to the Director to address in the first instance the following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner and the beneficiary have a valid marriage under the laws of California; and

2) Whether, absent the requirements of section 3 of DOMA, the marriage of the petitioner and the beneficiary would qualify the beneficiary to be considered a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Similar language appears in all four decisions, which are appeals from cases that originated in California, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania. The New York-based visa case and Florida-based request-to-reopen-removal-proceedings case involve marriages entered into in Connecticut, the California-based visa case involves a marriage entered into in Canada (and that is where the couple resides currently), and the Pennsylvania-based case involves a California marriage.

Talking with Lavi Soloway, who founded Stop the Deportations to address this issue and says he is the attorney in the involved cases, he tells Metro Weekly, "They are unusual remands. They are an effort by the Board of Immigration Appeals to have the immigration service answer additional questions which, strictly speaking, should not be necessary since the denials were based solely on the fact that the couples were of the same sex and therefore barred by Section 3 of DOMA.

"The BIA is essentially forcing the immigration service to undertake full adjudication and to produce a complete fact-finding for each couple to determine the bona fides of the marriage, rather than simply deny them perfunctorily because they're gay or lesbian couples," he continued. "Once U.S. [Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is within the Department of Homeland Security] has done all that fact-finding, they're essentially setting the stage for being able to approve the petitions in a post-DOMA universe. They're providing everything that one would need to know to approve those petitions if the Defense of Marriage Act did not exist ... and that's not typically the role of the Board of Immigration Appeals."

Neither DOJ nor BIA spokespersons responded to a request for comment on whether the remand procedure constituted a policy that would be applied to all similar cases.

Soloway describes the unusual nature of the move by noting that that "additional fact-finding" requested in the remand decisions "cannot, under current law, alter the outcome" because of DOMA.

He says that the move is "extremely important for those of us who have been advocating that these cases be fully adjudicated, that all the fact-finding be done, that interviews be conducted for the purposes of determining that the marriages are bona fide and that these cases are approvable, and then held in abeyance."

Whether the cases will be held in abeyance remains to be seen, but Soloway notes that "the denials are essentially vacated" because of the remand. Two of the couples had applications for adjustment of status to permanent residence, or I-485 applications, that were concurrently filed. Those applications are now also pending ... because the alien relative petition [(I-130)] is pending." The pending I-485 allows for work authorization, Soloway notes.

"This is a choice by the Department of Justice," he said. "It's a surprising development. It's a welcome development. ... It's also historical. This has never happened before."

Although President Obama's Rose Garden announcement on June 15 related only to the Department of Homeland Security's immigration treatment of people younger than 30 who would have been helped by the DREAM Act, it appears that action in another area of discretion -- in the court-like function of the BIA -- is resulting in temporary relief for some same-sex couples facing immigration challenges.

[Photo: Mark Himes, left, and Frédéric Deloizy of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Photo courtesy Stop the Deportations.)]

[NOTE: The lead of this story was updated at 8:45 p.m.]

The Defense of Marriage Act has taken several hits in recent weeks. The federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" has been found to be unconstitutional in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, a trial-court case striking it down is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit, and federal trial-court judges in California and New York struck down Section 3 as well.

So, on the afternoon of Monday, June 18, where do these -- and three other pending federal trial-court cases -- stand?

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services: These two cases, decided by the First Circuit on May 31, are waiting on a filing by the Department of Justice and/or the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to the Supreme Court asking the high court to hear the case.

Because the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue and because Attorney General Eric Holder has told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that the federal government will continue to enforce DOMA until a final court ruling as to its constitutionality, DOJ likely will file the formal request that the court hear the case, a petition for a writ of certiorari, and, in so doing, assert its view that the First Circuit decision striking down the law as unconstitutional was correct (although perhaps for different reasons than given by the First Circuit). BLAG could attempt to do so as well, although some might challenge its legal authority to do so.

The cert petition must be filed within 90 days of the May 31 appellate decision, which gives DOJ and BLAG an August 29 deadline for the Supreme Court filing.

After the cert petition is filed, a cross-petition for certiorari -- by BLAG, for example, in order to assert its rationale that the case should be taken so that the Supreme Court can reverse the First Circuit's decision -- could be filed by any party within 30 days of the petition's filing. Parties opposing the cert petition likewise have 30 days to file their opposition. The plaintiffs, Massachusetts and other interested individuals and organizations will be able to give their input as to whether the court should take the case.

The court then will consider whether it wants to take the case, a question it is expected to answer in the affirmative as the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. It could, however, hold the case in order to await a decision on one of the further DOMA challenges.

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management: This case, an appeal from U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White's Feb. 22 trial-court opinion striking down the law, is being briefed before the Ninth Circuit -- with views by former U.S. attorneys general and others already submitted to the appeals court.

Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit have been scheduled for the week of September 10. 

Windsor v. United States: DOJ filed a notice of appeal in the case in which U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional on June 6. The DOJ's initial notice, which will send the case to the Second Circuit, was incorrectly filed and was resubmitted on June 14. DOJ, despite the filing, had argued in favor of Edith Windsor's lawsuit challenging an estate tax bill of more than $350,000 that Windsor would not have had to pay if her deceased wife had been a man. BLAG is defending DOMA in the case.

Dragovich v. Department of Treasury: No notice of appeal has been filed from this May 24 decision, which involves both state and federal defendants due to the specific DOMA-impacted law -- affecting tax treatment for a California-offered long-term care plan -- being challenged. The plaintiffs, who plan to seek to recover attorneys fees, have sought and been granted an extension until August 22 to file the attorneys fees request, but an attorney for the plaintiffs told Metro Weekly that does not impact the time to file a notice that the case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Neither DOJ nor BLAG representatives responded this afternoon to Metro Weekly's request for information regarding why the Windsor decision already has been appealed despite the Dragovich decision having been released more than two weeks earlier. The notice of appeal, because the United States is a defendant, must be filed within 60 days of the May 24 decision, which would be July 23.

McLaughlin v. Panetta and Cooper-Harris v. United States: These two cases are addressing the constitutionality of different military and veterans' benefits given to married, same-sex couples. Although additional laws regarding veterans' benefits are challenged in these cases in addition to DOMA Section 3, DOJ has informed Congress that it views these statutes as similarly unconstitutional. 

On June 6, DOJ was granted a request in McLaughlin to stay the case, or put it on hold, until the final mandate is issued by the First Circuit in the Massachusetts case. BLAG is seeking a similar delay in Cooper-Harris, asking the court to stay the proceedings until a decision in Golinski, but the Southern Poverty Law Center, representing Cooper-Harris, is opposing the request. A hearing is set on the motion for July 2. [SPLC's Christine Sun tells Metro Weekly the hearing has been moved to July 23.]

