Another federal judge has ruled against the Defense of Marriage Act.

An appointee of President George W. Bush, U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa Bryant today ruled in Pedersen et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In her more than 100-page ruling, Bryant writes that Section 3 of DOMA "obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition."

The ruling was another defeat for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is controlled by House Republicans and has sought to defend the constitutionality of DOMA since the Obama administration stopped doing so in February 2011.

The case was originally filed in the Federal District Court of Connecticut in November 2010 and centers around Joanne Pendersen and her wife, Ann Meitzen. Pendersen, who served in a civilian position for the U.S. Department of the Navy for 30 years, sued the federal government after Meitzen was denied coverage on her federal health insurance plan because of DOMA.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) represented the plaintiffs in the case.

Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD's Civil Rights Project director, said in a statement, "Judge Bryant's ruling is very clear: married people are married and should be treated as such by the federal government. There is no legitimate basis for DOMA's broad disrespect of the marriages of same-sex couples."

Pendersen said she was thrilled with the court’s ruling.

"I loved working for the Navy for many years, and now that I am retired I now just want to care for my wife and make sure we can enjoy some happy and healthy years together. DOMA has prevented us from doing that," she said in a statement.

According to GLAD, the case will inevitably be appealed by BLAG to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sometime within the next 60 days.

However, momentum is building. Several cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA have already been petitioned to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule on Section 3 by June 2013.

READ the court ruling here.

[Photo: Ann Meitzen and Joanne Pendersen (Photo courtesy of GLAD.)]

The Democratic Party is poised to officially adopt marriage equality as part of their national platform at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., in September.

In a meeting on Sunday in Minneapolis, the 15-member committee responsible for drafting the language of the party’s national platform unanimously approved including support for marriage equality in an initial draft.

According to a report that first appeared today in the Washington Blade, the platform language also opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and gives support to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who married his longtime partner earlier this month and sits on the drafting committee, confirmed that marriage equality will be part of the national platform.

In an interview with the Advocate, Frank said, "Yes, it will be in the platform. I am in favor of it being included and it will be included."

In two weeks, the draft will go before the full platform committee in Detroit for amendments before it is presented at the September convention.

The news comes two months after President Barack Obama came out in support of same-sex couples' right to marry.

As the news broke on Monday afternoon, marriage-equality advocates applauded the move.

"Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement. "I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue. There is no more American value than honoring and protecting one's family."

The drafting committee heard testimony from numerous witnesses in support of marriage equality over the weekend, including the national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, Marc Solomon.

In a statement, Solomon said the Democratic Party is "leading the way forward in supporting marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples and their families."

"We are grateful for the Platform Drafting Committee's unanimous vote to include the freedom to marry in its draft of the Democratic Party platform. As I testified to the Committee on Friday, the Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans," Solomon said.

The White House did not immediately provide reaction to the breaking news story. At a press briefing on Monday afternoon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest referred questions to the Democratic National Committee.

Despite running on the Republican Party platform in 2004 that supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Dick Cheney told ABC News that he supported marriage equality back in 2000 before becoming vice president.

In an interview that aired Monday on Good Morning America, Cheney questioned the point of drawing attention to his support for marriage equality during the 2000 election.

When asked if he wished he had pushed harder for marriage equality, Cheney responded, "Why?"

Cheney said his position hasn't changed since the first debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman 12 years ago. "I've addressed it and moved on," Cheney stated.

Last month, Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, married her longtime partner, Heather Poe, in Washington. As Metro Weekly reported at the time, the couple's marriage is not recognized in their home state of Virginia, where they are raising two children.

At the time of the wedding, the former vice president and his wife, Lynne, said in a statement that Mary and Heather were "much loved members of our family” and that they were "delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognized."

Asked how Mary and Heather's wedding was, Cheney said he was "sure it was fine."

"We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate," Cheney said. "So Lynne and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them."

Despite the president he served, Cheney supports leaving the issue of marriage equality up to the states rather than the federal government. Responding to a question about gay marriage at a campaign event in 2004, Cheney said "freedom means freedom for everyone," adding that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

[Photo: Screenshot of Cheney interview via ABC News.]

Massachusetts's highest court declared civil unions to be the "equivalent of marriage" in a ruling Thursday that was hailed by marriage-equality advocates.

The unanimous declaration from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court comes after a case in which a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts in 2005 filed for divorce only for one of the men to discover his husband was still in a civil union with another man in Vermont.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roderick Ireland, the court ruled that a civil union in another state must first be dissolved before one partner could marry someone else in Massachusetts.

According to court documents, when Richard Elia married Todd Elia-Warnken in October 2005 he had no idea that Elia-Warnken was still part of a civil union he entered into in April 2003 with a Vermont man. Sometime after Elia-Warnken filed for divorce in April 2009, Elia discovered his husband was part of an undissolved civil union and filed to dismiss the divorce complaint.

Concluding civil unions to be equivalent to marriage, the court sided with Elia and declared the couple's marriage invalid on the basis that polygamy violates Massachusetts law.

The court stated that refusing to recognize a civil union would hinder "protection and furtherance of the rights of same-sex couples" and be inconsistent with the "core legal and public policy concerns" of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which helped legalize same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2003. Moreover, allowing Elia-Warnken two legal spouses could result in "uncertainty and chaos" because of obligations like child support, inheritance and health care coverage.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Elia-Warnken's lawyers had argued that civil unions and marriage were two different things and that Massachusetts's polygamy laws only applied to straight couples as defined by "husband" and "wife."

The court disagreed.