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management: This case is pending in federal trial court in Connecticut. It has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

NOTE: Additional DOMA and DOMA-related challenges are noted in this chart (pdf) produced by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which has brought the Gill and Pedersen cases.

[Photo: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), right, speaks with reporters about the constitutionality of DOMA on April 4, 2012. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[Photo: Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson testifies in favor of repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on Dec. 2, 2010. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

A week from Tuesday, the man who co-chaired the Pentagon's review of how to implement the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and then helped guide its repeal, Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson, will give the keynote address at the Pentagon's first LGBT Pride Month event, according to a department spokeswoman. 

The 1 p.m. June 26 address is slated to be followed, according to the spokeswoman, by a panel discussion on "The Value of Open Service and Diversity."

In 2010, Johnson and General Carter Ham co-chaired the Pentagon working group that examined how best to implement repeal of DADT. In a December 2010 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee held after the release of the working group's report, Johnson made a "plea" to the senators to take legislative action to end DADT the year, which they did.

Human Rights Campaign vice president for communications Fred Sainz said of Johnson's leadership, "While others were core, Jeh really lead the process from beginning to end given the complicated morass of legal issues. He did so with great competence and dedication. He will be remembered for having done an outstanding job."

Center for American Progress vice president of LGBT Research and Communications Project Jeff Krehely tells Metro Weekly, "Jeh Johnson was integral to the DADT repeal process. He was incredibly responsive to organizations working on the issue, and always brought great energy and ideas to the table, along with the highest level of professionalism. Our community owes him a lot of thanks for his work and leadership."

Sainz added, "Repeal is a yawner today because of the great care and attention to detail he insisted on."

This past Friday, June 15, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued the department's first LGBT Pride Month message in a video that praised gay and lesbian servicemembers and addressed his own pride at the way the military had implemented repeal of DADT over the past nine months.

UPDATE @ 8P: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis tells Metro Weekly, "Jeh Johnson was the key point person on repeal at DOD for Secretary Gates, the [Joint Chiefs of Staff], the White House, and for service members. It's safe to say that Mr. Johnson, along with General Carter Ham, were among the handful of people inside the Pentagon who were indispensable in the successful repeal of 'Don't Ask., Don't Tell,' and that time and history will eventually show just how large Mr. Johnson's role was in this historic event."

[Photo: President Obama speaks at the 2012 White House LGBT Pride Month reception on June 15, 2012. (Photo by Metro Weekly.)]

Today, for the fourth time, President Obama hosted members of the LGBT community and their allies for a White House LGBT Pride Month reception. 

Today, for the first time, Obama was able to look out into the crowd and see out servicemembers in uniform and with their spouses or partners.

Referencing the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which was about nine months ago on Sept. 20, 2011, Obama said, "I know we've got some military members who are here today," to applause.

He then added, "I'm happy to see you with your partners here. We thank you for your service. We thank your families for their service, and we share your joy at being able to come with your spouses or partners here to the White House with your Commander-in-Chief."

One of those servicemembers present was Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a member of the New Hampshire National Guard and a plaintiff in the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network case, McLaughlin v. United States.

The Obama administration, in conjunction with the February 2011 decision that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, is not defending the lawsuit and concurs with SLDN that the plaintiffs' view should prevail.

Morgan, who is battling incurable stage IV breast cancer, visited Capitol Hill earlier this year to meet with the staff of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to ask his office not to intervene to defend DOMA in McLaughlin -- a request Boehner declined, as he did intervene to defend the 1996 law in the case.

Morgan is suing to ensure that her wife, Karen, would be entitled to survivor's benefits, social security benefits and health insurance coverage should Morgan not survive her fight with cancer.

Of the invitation to today's event, however, Morgan was in good humor.

"I thought it was a joke," she told Metro Weekly. "I sent the invitation to [SLDN staff members] and said, 'Is this real?' I really thought it was a joke."

Asked why she was putting such effort into fighting the lawsuit and questioning elected officials in the midst of her own personal struggles, Morgan said, "I'm trying to stand up for all we believe in in this country.

"We're soldiers to stand up for and protect our freedoms, so it's easy."

READ Obama's comments below the jump.

WATCH:

This morning, in a conference call with reporters, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced a new policy of "deferred action" for certain young, undocumented immigrants who meet a series of conditions, stopping deportation of a group of people in the country who would be covered by the passage of the DREAM Act.

In a Rose Garden address later today, President Obama noted that his administration, in the absence of congressional action on immigration reform, has utilized its prosecutorial discretion to focus on high-priority cases for immigration enforcement in order to, in his view, improve the system.

Of the latest DHS news, he said, "Today, we're improving it again."

According to DHS, under the new policy, "certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children, do not present a risk to national security or public safety, and meet several key criteria will be considered for relief from removal from the country or from entering into removal proceedings."

Unlike the DREAM Act, there is no end result in today's action in which so-called DREAMers would be able to obtain citizenship and the decision could be reversed by a future administration. The deferred action, however, will enable those covered by the action to apply for a work permit and the two-year deferred action can be renewed.

Of the limits of today's action, Obama said in his address, "This is not amnesty, it is not immunity, it is not a path to citizenship, it is not a permanent fix."

Today's action regarding the DREAMers is a similar action to that sought by Immigration Equality and Stop the Deportations regarding same-sex binational couples who face separation because they are barred from getting a spousal-based green card because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Rachel Tiven, the executive director of Immigration Equality, celebrated today's move, saying, "Today’s announcement is great news for our country.  The young people who will be positively impacted are our classmates, our colleagues, our friends."

She added, however, "[N]o person should face forcible separation from their families, regardless of their age. That is why the White House should follow today’s announcement with a proposal to extend that same relief to immigrants with U.S.-citizen partners and spouses across the board. Keeping families together is good policy, and all families, including those that are LGBT, should have the support of the President in the form of a similar policy."

In fact, asked in May and July of 2011 about the possibility of a blanket policy to defer action on the green card applications of same-sex binational couples, White House press secretary Jay Carney would only say of Obama, "he can’t just wave a wand and change the law." 

Although there was no wand at today's Rose Garden announcement, the administration's action was taken with no additional legislative support and Napolitano told reporters that "today's decision is well within the framework of existing laws."

In the Rose Garden, Obama specifically noted that he had met with people who could be impacted by this change and added that "some have come forward at great risk to themselves and their futures."

One of those, Prerna Lal, wrote an Opinion column for Metro Weekly in 2010 addressing the DREAM Act, and today she wrote at her website of her cautious, bittersweet happiness about the decision.