"Given our conclusion that a Vermont civil union is the equivalent of marriage in the Commonwealth, there is no merit to the plaintiff's assertion that the fact that his marriage license states that it was his first marriage is relevant," the court ruling read.

Despite the murky nature of the case, marriage equality supporters have lauded the court's decision as a victory for their cause.

Senior Staff Attorney Ben Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which represented Elia, said it was "a matter of consistently applying long established principles to the legal relationships of same-sex couples."

"We're pleased that the SJC decided that spouses in civil unions are bound by the same rules as spouses in a marriage when it comes to dissolving legal relationships before entering into a new legal relationship with a different person," Klein said in a statement.

[Photo: Chief Justice Roderick Ireland official portrait.]

A year after New York legalized gay nuptials, the money is rolling in.

According to a statement released by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in the first year alone same-sex marriages have generated an estimated $259 million in economic impact and $16 million in city revenues.

Marriage equality supporters have long argued that embracing same-sex marriage would do much for the economy. Although some opponents have scoffed at the assertion, the figures released by the mayor's office reinforce the argument that marriage equality is good for the economy.

Around 8,200 marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in New York City since the state began permitting same-sex couples to wed this time last year. Of the 75,000 marriage licenses issued by the city since July 25, 2011, about 10 percent have been for same-sex couples.

The scope of the economic impact on the city was determined after a survey was launched by NYC & Company and the City Clerk's Office. The final report also notes that gay weddings have spurred the city's tourism industry as more than 200,000 traveled to the city as wedding guests.

Speaking at the Manhattan Marriage Bureau, Bloomberg said since the passage of marriage equality, New York City has welcomed more and more couples and their families from around the world.

"Marriage equality has made our city more open, inclusive and free – and it has also helped to create jobs and support our economy," Bloomberg said.

[Photo: Michael Bloomberg]

The Massachusetts Attorney General's office filed a brief on Tuesday urging the Supreme Court to uphold rulings by lower courts that have found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

In a statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said that if the high court considers the state case, her office would once again make clear that "DOMA and its pervasive discrimination is unconstitutional and should be ended."

"The Defense of Marriage Act is a discriminatory and unconstitutional law that harms thousands of families in Massachusetts and takes away our state's right to extend marriage equality to all couples," Coakley said. "It is our firm conviction that in order to truly achieve marriage equality all couples must enjoy the same rights and protections under both state and federal law."

The brief comes three years after Massachusetts, which has permitted same-sex marriages since 2004, became the first state to file a complaint declaring DOMA unconstitutional on the basis of state rights.

Plaintiffs allege that the 1996 law banning federal recognition of same-sex nuptials is an "unwarranted expansion of federal power that violates the allocation of powers between the federal government and the States."

In June 2010, a federal judge ruled in favor of Massachusetts and declared DOMA unconstitutional, a decision that was upheld in May 2012 by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. However, defendants have continued their fight and on June 29 asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Coakley has led the charge in Massachusetts, arguing that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate against the state's 16,000 married same-sex couples. "The time has come for this injustice to end," Coakley said in 2009 after filing the lawsuit.

According to the original complaint, DOMA affects more than 1,100 federal statutory provisions and interferes with the state's authority to define and regulate the marital status of residents.

The First Circuit case is one of four DOMA cases petitioned for review by the Supreme Court in the past two months. The high court will likely consider at least one to determine DOMA's constitutionality within the next year.

READ the brief HERE.

[Photo: Martha Coakley official portrait.]

The Obama administration moved to expand a key provision of the Affordable Care Act to the children of same-sex couples today.

A new rule proposed to the health care law that was upheld by the Supreme Court in June would extend health coverage to the children of federal employees' same-sex partners.

The proposal was published by the Office of Personnel Management and would allow federal employees' children up to the age of 26 to receive federal health benefits regardless of their legal relationship to the covered parent. The new rule would also include dental and vision insurance.

The announcement comes more than three years after the Obama administration submitted a memorandum to the Office of Personnel Management asking them to extend benefits to the children of same-sex partners. According to the rule proposal, a presidential memorandum was submitted on June 17, 2009, and again June 2, 2010, requesting the Federal Employees Health Benefits program and the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance program be expanded.

According to documents, the Personnel Management Office was able to extend coverage after determining that the definition of "step child" could be interpreted to include the legal child of a gay federal employee's partner.

In a statement, Family Equality Council praised the proposal as a victory for the more than one million LGBT parents they represent.

"Most of the two million children raised by LGBT parents live in states where their parents cannot marry, cannot secure legal ties to their own kids and cannot get their children covered under a health insurance plan," said Emily Hecht-McGowan, Family Equality Council Public Policy Director. "This rule change means that federal workers can now be assured that a high fever, broken arm or debilitating illness won't jeopardize their child's health or their family's finances."

Nearly a month after two men became the first gay couple to marry on a military base since the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," the House of Representatives passed an appropriations bill on Thursday with an amendment that would ban any such ceremonies from taking place in the future.

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King attached the amendment to the 2013 Defense Appropriations bill, arguing that President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta were violating the Defense of Marriage Act by allowing military chaplains to perform same-sex weddings on military bases, reports Politico.

The Defense Department issued a memo to chaplains in September after the ban was lifted on out gay military members advising that same-sex weddings could take place so long as they did not violate state and local law or the beliefs of the military chaplains.

For King, such a move flouted federal law.

"This amendment prohibits the use of military facilities or the pay of military chaplains for being used to contravene the Defense of Marriage Act," King told members of the House.

DOMA is currently being challenged in federal courts due to a section that denied married same-sex couples many of the benefits enjoyed by straight couples.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) labeled the amendment "discriminatory" and said it had no place in the appropriations bill.

"We should have a debate on the effects of DOMA on our servicemembers and their families," Dicks said, "but introducing this contentious and discriminatory amendment is not the place."

The Republican-dominated body approved the amendment 247-166.

King's attempt to defend DOMA on military bases comes weeks after Air Force Tech Sgt. Erwynn Umali married his partner, Will Behrens, on a base in New Jersey, becoming the first gay couple in American history to do so.

According to ABC News, the wedding was officiated over by a Lutheran Navy chaplain.

Umali told ABC News that he never thought he would be able to dance with a man on a military installation.

"We fully understand we are going to have more battles, however, they only make us stronger," Behrens added.

The appropriations bill now moves to the Senate where King's amendment will be considered for final passage.

UPDATE at 12:50P FRIDAY: The Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which works to bring LGBT equality to America's military, issued a statement on Friday condemning King's amendment and questioning his knowledge of DOMA. Aubrey Sarvis said King is "wasting Congress's time and energy" with his amendment to the defense appropriations bill.

"This language put forth by Congressman King would do nothing new. No funds can ever be spent in contravention of federal law. With this amendment, the Congressman is wasting Congress' time and energy by restating current law in an attempt to infringe upon the rights of chaplains to practice their own faith and relegate gay and lesbian service members to second-class status by restricting their use of military facilities," said Sarvis, who is an Army veteran.

"Clearly, Congressman King doesn't understand what the Defense of Marriage Act actually does. It does not prohibit a chaplain from performing a same-sex ceremony that is consistent with the tenets of his or her faith, and it does not prevent the use of military facilities for private religious ceremonies," Sarvis said. "If the Congressman wants a debate about the inequalities thrust upon America's gay and lesbian service members by DOMA, let's have that debate. But perhaps, he should first undertake a review of the law and come to the debate prepared."

[Photo: Rep. Steve King official portrait.]

Come this fall, the Democratic Party could officially endorse marriage equality.

In an interview with Philadelphia Gay News, the chair of the Democratic National Committee said she expects the party to officially add marriage equality to their national platform this September at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

"I expect marriage equality to be a plank in the national party platform," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who chairs the DNC.

Democrats will convene Sept. 3-6 for the party's convention in the same state that voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage earlier this year.

According to Wasserman Schultz, a party committee of 15, which includes out Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), will develop the party's platform for the November election. Following President Barack Obama's lead, Wasserman Schultz expects the party to put its full support behind marriage equality.

"I hope that marriage equality, and expect that marriage equality, will be part of our platform," she said.

Such a move would not only be a significant moment in American political history, but could have repercussions in states that are voting on marriage equality this November.

In reference to referendum efforts in states like Maryland, Wasserman Schultz told Philadelphia Gay News that the party is "publicly opposed to all of those that are trying to roll back LGBT rights and we will continue to oppose them."

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, expressed excitement over Wasserman Schultz's comments in an email to Metro Weekly.

"Freedom to Marry is very hopeful that our campaign for a freedom to marry plank in the Democratic Party Platform will succeed, and is working closely with Democratic leaders such as DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz to bring it home," Wolfson wrote.

Inclusion of marriage equality in the party's national platform would make it all the more harder for a Democrat to run for national office in the future and not support marriage equality.

[Photo: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz official portrait.]

A new campaign is taking direct aim at Mitt Romney's record and agenda on LGBT issues.

Announced on Wednesday and playing off of the wildly popular "It Gets Better" campaign, the "Mitt Gets Worse" campaign hopes to shed light on the presumptive Republican nominee's "extreme anti-LGBT agenda."

The project is a joint effort by American Bridge to 21st Century and Courage Campaign Super PAC and vows to post an "oral history of Mitt Romney's efforts to diminish the rights and the freedoms of LGBT Americans, told by the brave people who have fought back against Mitt's anti-equality agenda," according to their website.

Several videos have already been posted to the project's website, including an interview with Julie Goodridge, whose lawsuit legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

"There is no doubt in my mind that if Mitt is elected president, it's going to get a lot worse," Goodridge says in her interview. "Gay marriage is a thorn in Romney's side. His goal is to make it go away."

Although when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 Romney said he would be better than his opponent, Ted Kennedy, on gay rights, Romney's stance on LGBT issues has largely been viewed as anti-gay. That sentiment has increased since Romney stepped onto the national stage with a more conservative ideology overall.

Indeed, Romney, who is opposed to marriage equality and to civil unions with the same benefits as marriage, is more conservative on LGBT rights as a whole than George W. Bush.

David Brock, a gay journalist who left the conservative movement to found the liberal think-tank, Media Matters for America, runs American Bridge to 21st Century. In a statement, Brock said a Romney presidency would be a step backward for gay rights.

"The march towards equality in America's civil rights history has been long and difficult, but we have always moved in the right direction," said Brock. "The majority of Americans don't want to reverse that trend, which is why they need to know that on LGBT issues, under Mitt Romney it will get worse."

WATCH Goodridge's video for the campaign:

Two years after launching a confidential review of the policy, the Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed their ban on out gay members and leaders in a unanimous decision on Tuesday.

Deron Smith, a spokesman for the 102-year-old organization, told the Associated Press that their decision to uphold the ban was based largely on support from parents and is "absolutely the best policy for the organization."

For LGBT activists who have been fighting the organization's ban for more than a decade after the Supreme Court upheld the policy in 2000, the July 17 announcement was a major disappointment.

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said the Boy Scouts' decision was a "missed opportunity of colossal proportions."