"There's no way that this news would have come about had it not been for the hard-work of undocumented youth organizers across the country. Whether it was the phone calls you made, the letters you wrote, the petitions you signed, the media interviews you gave, the offices your occupied and emptied, or the many ways in which, you came out and put your lives on the line, today is a victory for you besides being a victory for the President."

But, Lal, who is on the board of Immigration Equality in addition to being a DREAMer herself, added, "This is certainly bittersweet and my thoughts go out to everyone who has aged out, everyone deported and everyone, especially our friends Tam and Cintia, who are no longer with us, and everyone still languishing in detention.  

"At the same time, I want everyone to exercise caution. This is not an executive order. This is a further exercise of discretion, dressed up as an executive order."

Talking to Metro Weekly about today's developments and their relevance to non-immigrant LGBT people, Lal said, "We are your partners, friends, co-workers, neighbors and in many cases, members of your community."

Of the further actions that could be taken through legislative or executive action, Lal said, "The announcement is a step towards building an inclusive progressive base to fight for comprehensive immigration reform, which should help bi-national LGBT couples, asylum seekers and many queers languishing in detention."

READ the specifics of the DHS announcement below the jump.

[Image: Screenshot of the Department of Defense website on the morning of June 15, 2012.]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made history this morning by releasing a video celebrating LGBT Pride Month. Thanking gay and lesbian servicemembers for their service and congratulating the armed forces on the implementation of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" over the past nine months, the video is the first message of its kind from the Defense Department, according to the DOD. 

In the video, he says, "As we recognize Pride month, I want to personally thank all of our gay and lesbian  service members, LGBT civilians, and their families for their dedicated service to our country."

Although former Defense Secretary Robert Gates began the process, it was Panetta who signed the certification on July 21, 2011, required under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act that finally ushered in the start of open service for the first time in the nation's history. 

Now, less than nine months after the repeal took effect, servicemembers are out across the branches and across the globe. Later today, several out servicemembers have been invited to attend the White House LGBT Pride Month Reception.

To that, Panetta says in the video, "The pursuit of equality is fundamental to the American story. The successful repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' proved to the Nation that just like the country we defend, we share different backgrounds, different values, and different beliefs -- but together, we are the greatest military force in the world."

Josh Seefried, the co-director of OutServe -- an association of actively-serving LGBT U.S. military personnel -- praised the message in a statement, "If there is any remaining doubt that the military has executed DADT repeal with excellence, and that LGBT people are serving our country with honor, Secretary Panetta has firmly put that to rest. This is leadership directly from the top."

The Human Rights Campaign's new president, Chad Griffin, said in a statement, "Secretary Panetta’s Pride video is a tremendous indicator of the progress we’ve made for lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members. It sends a powerful message to the brave men and women of the military that they are valued for their dedication to our country and their expertise, and that they are deserving of the exact same respect and equal treatment that their straight counterparts receive."

At Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, executive director Aubrey Sarvis echoed the comments in a statement, saying, "Today, in this historic message, Secretary Panetta has affirmed their invaluable contributions to our nation's military and in doing so, shined a bright light on how far we have progressed toward full LGBT equality in our military. There is still more to do, but today we pause to celebrate all mena and women in uniform and their patriotic service."

Of the steps that remain, advocates like Sarvis have argued that a nondiscrimination policy -- as had originally been included in the repeal bill -- continues to be needed.

Second, SLDN, OutServe, HRC and others have been attempting to get movement from the Pentagon on the provision of equal benefits for same-sex couples where possible, even in light of the restrictions placed on recognition by the Defense of Marriage Act.

Finally, out transgender service remains prohibited in the military today. In HRC's release, the organization stated that "officials must do more to address the obstacles that prevent transgender Americans from serving their country."

Panetta references the ongoing work, saying, "Going  forward, I remain committed to removing as many barriers as possible to make America's military a model of equal opportunity, to ensure all who are qualified can serve in America's military, and to give every man and woman in uniform the opportunity to rise to their highest potential."

READ the full message below the jump.

WATCH: 

Marriage equality supporters in Maryland got a boost from President Obama, who told a crowd at Baltimore's Hyatt Regency hotel on Tuesday, June 12, that they should vote in favor of the state's recently passed marriage equality law, calling it "the right thing to do."

The move is the first time the president has spoken out in favor of a specific state's marriage equality vote in a public setting and comes a little more than a month after he announced his personal support for marriage equality.

In past instances, in North Carolina, Minnesota, Maine and Washington, spokespersons made statements expressing opposition to the anti-equality position but the president himself did not speak out on the state's vote specifically. And, in California in 2008, Obama wrote a letter to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club expressing his opposition to the initiative. 

On Tuesday, though, Obama told the crowd, "We're not going back to the days when you could be kicked out of the United States military just because of who you are and who you love. We're moving forward to a country where we treat everybody fairly and everybody equally, with dignity and respect."

Then, referencing the upcoming referendum vote that is expected on the marriage equality bill in Maryland, he said, "[H]ere in Maryland, thanks to the leadership of committed citizens and Governor [Martin] O'Malley, you have a chance to reaffirm that principle in the voting booth in November. It's the right thing to do."

Takirra Winfield, O'Malley's deputy press secretary, said the governor stands with the president in supporting the bill.

"The governor will do all he can to ensure human dignity and religious freedom will prevail," Winfield said when asked about O'Malley's feelings on the referendum. "He believes the people of Maryland will choose dignity at the polls in November."

Following the president's remarks, Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the coalition seeking to uphold the law, issued a press release thanking Obama for highlighting the referendum in his remarks.

"Voters identify with his journey on the issue and are re-thinking their own position on same-sex marriage," Levin said in the statement thanking Obama. "A strong majority already realize this is about treating gays and lesbians fairly under the law and about dignity for all Maryland families, not just some families. The President's history-making leadership on marriage equality has inspired new conversations around kitchen tables and in church pews, not just in Maryland but all over the country."

A recent Public Policy Poll from May showed 57 percent of Maryland voters would uphold the marriage equality, with 37 percent voting to overturn it. The poll, which had an oversample of African-American voters, showed that 55 percent of African-Americans would vote in favor of the law, with 36 percent voting against it.

Senior political editor Chris Geidner contributed to this report.

[Photo: ABC News reporter Robin Roberts speaks with President Obama on May 9, 2012. (Photo by Pete Souza/White House.)]

[Image: Image shared June 12, 2012, on Facebook by the Human Rights Campaign, featuring a capture from a Traditional Values Coalition email.]