"With the country moving toward inclusion, the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America have instead sent a message to young people that only some of them are valued," Griffin said in a statement. "These adults could have taught the next generation of leaders the value of respect, yet they've chosen to teach division and intolerance."

That sentiment was echoed by R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, who described the ban as "absolutely the wrong policy for the Boy Scouts."

"The Boy Scouts of America decision to continue to exclude gays from membership is extremely disappointing and sends the message that gay youth are not fit to serve God and country," Cooper said in a statement. Cooper served as an Eagle Scout in Florida during his youth.

The decision by the Boy Scouts appears to have been an attempt to silence critics who have been pushing for years for the organization to embrace gay members, much as the Girl Scouts of America organization has.

Protests against the ban will likely persist, but it remains to be seen when the Boy Scouts will reconsider the policy again. Although a resolution to allow gay leaders on the local level was submitted in May to the group's leadership for consideration later this year, the ban's reaffirmation killed the resolution, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Questions still surround the secret board that issued the decision and whether members were influenced by outside religious groups. Boy Scout troops are sponsored by outside groups, including the Catholic and Mormon churches. Mormons, in particular, which make up about 400,000 of the Boy Scouts' 2.7 million members, encourages church members to become involved in the organization.

Although the committee's decision was described as unanimous and a proper gauge of parents' sentiments, there remains some hope for advocates. AT&T Chief Executive Officer and President Randall Stephenson, who is poised to become president of the board for the Boy Scouts in two years, has expressed his commitment to diversity and disagreement to the Boy Scouts' policy in the past, according to Dallas Voice.

Although Stephenson did not comment on Tuesday's decision, AT&T did issue a statement declaring their support for diversity and inclusion, adding, "change at any organization must come from within to be successful and sustainable."

UPDATE at 3:40P WEDNESDAY: The Boy Scouts of America stood by their ban on out gay members and leaders this morning after a lesbian mother of four who was ousted as den leader of her sons' Cub Scout troop three months ago delivered a petition to the organization's headquarters.

Jennifer Tyrrell, who is 32-years-old and lives in Ohio, brought three boxes filled with more than 300,000 signatures urging the organization to end their ban on gay Scouts to the Boy Scouts' headquarters in Dallas. Tyrrell showed up in her den mother's uniform and was accompanied by her partner and two sons.

Dallas Voice reports that a Boy Scouts' representative met with Tyrrell and her family for about 10 minutes, but stood by the policy reaffirmed by the organization the day before.

In an email to NBC News, Boy Scout spokesman Deron Smith said the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss changing any policy but to listen.

"The Boy Scouts of America works to treat everyone with courtesy and respect," Smith wrote, adding that to disagree "does not mean to disrespect."

Tyrrell also described the meeting as respectful, but said her fight would continue. Her petition remains open on Change.org.

The Supreme Court has been petitioned to review another case challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Monday, lawyers for 83-year-old Edith "Edie" Windsor filed the petition with the hope that the high court will consider Windsor's case regarding the federal estate tax and bypass the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The petition comes on the heels of a win for Windsor in New York District Court in June, when a judge ruled that Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic joined in filing the petition.

Windsor has been challenging DOMA since 2009, following the death of her wife, Thea Spyer. Windsor is suing to recoup about $363,000, federal estate tax she was forced to pay on her inheritance from Spyer. The federal government does not tax inheritances that pass from one spouse to the other, but because of DOMA the federal government has refused to recognize Windsor and Spyer's marriage. According to the ACLU, payment of the federal estate tax is one of the most damaging impacts of DOMA.

Living most of their lives in New York City's Greenwich Village, Windsor and Spyer married in Canada in May 2007, 50 years into their relationship. They were first engaged in 1967. Nevertheless, Windsor's lawyers say the government still views them as legal strangers.

"With Edie's case and the two others, the high court has before it striking illustrations of the many different harms that DOMA inflicts on many thousands of married same-sex couples all across the country," said James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, in a statement. "Edie and Thea got married after making a life-long commitment to each other, and it's just wrong for the government to pretend that they were legal strangers."

Windsor's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, points out that Windsor suffers from a heart condition. She also cites Windsor's advanced years among the reasons the Supreme Court should take up her case.

"The constitutional injury inflicted on Edie should be remedied within her lifetime," said Kaplan, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, in a statement.

Windsor's petition comes after three other cases were petitioned in late June and early July by the Justice Department and the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), controlled by House Republican leadership, regarding DOMA's constitutionality, albeit for different reasons. The Obama administration instructed the Justice Department to stop enforcing DOMA in February 2011 declaring it unconstitutional. As a result, the BLAG has sought to defend DOMA with the hope that it will be found constitutional by the courts.

Regardless of the whether the Supreme Court decides to consider Windsor's case, oral arguments are scheduled to begin in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in September.

READ the petition here: WindsorPetition.pdf

The Defense of Marriage Act has once again been challenged in court after an immigrant from the Philippines filed a class action lawsuit July 12 against the federal law, seeking to avoid deportation from the United States because of her marriage to an American woman.

According to Reuters, Jane DeLeon, her son Martin Aranas, 25, and DeLeon's wife, Irma Rodriguez, have challenged DOMA in an attempt to win same-sex couples the same immigration rights enjoyed by straight couples.

DeLeon, who married Rodriguez in California in 2008 and has been in a relationship with her since 1992, is facing deportation after her immigration visa was denied. Although she has tried to secure a waiver to indicate separation from Rodriguez would cause undue hardship, she has been unable to do so. Her lawyer argues that such waivers are often easy to obtain, but because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages her requests have been denied.

DeLeon's son, who came to the U.S. when he was 9 years old, also faces deportation because his residency depends on his mother's residency.

"After many years of having temporary legal status, I now face being in 'illegal' status only because my mother is in a same sex marriage," Aranas said in a statement.

Although the Obama administration declared the 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutional in February 2011, DeLeon's lawsuit accuses the administration of not placing all immigration cases involving same-sex couples on hold while DOMA moves through the courts.

Moreover, the lawsuit comes on the heels of Obama's decision last month to halt deportations of many immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

Attorney for the plaintiffs and president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, Peter Schey, said in a statement that he hopes the lawsuit will force the Obama administration to "grant an across-the-board stay of deportation and work permits to immigrants who qualify for visas but for the fact they are in a same sex marriage."

"To discriminate against this population by requiring that they live underground, work illegally, or worse be deported, while the courts address the constitutionality of DOMA is unconscionable," Schey said. "If President Obama understood that undocumented youth are entitled to temporary protection from deportation while Congress grapples with their status, he should understand that same sex married couples are entitled to temporary protection from deportation while the courts decide if they agree with his Administration that DOMA is unconstitutional."

This is not the first time DOMA has been challenged on the grounds of immigration protections, but Schey told Reuters this is the first class-action lawsuit brought against the law. 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Jim Ready may still be celebrating their new lives as a married couple after exchanging wedding vows July 7, but that hasn't stopped marriage-equality opponents from declaring their nuptials a farce.

In an opinion column published by The Washington Times, tea party activist Doug Mainwaring called the wedding "a mockery, a parody, a staggering caricature of the most fundamental and towering of American Institutions."

Frank made history last weekend in Massachusetts when he became the first congressman to legally wed a partner of the same sex, more than 25 years after becoming the first (voluntarily) out gay congressman.

Mainwaring, who is reportedly gay and a co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, took particular issue with the vows administered by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D).

According the Frank's office, Patrick said the following before Frank and Ready exchanged rings:

Do you promise to love each other and be each other's best friend,

In sickness and in health,

In Congress or in retirement,

Whether the surf is up or the surf's flat,

For richer or for poorer,

Under the Democrats or the Republicans,

Whether the slopes are powdery or icy,

Whether the book reviews are good or bad,

For better or for worse,

On MSNBC or on Fox,

For as long as you both shall live.

For those familiar with Frank, the vows embodied his wry wit and sense of humor. For Mainwaring, they were not just an affront to all that marriage stands for, but a "gotcha" moment for the world to see:

The politicos and pundits who aggressively promote same-sex marriage, many of whom were present at this event, have revealed something about themselves they perhaps didn't intend to show: Same-sex marriage is a joke to them. It's nothing more than political opportunism, straight from the liberal Democrats' timeworn, dog-eared playbook - an attempt to corral and cordon off yet another minority group for the Democrats, adding yet another square to their patchwork AstroTurf quilt.

This isn't the first time Mainwaring has made waves for his views on marriage equality. In January he testified against same-sex marriage legislation in Maryland and has alleged that liberal elites, not the gay community, are behind the push for marriage equality so they can create a "utopia" in which people are dependent on government rather than family.

Reached for comment, Patrick's office did not address Mainwaring's assertions, stating simply that Patrick strongly believes "expanding marriage rights is consistent with our American values of fairness and equality." Frank's office could not be reached for comment.

The D.C. chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s primary LGBT Republican organization, is calling for the resignation of a District politician for the third time this calendar year, asking Mayor Vincent Gray (D) to step down after three former campaign workers pleaded guilty to charges of running a shadow campaign.

The charges stem from Gray’s 2010 mayoral campaign against then-incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty (D), and alleged that members of the campaign coordinated efforts with a local businessman to support Gray’s campaign by financing a $653,000 "shadow campaign" to buy yard signs, T-shirts, posters, banners, laptop computers and other campaign materials or equipment, as detailed in The Washington Post. None of those expenses were reported to campaign finance authorities or disclosed to the public.

Prosecutors have not alleged that Gray knew of the "shadow campaign" and he has not been charged with wrongdoing, but three members of the D.C. Council – Councilmembers David Catania (I-At-Large), Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) and Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4) have called for Gray to resign. 

"I applaud those councilmembers who have called for the mayor to step down," Robert Turner II, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said in a press release. "Perhaps they are as tired as their constituents are of the mess in the Wilson Building."

Classifying his press release as "what is sure to sound like a broken record," Turner noted that Gray would be the third member of the City Council – after former Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) and former Council Chairman Kwame Brown (D) – that Log Cabin has asked to resign.

In his statement, Turner acknowledged that Gray has not been formally charged, but alleged, "his entire administration has had an odor of disreputable behavior."

"The Mayor now wants us to distinguish between his job as mayor and how he went about getting there," Turner said. "When it comes to governing the nation’s capital, the ends cannot justify the means. One month ago, I asked who’s next. We now have our answer."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's attempt to deny benefits to state employees in same-sex relationships cost her a civil servant on Tuesday.

Edwin Leslie, who until yesterday served as a member of the Arizona Tourism Advisory Council, resigned from his appointment in protest after the Republican governor's continued attempts to revoke benefits for same-sex couples that work for the state, reports The Arizona Republic.

Earlier this month Brewer filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court reverse a September 2011 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to prevent Arizona from implementing a 2009 law that would revoke health care benefits for state employees with same-sex partners. Supporters of the law have dubbed it a cost-saving device, but opponents say it is discriminatory. So far, an appellate court and a district court have agreed.