Although the only comments opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to be heard in today's Senate Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on the bill came from one witness, Craig Parshall of the National Religious Broadcasters Association, one outside group took to its email list with a particularly aggressive and anti-transgender pitch.

The Traditional Values Coalition, which is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, put out a fundraising email to members today attacking the specter of transgender teachers. 

Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Metro Weekly, "It's just shameful, but it's the kind of thing that we've come to expect from the right wing."

The Human Rights Campaign posted the above-pictured image on Facebook, telling supporters, "Share this image now to help expose their divisive bigotry and hatred."

In addition to TVC's virulently anti-transgender attack, TVC president Andrea Lafferty also claimed credit for stopping ENDA's passage in the 111th Congress.

"TVC killed ENDA two years ago," she wrote. "In fact, ENDA was scheduled to be voted on, but the liberals were too scared to vote on the bill when the truth was revealed ENDA would put transgenders in the classroom teaching our kids!"

Although it is true that ENDA was scheduled for a mark-up session in the House that was never rescheduled, no members of Congress to speak with Metro Weekly about the issue have attributed the decision to any actions by TVC. In Metro Weekly's exclusive reporting at the time on the treatment of ENDA in the 111th Congress, the spokesman for then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Drew Hammill, said of the delay that "health care ... obviously ... took much longer than anticipated."

Hammill added, though, that "[t]here were issues with the motion to recommit" on ENDA, a procedural move that can be used by the minority in the House to insert a "poison pill" amendment into legislation. "Everyone thought we had the votes on the underlying measure, but it depended on what language the GOP [brought up] on the motion to recommit." Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) expanded upon that, saying, "What they were worried about was a motion to recommit, like saying that an elementary school teacher can't transition in the middle of the year."

In the time since, NCTE, HRC and other organizations have spent signficant time educating on transgender issues, hoping to alleviate such concerns moving forward.

[Photo: Lee Badgett, left, and Kylar Broadus are seated as Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), right, and Al Franken (D-Minn.) introduce themselves to Sam Bagenstos, third from left, and Ken Charles. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

The Senate Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing this morning into the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has been pending in Congress off and on since 1994. Although a majority of the committee is co-sponsoring the legislation to ban private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), after the hearing, would not commit to a mark-up session on the legislation, which would be the next step forward for the bill before a committee vote.

"I'm going to poll my committee and see," Harkin said, noting that his first priority is getting legislation addressing the powers of the Food and Drug Administration -- passed in May by the Senate -- "put to bed," which will require working with the Republican-led House to reach agreement on the final bill.

If a committee vote can be held, though, Harkin said further: "I wish we could have a floor vote. I would like to see a vote on this because I think it's something the American people ought to know where we stand on this issue. Listen, this is not an issue that bothers me. It might be difficult for some people, but it's not difficult for me."

No Republicans attended today's hearing, and Republicans only used one of the two witness spots allocated to them. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are the only Republican co-sponsors of the bill's 42 co-sponsors.

Referencing the bipartisan support achieved during the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the final Senate vote on which was 91-6, Metro Weekly asked Harkin, who sponsored the ADA, why the experience with ENDA has thus far been so different. 

Harkin sighed, then said, "I don't know. There's some psychology involved here or something because, obviously, we have corporations and companies that probably lean more to the Republican side of the issues than the Democratic side that are very supportive of this. I don't know. I just -- I'm not going to speculate. I'll have more on that later."

The witnesses who testified today in support of ENDA today included Lee Badgett, the research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA; Kylar Broadus, the founder of Trans People of Color Coalition, Columbia, Missouri; Samuel Bagenstos, professor of law at University of Michigan Law School; and Ken Charles, vice president of diversity and inclusion at General Mills.

In opening the hearing, Harkin said, "The issue here could not be simpler or more straightforward: it is long past time to eliminate bigotry in the workplace and ensure equal opportunity for all Americans. It is time to make clear that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are first-class citizens. They are full and welcome members of our American family. And they deserve the same civil rights protections as all other Americans."

The only witness opposing the bill was the same person who testified at the most recent ENDA hearing, which was in the 111th Congress. Craig Parshall, the senior vice president and general counsel of the National Religious Broadcasters Association, spent most of his testimony discussing the religious exemption to the bill. 

Of claims by opponents of the bill, Harkin said, "Just as in debates leading to passage of ... earlier civil rights bills, we are hearing claims today that ENDA will lead to a flood of lawsuits or be an undue burden on religious organizations or businesses. I think these claims are baseless."

After Broadus's opening statement, Harkin acknowledged the bit of history being made at the hearing, saying, "I have been told by my staff that you are indeed the first transgendered individual to testify before the U.S. Senate. I am proud of this committee. I am proud of the people on this committee that would invite you here.

He added: "And, as chairman, and [for] my staff, I thank you for being here. I want to commend you for your courage for being here and for being who you are because you’re going to give courage to a lot of other people, so I commend you for that."

This past week, the appeal of Karen Golinski's case seeking equal health insurance coverage for her wife began with the filing by the Republican-led House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse the February trial-court decision that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. 

Today, parties in agreement with BLAG's view began filing amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs explaining why the appeals court should reverse the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White. 

Among the amicus filings is one by former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III, who served under president Reagan and John Ashcroft, who served under President George W. Bush, strongly criticizing the administration's decision -- including their successor, Attorney General Eric Holder -- to stop defending DOMA's federal marriage definition in court. The pair, while not directly addressing DOMA's constitutionality, filed their brief as one in support of BLAG and "reversal" of the trial-court decision.  

Of the February 2011 decision by the administration to stop defending DOMA's Section 3, the pair -- represented by the conservative American Center for Law and Justice's Jay Alan Sekulow -- argue:

The administration's change of position marks an unprecedented and ill-advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice. Historically, the President's constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," has been understood to include the vigorous defense of Acts of Congress when they are challenged in court. In light of the President's oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," two narrow exceptions have been recognized for instances in which a federal law either infringes upon the President's constitutional authority or is patently unconstitutional, leaving no room for reasonable arguments. Litigation challenging DOMA does not fall within either of these narrow categories (even under the Attorney General's reading of the statute).

After reviewing the instances of past administrations not defending statutes and defending others, however, the only real conclusion the pair seek from the court is minimal:

Due to the historical landscape addressed above, and the fifteen year history of DOJ's defense of DOMA, the decision to change course and challenge DOMA's constitutionality should be viewed as an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm and, as such, the persuasive weight afforded to DOJ's brief should be less than in the typical case.

The pair did not file a similar brief in the first DOMA case to reach an appeals court, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. [UPDATE @ 12:30A TUESDAY: Such a filing would not have happened because the deadline for filing amicus briefs in Gill on the side defending DOMA passed in January 2011 before DOJ altered its position in February 2011.] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently decided that case, upholding a trial-court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.

While Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren says she supports the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, comments related to marriage equality in a recent interview should not be read as an endorsement of federal legislation guaranteeing the right to marry to all same-sex couples, her press secretary tells Metro Weekly.

On Friday, June 8, Salon reported that Warren "wants [President Obama] and the Democratic Party to ... push for a national law guaranteeing the right to same-sex marriage for all Americans."

Today, her campaign tells Metro Weekly that she was not going that far and was instead referring in an interview to her support for the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), "as it is the only bill before Congress that deals with federal recognition of marriage for gays and lesbians," Warren's campaign press secretary, Alethea Harney, said in a statement.

Talking with Salon reporter Alex Seitz-Wald at Netroots Nation, Warren called DOMA "despicable" -- but additionally, in response to Seitz-Wald's questioning, appeared to have endorsed the prospect of congressional action requiring that states allow same-sex couples to marry. 

The transcript of the interview, which Salon provided to Metro Weekly, includes a "yes" from Warren to Seitz-Wald's question about "guaranteeing equality," but the candidate then pivoted to her opposition to DOMA:

SALON: You called for, early on, a plank in the Democratic Party platform for marriage equality and now we have the president coming out and endorsing it --  

ELIZABETH WARREN: Excuse me, excuse me. [Dances] Yes. You wish you had film of that.  

SALON: I really do, yeah. But he said it should be left up to the states. Would you like to see him and the party go further and push for a federal law guaranteeing equality?  

WARREN: Yes. I believe in marriage equality. Done. Game. Set. Match. Okay? And I think DOMA is despicable.

Asked by Metro Weekly whether Warren was endorsing federal legislation guaranteeing the right of same-sex couples to marry, Harney today said in a statement, "Elizabeth Warren strongly supports marriage equality and the Respect for Marriage Act. That bill would repeal DOMA and would require the federal government to treat all married couples the same in terms of federal benefits. That's what she was referring to, as it is the only bill before Congress that deals with federal recognition of marriage for gays and lesbians.

Harney concluded, "Elizabeth proudly stands with the LGBT community in its fight for equality and an end to discrimination, and she will continue to do so as a U.S. Senator."

Federal legislation guaranteeing marriage equality across the country has not thus far been pursued by LGBT advocates, and several leading organizations on the issue did not respond to a request for comment from Metro Weekly as to whether they would support such a proposal.

Additionally, the concept would go further than the RMA, which Harney says Warren supports. The RMA, introduced in both the House and the Senate in the 112th Congress, would repeal DOMA and guarantee that a couple legally married would continue to have their marriage recognized by the federal government even if they moved to a state where their marriage was not recognized. The legislation would not, however, guarantee marriage equality across the country.

Legally, the concept of a federal law to guarantee marriage equality also runs counter to an essential argument made in many judicial decisions striking down Section 3 of DOMA, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noting in its May 31 opinion that "DOMA intrudes extensively into a realm that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to state regulation -- domestic relations and the definition and incidents of lawful marriage."

Although the arguments against the constitutionality of Setion 3 of DOMA relating to discrimination against LGB people based on sexual orientation and the limitations that it places on the fundamental right to marry -- the equal protection and due process arguments, respectively, in legal parlance -- would not be constitutionally problematic for a law that expanded the scope of marriage rights, the federalism questions raised in the First Circuit opinion, as well as in the opinion from June 6 in Edith Windsor's DOMA challenge, would remain with a federal marriage equality law.

UPDATE @ 5:20P: Another reason, legally speaking, why such legislation hasn't been discussed often is that the authority of Congress to pass such a law would be tenuous unless the Supreme Court were to hold that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. In that case, then, such a law likely would be unnecessary.

Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the coalition of groups fighting to uphold Maryland's recently passed marriage equality law, announced on May 7 that they had opened new campaign offices and hired additional field staffers, part of several new measures the coalition has undertaken in preparation for a November referendum on the law.

Over the past six weeks, Marylanders for Marriage Equality has opened two new campaign offices in Baltimore and Silver Spring, with plans to open additional offices in the future. The campaign hired 12 field staffers to work across the state. Those staffers will be responsible for recruiting volunteers and planning events where campaign workers can have one-on-one conversations with voters about the importance of marriage equality.

The campaign has reached out to clergy and religious congregations who support marriage equality in order to build a coalition of religious leaders, educate voters and give press to faith leaders who support civil marriage to counter those who speak against marriage equality.

The coalition has also hired Rachael Stern as new media director as it runs targeted online ads asking voters to sign a pledge to defend marriage equality at the ballot box. According to a press release, the campaign has tripled its list of Twitter followers and doubled its number of Facebook "likes" since May 1.

An unofficial count of the signatures gathered for the referendum being kept by the Maryland Secretary of State's office shows that the petition effort likely has succeeded. State Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone told The Washington Post the statewide count has not yet been certified but that it “will probably go up” by the time that happens.

Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said of his group's efforts thus far to fight the referendum, "We're at a very good place right now. We still have a lot of work to do and a long way until November, but the momentum is clearly with us. The smart, strategic work of the campaign staff, coalition partners and the governor is paying off."

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signed the marriage equality bill into law on March 1, following months of contentious debate and two narrow margins of victory in the State House of Delegates and State Senate, including vocal opposition from black religious leaders, especially in Prince George's County, where several delegates and senators voted against the bill.

According to a May poll by the North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling (PPP) commissioned by Marylanders for Marriage Equality, 57 percent of Marylanders would vote to uphold the law, while 37 percent would vote to overturn it. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent, marking a significant shift from March, when a similar PPP poll showed support leading by a slimmer margin of 52 percent to 44 percent, with a larger margin of error.

The May poll also found that, following the endorsement of marriage equality by President Barack Obama and the civil rights group NAACP, 55 percent of African-American voters would vote to uphold the law, up from 39 percent in March.

This morning, the Senate Housing, Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee announced the witness list for the upcoming June 12 hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- a bill to outlaw sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in private employment.

The witnesses include:

• M. V. Lee Badgett, Research Director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA and Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA
• Kylar Broadus, Founder, Trans People of Color Coalition, Columbia, MO  
• Samuel Bagenstos, Professor of law, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI   
• Ken Charles, Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion, General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, MN  
• Craig Parshall, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, National Religious Broadcasters Association, Manassas, VA

Badgett, among other notable involvement in LGBT equality issues, testified for the plaintiffs in the Perry v. Schwarzeneggar (now, Perry v. Brown) trial into Proposition 8. Broadus has served on the board of the National Black Justice Coalition in the past and was profiled in a February 2011 article in Black Enterprise magazine. Bagenstos served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, the number two official in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, from 2009 to 2011. Charles oversees diversity issues at a company that has received recognition for its diversity initiatives.

Parshall, the one Republican witness, testified in opposition to ENDA in the 2009 House hearing on the bill, saying it would "impose a crippling burden on religious organizations," according to a report from The Christian Post at the time.

Although a transgender witness, Vandy Beth Glenn, testified before the House hearing on the bill in 2009, a Senate hearing was criticized for a lack of trangender representation in the witness list.

In a statement announcing the witness list, the committee chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), said, "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."

He continued: "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. 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 Human Rights Campaign, 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.

Because of the Republican leadership's opposition to the bill, no movement in the House is expected.

[Photo: Harkin]

Today, the Human Rights Campaign is releasing what it calls "groundbreaking research" involving "more than 10,000 LGBT-identified youth ages 13-17." The national LGBT political organization is releasing the survey as part of the start of incoming Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin's tenure at the helm of the group.

HRC, headed by Joe Solmonese since 2005, says the results show that "LGBT youth are profoundly disconnected from their communities -- and yet "often report resilience in facing today's challenges and a sense of optimism about tomorrow's possibilities." Solmonese's last day is June 11, but the survey release makes clear that the changeover already has begun.

Posing questions about how LGBT youth address life at home and school and in their community, the survey, a copy of which was reviewed by Metro Weekly, both looks at distinctions between LGBT-identified youth and those who do not identify as LGBT and it also delves more deeply into specific areas of concern for LGBT youth.

For example, the survey report concludes:

Compared with their peers, LGBT youth in this survey report a greater sense of isolation or separation from their community in general, and among specific community activities. Fewer LGBT youth have an adult in their community to talk with if they feel worried or sad, compared with their peers. When thinking of their future, LGBT youth believe to a greater extent than their peers that they must leave their community to make their hopes and dreams come true.

Specifically, the survey finds that 47 percent of LGBT youth say they do not "fit in" in their community. In comparison, only 16 percent of non-LGBT youth say the same.

Griffin said in a statement announcing the release of the survey, "No one would say that growing up LGBT is easy, but this survey is a stark wake-up call to the daily toll that discrimination takes on vulnerable young people."

Echoing comments Griffin made to Metro Weekly on the day his appointment was announced, Griffin added in today's statement, "We have a responsibility to change that, because we know all too well that there are real life consequences to inaction."

Regarding the differences in growing up LGBT-identified or not, the survey finds, "When given an opportunity to describe their most important problem or the one thing in their lives they would like to change, LGBT youth and their peers have different experiences and priorities. LGBT youth describe the challenges they face as being directly related to their identity as LGBT."

The survey goes on to look at a series of questions about growing up identified as LGBT. It notes, "When asked in an open-ended question what it is like to be LGBT in their communities, 60% of the LGBT youth described negative experiences and 42% described positive aspects."

At the same time, however, the survey reports that "nearly half (49 percent) of LGBT youth believe things are getting much better or somewhat better in their communities. Another 41 percent say things are about the same, while 9 percent of LGBT youth report that things are getting much or somewhat worse in their communities."

HRC stated that it "advertised this survey link through social media, as well as through direct communication with LGBT youth centers across the country, noting that "[t]his method of collecting interviews is common in exploring hard to reach populations." As such, the organization noted that the methodology of the online survey "does not represent a truly random opt-in sample" and, accordingly, "[t]raditional measures of margin of error do not apply."

READ the report and more information at HRC's site.

Echoing several other recent court opinions, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones today ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of marriage is unconstitutional insofar as it forced Edie Windsor to pay estate taxes after the death of her wife, Thea Spyer, that would not have been owed had she been married to a man.

In deciding that the statute is unconstitutional under the lowest level of judicial scrutiny -- rational basis -- Jones, a Clinton appointee, wrote:

Regardless whether a more "searching" form of rational basis scrutiny is required where a classification burdens homosexuals as a class and the states' prerogatives are concerned, at a minimum this court "must insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained. The search for the link between classification and objective gives substance to the equal protection analysis. Additionally, as has always been required under the rational basis test, irrespective of the context, the court must consider whether the government's asserted interests are legitimate. Pursuant to those established principles, and mindful of the Supreme Court's jurisprudential cues, the court finds that DOMA's section 3 does not pass constitutional muster.

The ruling in Windsor's case, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, comes less than a week after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously found DOMA unconstitutional under a type of rational basis analysis, affirming a decision earlier reached on more expansive reasoning by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro. 

In a statement reacting to the decision released by her lawyers at the ACLU, Windsor said, "Thea and I shared our lives together for 44 years, and I miss her each and every day. It's thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers."

Other federal trial-court judges, in addition to Tauro and now Jones, also have found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White in California reached the same conclusion earlier this year in a case slated for appeals arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in September. On May 24, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken reached a similar decision in the class-action lawsuit, finding that Section 3 of DOMA 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. Additionally, 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, a decision that resulted in the federal government no longer contesting such joint bankruptcy petitions.

Windsor's case was one of two cited by Attorney General Eric Holder in his February 23, 2011, letter to House Speaker John Boehner detailing the administration's legal conclusion that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, led by the House Republican leadership, opposed Windsor's lawsuit seeking repayment of the $350,000 estate tax bill that she paid following Spyer's death. BLAG has hired Paul Clement, the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, to represent it in court. DOJ, meanwhile, supported Windsor's suit in court filings.

The ACLU and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP are representing Windsor.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the lead sponsor of the law to repeal DOMA -- the Respect for Marriage Act -- issued a statement celebrating the decision.

"I congratulate Edie for this first offering of justice after she has had to endure so much injustice," he said. "Both the Constitution and basic commonsense tell us that no reasonable law would deny Edie and Thea Spyer, her late fiancée of decades, the very same federal protections and responsibilities that every other committed American couple is afforded."

He also took a swipe at BLAG and Clement, saying, "I am again gratified that Paul Clement and Speaker Boehner's BLAG have been unable to defend a law that is so thoroughly indefensible."

An appeal of Windsor's case, if sought by BLAG, would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

READ the decision: 96208124-Edie-Windsor-wins-her-DOMA-case.pdf

[Photo: Windsor (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

The federal appeals court hearing the challenge to California's Proposition 8 passed on taking another look at the ruling. The decision today by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit not to reconsider the appeal, in which a three-judge panel had found the amendment to be unconstitutional in February, starts a 90-day clock for the proponents to decide whether they will ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. [NOTE: They will appeal. See update below.]

"A majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc," the court wrote.

The proponents of Proposition 8, who are defending the 2008 enactment in court, had requested the en banc rehearing. The court did not give a reason for its decision. Under the court's rules, a majority of the 26 active judges on the court would have needed to agree to grant the rehearing.

[UPDATE @ 6:45P: The attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8, Charles Cooper, tells Metro Weekly, "We do plan to seek Supreme Court review."

In a statement from the Alliance Defense Fund, which has backed the proponents' defense of the law, Cooper added, "We're pleased to petition the Court to hear this case. The lower court opinions were little more than an attack on the character and judgment of millions of Californians, and those decisions essentially ignored all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent. We are hopeful and confident that the Supreme Court will review the 9th Circuit's decision."]

Ted Olson, an attorney for the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8, said of the impact of today's decision to their challenge to Proposition 8, "We're not to the end of the line yet, but we're vastly, vastly closer."

The court put its decision on hold pending any Supreme Court appeal: "The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court."  

Assuming that the proponents will seek Supreme Court review of their appellate loss, they would [The proponents will] file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The plaintiffs and the state defendants -- who have opposed Proposition 8's constitutionality -- as well as outside groups and individuals would then be able to file a response to the proponents' filing.

"We'll oppose that," Olson says, of any request by the proponents to seek Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court, which generally recesses for the summer by late June, would then consider the petition after that briefing is completed, likely once the justices return in the fall. By Supreme Court practice, four of the justices would need to want to hear the case in order for the court to accept it.

If the court accepts review of the case that was brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights in 2009, then a full briefing schedule and oral argument would be set. If the court denies review, the Ninth Circuit's decision will stand and Proposition 8 will be unconstitutional -- which would enable same-sex couples to marry in California once again.

In a statement, AFER co-founder Chad Griffin said, "Today's order is yet another federal court victory for loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in California and around the nation. The final chapter of the Proposition 8 case has now begun. Should the United States Supreme Court decide to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in our case, I am confident that the Justices will stand on the side of fairness and equality."

The appellate decision striking down Proposition 8 was based upon the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans, where the court struck down Colorado's Amendment 2 as unconstitutional. Amendment 2 had prohibited state and local entities from passing sexual orientation protections. The U.S. Supreme Court struck Colorado's Amendment 2 down as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because the amendment's aim was "not to further a proper legislative end but to make [LGB people] unequal to everyone else."

In writing the opinion for the Ninth Circuit in the Proposition 8 appeal, Perry v. Brown, Judge Stephen Reinhardt noted, "Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2."

Reinhardt, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, concluded that "the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships ...."

Judge N. Randy Smith had dissented in that decision, and he -- along with Judges Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Jay Bybee and Carlos Bea -- dissented to today's decision not to reconsider the appeal. Judge O'Scannlain wrote a brief dissent to the decision not to hear the case en banc, in which he was joined by Bybee and Bea.

In part, he wrote, "A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports same-sex marriage as a policy matter. Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that 'one of the things that [he]'d like to see is -- that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.'"

"Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation," O'Scannlain wrote in dissent.

Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins wrote an brief note concurring in the decision that their original opinion would stand and that they were "puzzled" by O'Scannlain's dissent. 

Today's decision also means that the expected request by the proponents of Proposition 8 to hear the Perry appeal will be before the Supreme Court for consideration at roughly the same time that any appeal of the cases challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States -- will be before the court for consideration. The First Circuit in Boston, held on May 31 that Section 3 of the DOMA is unconstitutional, relying, in part, on Romer and similar cases that preceded it.

In a conference call with reporters, one of the other attorneys for the plaintiffs, David Boies, said, "The reasoning of both opinions is essentially the same."

READ the opinion, dissent and concurrence: 11-16577_Documents.pdf

[NOTE: This post was updated and expanded, with the final update at 2:20 p.m., following a conference call AFER held with reporters following the decision.]

[UPDATE @ 1:45P TUESDAY: BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Passes on Further Review of Prop 8 Case, Setting Up Appeal to Supreme Court]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is expected to be issuing a filing of some sort in the ongoing challenge to California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday, June 5, at 10 a.m. Pacific Time, a court spokesperson tells Metro Weekly.

The announcement regarding the Perry v. Brown appeal likely relates to the request made by the proponents of Proposition 8 for the appeals court to reconsider the three-judge panel's decision handed down on Feb. 7 that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- a fact reinforced by the fact that the court spokesperson notes, "We are advised that this is not a large document." 

[UPDATE @ 7:50P: A docket filing confirms that this will relate to the en banc reconsideration request: "An order regarding the petition for rehearing en banc will be filed Tuesday, June 5, 2012, at approximately 10:00 a.m."]

The February decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, if it stands, would allow same-sex couples to, once again, marry in California.

Metro Weekly will post the filing when available, and the filing also should be available at the Ninth Circuit's website.

DENIAL: If the court denies the request, called an en banc rehearing, then the Proposition 8 proponents will have 90 days to consider whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. It is likely that the Ninth Circuit -- or, if not, the Supreme Court -- would keep the decision stayed, or on hold, during this time. 

Assuming that the proponents would seek Supreme Court review of their appellate loss, they would file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The plaintiffs and the state defendants -- who have opposed Proposition 8's constitutionality -- as well as outside groups and individuals would then be able to file a response to the proponents' filing. The Supreme Court, which generally recesses for the summer by late June, would then consider the petition after that briefing is completed, likely once the justices return in the fall.

GRANT: If the Ninth Circuit decides to grant the request to hear the case en banc, an 11-judge panel of the more than 20 judges of the Ninth Circuit will reconsider the 2-1 appellate decision that "the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships ...."

The appellate decision striking down Proposition 8 was based upon the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans, where the court struck down Colorado's Amendment 2 as unconstitutional. Amendment 2 had prohibited state and local entities from passing sexual orientation protections. The U.S. Supreme Court struck Colorado's Amendment 2 down as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because the amendment's aim was "not to further a proper legislative end but to make [LGB people] unequal to everyone else."

Judge N. Randy Smith dissented from the panel's decision, concluding that there was a rational basis for the amendment.

The appeals court decision, however, was more narrow one than the trial-court opinion. That decision in the case, issued on Aug. 4, 2010, by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, broadly found that sexual orientation-based classifications like Proposition 8 should be subjected to heightened scrutiny -- but that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional even under the lowest level of scrutiny: rational basis. Additionally, he found that the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional because it infringed on the fundamental right to marry.*

If the 11-judge panel reconsiders the appeal, it likely would call for a new briefing schedule and could call for a new round of oral arguments in the case. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and 10 judges selected at random from the circuit bench could expand the three-judge panel's decision to one more similar to Walker's decision, it could keep the decision reached by the majority of the appeals panel, it could reach Judge Smith's conclusion that Proposition 8 is constitutional, or it could fashion a new decision altogether.

BEYOND THE NINTH CIRCUIT: Assuming the losing party under the current three-judge panel's decision or an eventual en banc panel decision requests Supreme Court review, the Supreme Court's denial of the request would leave the Ninth Circuit's final ruling, whatever it might be, in place. 

If the court accepts review, which most experts consider less likely with a narrowed Romer-based appellate decision than it would be with a more broadly applicable Walker-type decision, then a full briefing schedule and oral argument would be set.

FINAL NOTE: The announcement comes less than a week after another federal appeals court, the First Circuit in Boston, held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Although not "marriage" cases, they certainly are cases relating to marriage-related rights and some of the same or similar legal reasoning applies. The 90-day clock for requesting Supreme Court review in those cases -- Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States -- began on May 31, so a Supreme Court appeal would need to be sought in those cases before an appeal would need to be sought in Perry.

At the same time, if en banc review is denied in Perry on Tuesday, then the timing will be close enough that both cases will, effectively, be reaching the Supreme Court at the same time.

* = A correction to the specific elements of Walker's equal protection ruling was made to this paragraph.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) will be joining Lambda Legal and the ACLU in arguing that Illinois's civil unions law does not meet the state's constitutional guarantees of equal protection, raising the question of what the Cook County clerk of courts -- the named defendant -- will do in its response to the lawsuits.

The move came just two days after Lambda Legal and the ACLU each filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the civil union law. 

In a pair of June 1 filings in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr, which were reviewed by Metro Weekly, the attorney general's office has requested to intervene in the cases, which it says is appropriate because state law permits a court to allow the state to intervene when the validity of a state law is at issue. The Attorney General's Office is not requesting to intervene to defend the laws, however, which is the usual reason for such intervention.

In the requests, Madigan writes, "Petitioner respectfully requests the right to intervene in this case to present the Court with arguments that explain why the challenged statutory provisions do not satisfy the guarantee of equality under the Illinois Constitution."

On June 25, the Attorney General's Office will make the request to intervene in Darby, which was brought by Lambda Legal. On June 26, the office will make the intervention request in Lazaro, which was brought by the ACLU.

The move sets up the unusual question of who will be defending the law in the lawsuits. Although the named defendant is Cook County Clerk of Courts David Orr (D) (who is represented in legal challenges by Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez (D)), Madigan is the chief legal officer of the state and her view that the state law is unconstitutional is significant. What's more, the Chicago Tribune reports, "Orr has stated he applauds the lawsuits and is in favor of same-sex marriage," so it is not clear -- especially following Madigan's move -- that Orr (or Alvarez) will be defending the validity of state law excluding same-sex couples from marriage. 

Regardless, because Orr cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under current state law, he would remain the defendant of the lawsuit. But, assuming he (or Alvarez) does not defend the civil unions law itself, there will be no one in court defending the constitutionality of the state's practice of allowing only straight couples to marry.

In the two other recent marriage-related lawsuit situations when this happened, another party stepped in to defend the law when the attorney general declined to do so.

In California, when then-Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) announced that he would be opposing the constitutionality of Proposition 8 there, the proponents of Proposition 8 were allowed to intervene in the constitutional amendment's defense. When U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in consultation with President Obama, determined that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and stopped defending it, the Republican-led House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group stepped in and was allowed to intervene in the law's defense in several challenges.

In Illinois, however, there is no anti-LGBT amendment with a proponent to stand up for the law, and the Democrats control both chambers of the legislature. Sen. John Cullerton (D) is the Illinois Senate president, and the speaker of the Illinois House, Michael Madigan (D), is the attorney general's father.

READ THE FILINGS:

• DARBY PETITION TO INTERVENE_06-01-2012_16-54-39.pdf
• LAZARO PETITION TO INTERVENE_06-01-2012_16-48-26.pdf

[NOTE: This post was expanded and updated as more information became available.]

The opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 31 striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management was not a broad ruling striking down the federal definition of marriage on a variety of grounds -- as the trial-court judge had done when he decided the case initially in 2010.

While giving credence to several of the factors -- from sexual orientation discrimination to federalism -- that each independently were considered decisive by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, the appellate opinion, written by Judge Michael Boudin, was a far more narrow ruling that decided the case on the sole grounds that Congress gave no rational basis for enacting the law.

Boudin -- appointed to the court by President George H. W. Bush -- specifically did not adopt the position urged by the Justice Department that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny when courts consider their constitutionality.

The Gill decision, in part, turned upon the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, a case in which Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by five of his colleagues, held that -- even under the "rational basis," or the lowest level of, scrutiny -- Colorado voters could not enact a law that removed gay, lesbian and bisexual people from the political process by prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from passing ordinances protecting LGB people from discrimination.

After reviewing the four main reasons offered in defense of the law, Boudin wrote, "We conclude ... that the rationales offered do not provide adequate support for section 3 of DOMA."

It is not unusual for an appellate opinion to be narrower than the trial-court decision that it is reviewing, and it already has happened in another closely watched LGBT equality case this year.

In August 2010, California's Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker on multiple independent grounds and included a conclusion that "gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect." After an extensive appellate process, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled earlier this year that the constitutional amendment was invalid under the narrow grounds employed by the Supreme Court in Romer.

Romer, which was a landmark case when decided, has taken a backseat over the past decade to another Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas. That 2003 case struck down sodomy laws and is seen by some, like Lambda Legal executive director Kevin Cathcart, as the likely turning point for advocates of LGBT equality.

Although it certainlyis true that Lawrence changed the conversation about LGB equality forever by eliminating the criminalization of the very behavior that, in many ways, defines gay people, it also is true that it is a sweeping decision that lower courts (with some notable exceptions like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its 2003 marriage equality-creating opinion (pdf)) have been reluctant to apply broadly to other "gay rights" cases.

Enter Romer.

After analyzing the Colorado amendment's potential impact, Kennedy wrote, "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

With the cultural legacy and import of Lawrence firmly in place, Romer can be set free to do the hard work of beginning the process of truly achieving legal equality for LGBT people. Before one can advance equality, one must first be able to remove the roadblocks established that inhibit that progress. With its focus on laws aimed at impeding gay, lesbian and bisexual people, Romer is able to take on anti-LGBT laws.