Leslie, who lives with his partner and their son in Phoenix, delivered his resignation to Brewer after she decided to appeal the appellate court's decision to the Supreme Court on July 2. In his letter, Leslie calls out Brewer for remarks she made during Fourth of July celebrations.

"Your actions taken on July 8, 2012 in determining to seek the Supreme Courts intervention in the State of Arizona’s duty to provide same sex domestic partners with insurance and other benefits are in direct conflict with your reiteration that all Americans are entitled to the same 'inalienable rights,'" wrote Leslie.

According to Leslie, Brewer's actions could cost Arizona in tourism dollars because of the harsh message she has sent to gay couples around the country.

"Your actions discriminate against one part of the State's residents to appease a small fraction of the population," Leslie writes, adding that it is his duty as a councilmember to remind her that her actions are harmful to the success of Arizona's tourism industry.

Michael McFall, publisher of Arizona Pride Guide, told The Arizona Republic that the state is the seventh most popular destination in the country for gay American tourists and third most popular for gay international tourists. McFall estimates gay travelers bring in $122 million to Arizona each year.

Nevertheless, a Brewer spokesman said it was "regrettable" Leslie had chosen to politicize an issue that is ultimately about saving the state money.

"The governor doesn't believe in ceding to a federal court the authority of Arizona's duly elected officials," Matthew Benson told The Arizona Republic.

Plaintiffs in the case have until August 6 to submit their response to Brewer's petition.

READ Leslie's resignation letter here: resignationtourismboard.pdf

Mitt Romney vowed to defend traditional marriage as president during a speech delivered to the NAACP convention today in Houston.

Only briefly did the presumptive Republican presidential nominee touch on LGBT issues when addressing the nation's oldest civil rights organization, but his stance on marriage equality was clear.

"As president, I will promote strong families and defend traditional marriage," Romney said. Although Romney received a chilly response from his audience for most of the speech, including boos for vowing to repeal Obamacare, members of the audience cheered Romney's statement about marriage. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People voted to endorse marriage equality in May.

Despite his statement on same-sex marriage, Romney struck an inclusive tone when he said he would be a president for all Americans, no matter their sexual orientation.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, praised Romney for recognizing the need for an "inclusive Republican vision for victory" in November but criticized Romney's stance on marriage equality.

"It is unfortunate that he countered his outreach to gay and lesbian Americans with a gratuitous attack on the freedom to marry," Cooper said in a statement. Cooper told Metro Weekly work still needs to be done to convince Romney and other Republicans to support marriage equality.

Romney's speech comes on the heels of the formation of a new advocacy group announced earlier this week called Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry. Under the umbrella of the national organization Freedom to Marry, the group hopes to give voice to conservatives under the age of 44 who believe same-sex couples deserve the right to marry.

Since running for president, Romney has taken a hardline stance on marriage equality, voicing opposition not only to same-sex marriage but to civil unions that provide many of the same rights as marriage.

ThinkProgress has video from Romney’s speech. Watch:

With less than two weeks until the kickoff of the XIX International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012) in Washington, one key participating organization is expressing dismay at the failure of President Obama to confirm his attendance for an event being held a mile from the White House.

At a press conference this morning, members of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) said Obama’s inaction was another example of an administration that has not placed the fight against AIDS high on its list of priorities.

"The president’s failure at this late date to commit to attending speaks volumes about this administration’s commitment to the AIDS epidemic," said Tom Myers, chief of public affairs and general counsel for AHF, adding that Obama's commitment has been "lukewarm at best."

Organizers warn that if Obama fails to show it could send a poor message to the thousands of leading scientists and researchers expected to attend AIDS 2012 about American commitment to the global AIDS fight.

The conference is being held in the United States for the first time in more than two decades and will draw about 25,000 people to D.C.'s Walter E. Washington Convention Center, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

This is not the first time Obama has sent mixed signals to AIDS activists. Although Obama lifted the travel ban that prevented those with the disease from entering the U.S. in 2009 – an effort begun by his predecessor, George W. Bush – his global AIDS budget for fiscal year 2013 cuts funding by $214 million, decreasing it from $6.63 billion to $6.42 billion.

According to the AHF, no president has ever sought to reduce America's commitment to fighting AIDS globally. Such a reduction represents 640,000 people who could otherwise receive lifesaving treatment. Moreover, AHF points to 2,000 low-income Americans who remain on AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) waiting lists in nine states.

"Frankly, it might be better if President Obama does not address the AIDS Conference if he plans on coming empty-handed," Myers said, adding that the organization hopes Obama will use his power as president to transfer funds to end ADAP waiting lists and restore funding to this year's levels for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

"Defunding PEPFAR and ignoring ADAP waiting lists merely confirms what people with HIV/AIDS and their advocates have long suspected — that the president is not seriously committed to fighting AIDS," said AHF President Michael Weinstein.

Organizers also hope Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will use the conference as an opportunity to issue an AIDS policy statement as well, which his campaign has not yet done.

Myers pointed out that PEPFAR was created under the Bush administration and funding increased from $15 billion to $48 billion in five years.

[This post was expanded and updated, with the final update made at 8:55 p.m.]

[Photo: The Supreme Court building. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

The Obama administration is squarely taking on the Defense of Marriage Act, asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a pair of cases challenging the constitutionality of the federal definition of "marriage" contained in the 1996 law -- while continuing to argue the law should be struck down.

In Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, the California-based case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, DOJ is asking for the Supreme Court to take the case before the appeals court, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case in September, even decides the case.

DOJ also is asking the Supreme Court to take review of another case, Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, that was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 31. The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, led by the House Republican leadership, had sought review of the case this past Friday, June 29.

In the filings to the Supreme Court, called petitions for a writ of certiorari, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., the DOJ's top appellate litigator, argues that a single question is presented by the cases, which the Supreme Court should accept the cases to answer: "Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State."

Unlike the Obama administration, the BLAG filing seeking Supreme Court review in Massachusetts asks a similar question to the one posed by DOJ but also asked the Supreme Court to review whether the First Circuit's "invented" standard for equal protection review was proper.

Since February 2011, DOJ has stopped defending Section 3 of DOMA, following a determination by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that the law is unconstitutional. In its stead, BLAG has defended the law.

In today's Supreme Court filings, DOJ continues to take the position that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and explains its reasons for asking the Supreme Court to hear the cases:

Although the Executive Branch agrees with the district court's determination in this case that Section 3 is unconstitutional, we respectfully seek this Court's review so that the question may be authoritatively decided by this Court. As explained above, to ensure that the Judiciary is the final arbiter of Section 3's constitutionality, the President has instructed Executive departments and agencies to continue to enforce Section 3 until there is a definitive judicial ruling that Section 3 is unconstitutional.

Because DOJ is asking the Supreme Court to take the Golinski case before the Ninth Circuit has ruled, the discretionary action means, for the time being, the Ninth Circuit appeal goes forward. If the Supreme Court declines to take the Golinski appeal, the appeal would continue in the Ninth Circuit. For that reason, DOJ also filed its appellate brief in the Ninth Circuit Golinski appeal today as well.

In a letter to the Ninth Circuit clerk explaining today's filings, an appellate attorney from DOJ writes:

"[T]he Solicitor General today filed in the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari before judgment with respect to the pending appeals in [Golinski v. OPM]. At the same time, the Solicitor General also filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the First Circuit in Massachusetts v. HHS, which, like this case, presents the question of the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. We also note, for the Court’s information, that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groupof the United States House of Representatives filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Massachusetts v. HHS on June 29, 2012."

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

The Supreme Court then will consider whether it wants to take the case [after it returns from its summer recess], a question most scholars expect it to answer in the affirmative as the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue -- and would appear to be all the more likely after today's filings.

READ the Golinski letter and cert petition: Golinski-DOJ-cert.pdf

READ the Gill cert petition: Gill-DOJ-cert.pdf

Christian Berle, the deputy executive director at Log Cabin Republicans, is leaving his job at the organization formed to represent gay Republicans to join the campaign of a person seeking to become the first Republican elected to Congress as an out LGBT person.

Although retired Reps. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Steve Gunderson (R-Wisc.) came out once in office, Richard Tisei (R-Mass.), running to unseat Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), would be the first Republican to be out already when elected to the Congress for the first time.

Berle, who has been at LCR since January 2009, tells Metro Weekly that he is excited about the opportunity to serve as Tisei's communications director. "I've had the chance to work with and help Richard in his lieutenant governor's race and for almost the last year for his congressional race," he says. "In my mind, I couldn’t find a more natural fit for someone to go on and work for."

He noted that LCR has been heavily involved in promoting Tisei's race, saying, "We had him speak at our 2011 convention in Dallas, where we gave him our Spirit of Lincoln Award, and have been helping him raise money … as he runs to be the first openly gay Republican to be elected to Congress."

Clarke Cooper, the executve director of LCR, praised his outgoing deputy, telling Metro Weekly, "Christian's time at Log Cabin Republicans was marked by a rebirth of the organization, significant political engagement with Republican party organizations and significant LGBT policy gains. Upon my arrival at Log Cabin, it was immediately evident that Christian's political acumen and a shared vision toward bolstering political allies merited promoting him to the deputy director position."

Tico Almeida, now the president of Freedom to Work, used to work as the House Democratic committee counsel responsible for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill he is still trying to advance in his efforts at Freedom to Work.

Almeida noted Berle's work on that front, telling Metro Weekly, "Christian Berle has played a very important role in building our bi-partisan coalition in support of ENDA, and I am grateful for Christian’s efforts in arranging Capitol Hill meetings with Republicans at which Freedom to Work and Log Cabin Republicans have advocated together in favor of moving ENDA forward now."

Of his accomplishments, Berle pointed to advancements both in the Republican Party and among the LGBT organizations.

"In the three-and-a-half years I've been on staff, our releationship with the party is night and day in a better position. The RNC often asks how they can help us do our job as an ancillary member of the Republican Party," he says. "We have strong relationships with other LGBT organizations that we didn't have when I started."

Of his next role, Cooper adds, "His joining Richard Tisei's Congressional campaign is a testament to Christian's abilities and to the progress he helped achieve for Log Cabin Republicans."

The Victory Fund, a bipartisan organization that works to elect out LGBT politicians, has endorsed Tisei's run. Denis Dison, the Victory Fund's vice president for communications, tells Metro Weekly, "Christian brings a great deal of expertise to this important campaign. He understands the need for out Republican voices on Capitol Hill, and he'll be an effective and passionate advocate for Richard and his team."

To that end, Berle says, "Having Richard stand up in conference and say, 'Repeal of DOMA matters to me because I'd like to get married to my partner" ... as each and every one of [the other members] is able to do is important. He will be able to talk about employment nondiscrimination, something he led in the state legislature during his 26-year tenure there."

In response to Metro Weekly's exclusive June 19 report on a series of decisions from the Department of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals that sent back same-sex, binational couples' marriage-based green card requests for additional fact-finding in a way that could make the couples eligible for relief if the Defense of Marriage Act were to be found unconstitutional, a DOJ spokeswoman told Metro Weekly that the decisions did not represent an across-the-board policy and, after following up with other officials, a second DOJ official said the timing of the cases was coincidental.

Lavi Soloway, the founder of Stop the Deportations and an attorney arguing several of the impacted cases, told Metro Weekly in mid-June that the move was "historic" and reflects DOJ's apparent view that "there may very well be, a year from now, a post-DOMA world." DOJ, in accordance with a decision by President Obama, stopped defending the constitutionality of DOMA in court challenges in early 2011. Immigration Equality's legal director, Victoria Neilson, told Metro Weekly since that initial report, "We know of at least one other BIA remand with similar language."

The move appears to have evolved from a decision by Attorney General Eric Holder more than a year ago, when he intervened in a BIA case on May 5, 2011, 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 and his partner's civil union was treated like a marriage and whether, if it was, the couple would be eligible for relief were it not for DOMA.

Neilson explained these new decisions as fitting in that mold, stating, "When the Attorney General issued its precedential decision, Matter of Dorman, last year, we interpreted this to mean that adjudicators should adjudicate all factual, non-constitutional issues in lesbian and gay cases where marriage is at issue. These new BIA decisions seem to signal a trend that the BIA wants US [Citizenship and Immigration Services, within the Department of Homeland Security] to engage in this fact-finding in marriage-based petitions."

Asked whether the BIA decisions constituted a new policy, however, Nanda Chitre, a DOJ spokeswoman, told Metro Weekly shortly after the initial publication, "The BIA does not have such a policy on how to handle DOMA cases. Each is decided on a case by case basis. As we have said before, the Department is continuing to follow the President’s direction to enforce DOMA. While the Department has discretion to make individual case determinations, it has not granted any form of relief to the entire category of cases affected by DOMA."

In response, Metro Weekly asked about the unusual timing of the cases and decisions. Of the four cases reviewed by Metro Weekly, the earliest one to be appealed was on June 15, 2011, and the most recent was appealed on February 28, 2012. Yet, all of the BIA decisions in those appeals were released within a month and a half of one another. Soloway said the wait on the decision from the first case was extremely atypical. Metro Weekly sought clarification as to what, if not the formulation of a policy, would lead to such unusual timing.

DOJ officials did not respond with an answer to that inquiry for more than a week. A DOJ official, after consulting with others, told Metro Weekly this past Friday, June 29, that they were unaware of "any reason other than that is how the cases fell."

Soloway was incredulous. "The BIA held off rendering decisions on any of our appeals until recently, despite having instructions from the Attorney General in the Dorman case 14 months ago that seem to have informed its recent move to remand four of our pending cases. Each of the four remands contained nearly identical instructions to the USCIS, in effect rejecting their summary 'DOMA denials' and requiring, most significantly, a finding in each case that the marriage would qualify for a green card if DOMA were no longer the law," he wrote to Metro Weekly.

In spite of the DOJ's comments, Soloway added, "It appears that there was a decision in the past two months, at least within the BIA, that USCIS' denials of these green card petitions would be rejected and that the cases would be remanded with instructions that closely follow the Attorney General’s instructions to the BIA in the Dorman case."

Neilson also noted that, regardless of the DOJ actions, it is not yet clear that the same actions are going to be taken by the USCIS, which has the responsibility to investigate and consider the initial green-card applications. Specifically, she noted, "We are continuing to hear that marriage-based petitions for lesbian and gay couples are being denied by USCIS. So it remains to be seen what the long-term significance of these remands will be.

As to those concerns, Soloway concurred, stating, "We are now working with USCIS to ensure that all green card petitions filed by married lesbian and gay couples are fully adjudicated. We urge USCIS to issue written decisions in conformity with the BIA rulings that require full fact finding on the eligibility of the foreign spouse for a green card in the absence of DOMA."

Meanwhile, the question of DOMA's constitutionality moved one step closer to resolution on June 29, when the House Republican leadership-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed its petition asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision from May striking down Section 3 of the law, which creates the federal definition of marriage.

This past weekend the boards of directors of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and OutServe voted to become one organization by October, SLDN announced this morning.

The move comes more than nine months after the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and more than six months after SLDN's executive director, Aubrey Sarvis, announced his plan to leave his position once a new director was hired.

The resulting organization will have a new name and the new board will be led by one leader from each group. According to today's news release, the coming months until October will be spent "unifying" the groups on administrative, financial and programatic fronts.

SLDN Board of Directors Co-Chair Mike Magee said in the statement, "SLDN has enjoyed a close working relationship with OutServe and its leaders from the beginning. Indeed, their voices, though anonymous at the time, were an integral part of the fight to repeal the discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law. Since repeal, we've worked even more closely together and in doing so, it has become more and more clear that our shared mission -- representing actively serving military and veterans, as well as fighting to achieve full LGBT equality in the military -- is better accomplished by uniting the two organizations and working together as one on behalf of the brave men and women of our armed forces."

Josh Seefried, co-founder and co-director of OutServe, said in the statement, "This comes down to mission first, just as it always is in the military. Both of these organizations recognize that they are stronger and more effective together. It is a great day for both organizations and for the LGBT service members and veterans around the world, who need a strong, unified voice speaking for them at the White House, on Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon, and among the American people.

"What began as a simple effort to tell our stories has grown into something we could never have imagined, and today's announcement that OutServe and SLDN will combine represents the next step in that evolution. Each organization brings its own strengths to the fight for full LGBT military equality, and we are stronger together."

Although DADT has been repealed, issues of spousal benefits, nondiscrimination within the military and transgender service -- among other issues -- remain on advocates' agendas.

The heads of the two groups, Sarvis and Seefried, put together a video announcing the decision as well.

WATCH: