Former Sen. Chuck Hagel affirmed his commitment to equality for gay servicemembers during his Senate confirmation hearing today.

President Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, the Nebraska Republican fielded a number of questions on open service today. Hagel reiterated his commitment to addressing the challenges that remain for gay servicemembers in the wake of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"As I've discussed with many of you in our meetings, I am fully committed to implementing the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members," Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Asked by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) if he would ensure discrimination is not permitted by the Department of Defense while tolerating religious beliefs, Hagel affirmed his commitment to do so.

"All men and women deserve the same rights," Hagel said, adding that he would ensure such policies are enforced through the entire chain of command.

Addressing the "conscience clause" of the National Defense Authorization Act, Hagel said that while chaplains should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings as stipulated by Pentagon regulations, he said a same-sex military couple should not be denied the right to wed in a military chapel.

OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson lauded Hagel's answers in a statement released shortly after Hagel's hearing concluded eight hours after it began.

"After two years of equivocation and delay by Pentagon leadership, it is gratifying to see Senator Hagel show the kind of clear, unambiguous support for our service members and their families we saw today," Robinson said. "It is an historic day when issues critical to gay and lesbian service members and their families take center stage in a confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense."

More than a year after the repeal of the ban on out gay servicemembers, a number of benefits are still denied to same-sex military couples. Although some benefits are contingent on the successful repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, many, including equal access to housing benefits, military ID cards, legal services and other spousal privileges, could be granted by Panetta independently making various regulatory changes.

Unaddressed during the hearing were nondiscrimination and equal opportunity protections for LGBT servicemembers. According to Robinson, "If Senator Hagel is confirmed, he must use his authority to ban discrimination and guarantee equal opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender members of the military."

[Image: Chuck Hagel testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee (Courtesy of C-SPAN).]

Rep. Aaron Schock gave a muddled answer when asked why he doesn't support the right of same-sex couples to marry. 

"Uh, well, I — I just haven't," the Illinois Republican said, before adding that his beliefs on social issues are a reflection of how he was raised.

"I think everybody has a set of beliefs on issues, social issues in particular, that are a reflection of how they were raised and their set of beliefs," he said.

Schock has openly said he is considering a run for governor of Illinois, which will be one of the next states to consider same-sex marriage legislation. In August, Schock told BuzzFeed that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment endorsed in the Republican Party's national platform, which would ban same-sex marriage. Schock backtracked, however, after saying same-sex marriage is something that will be "hammered out primarily in the states" and being told that a constitutional amendment would not allow states to decide the issue.

Watch Schock's response here via CapitolFax.com:

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill Thursday that could allow student organizations at Virginia public universities to openly discriminate against potential members without fear of reprisal on an 80-19 vote, sending the measure on to the state Senate.

The bill, HB1617, sponsored by Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah and Warren counties), prohibits public institutions of higher education from "discriminating against a student organization or group on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical or other content of the organization or group’s speech." It also allows religious or political student organizations to determine whom they may admit as members "in furtherance of the organization’s religious or political mission."

The measure passed the lower chamber overwhelmingly, with 66 Republicans, 1 independent who caucuses with the Republicans, and 13 Democrats voting in favor of it. Nineteen Democrats, largely from metropolitan areas, opposed the measure.

The bill now heads to the state Senate, where it will be receive a committee hearing. 

Kevin Clay, a spokesman for Equality Virginia, the commonwealth's major LGBT-rights organization, said Equality Virginia opposes the bill, which he says could potentially allow student groups at publicly funded universities to discriminate against LGBT individuals if they cite religious beliefs or political philosophies.

"Our concern with the bill is it allows discrimination with publicly accessible funds," Clay said.

He further noted that universities, even if they have a nondiscrimination policy, are unable to deny funding or resources to groups that openly discriminate, because under current Virginia law, campus nondiscrimination policies are not legally binding. 

"This protects the student organizations, not the individual students," Clay said, adding that Equality Virginia is asking concerned citizens to call their senators to oppose the bill. 

[Photo: Del. C. Todd Gilbert (Courtesy of the Virginia General Assembly)]

Supporters of the ban on gay members and leaders in the Boy Scouts of America are mobilizing after news that the organization is considering lifting the longstanding ban.

In a mass email "Alert" sent Monday after NBC News reported the 102-year-old organization is reconsidering the ban, the anti-gay Family Research Council urged supporters to contact the BSA to urge them to uphold their ban on out gay members and leaders. 

"For decades, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have heroically withstood attacks from homosexual activists. Now, officials from the organization have indicated that this may be about to change," wrote FRC President Tony Perkins. "A departure from their long-held policies would be devastating to an organization that has prided itself on the development of character in boys."

In an interview with Perkins on Tuesday, John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council said ending the ban would "open the door and allow openly gay leaders and boys to flourish."

"There are so many young people today in high school and public school especially who are acting out homosexuality just because it’s the popular and cool thing, so you're going to have lots of crazy stuff happening with boys," Stemberger told Perkins, according to Right Wing Watch.

The American Family Association also urged supporters to petition the BSA, writing in an alert to supporters, "If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program, it will destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution." 

Appearing on his radio show yesterday, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said the BSA was on a "suicide mission" with its decision to explore lifting the ban. Fischer repeated an argument long waged by supports of the BSA’s discriminatory ban, falsely claiming that lifting the ban on gay members and leaders would open the doors to pedophilia in the BSA.

"If I'm a dad, and I've got a young man — I mean there's no way in the world I'm going to take that chance," Fischer said. "You know, because we know that homosexuals offend against male children — male homosexuals offend against children at roughly ten times the rate that heterosexuals offend against young children." 

In reality, numerous studies have shown no scientific basis for the argument that gay men are more likely than straight men to molest children.

The BSA has also faced a number of scandals involving sexual abuse, despite the discriminatory ban on gay youth. In September, the Los Angeles Times reported that for more than 20 years the group covered-up cases of child molestation. According to the newspaper, a review of 1,600 confidential files dating from 1970 to 1991 show that "Scouting officials frequently urged admitted offenders to quietly resign — and helped many cover their tracks."

Many cases of abuse are contained in confidential "perversion files" that date back to 1919. BSA lawyers have fought to keep the files secret, which "blacklist" alleged molesters from rejoining the group. The files show in more than 100 cases in a two-decade period the BSA actively sought to cover up allegations of abuse from police, parents and the public.

Although anti-gay advocates have argued that lifting the national ban on gay members would destroy the organization, some LGBT-rights advocates have said the decision being considered by the BSA's board of directors does not go far enough.

Indeed, if adopted, lifting the national ban would now allow local charters to decide if they will choose to exclude gay members.

"This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization's mission, principles, or religious beliefs," BSA spokesman Deron Smith said in a statement earlier this week. "BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families."  

According to Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson, the news that the BSA may end just their national ban on gay members "is a reflection of how out of step the Scouts hierarchy had become with today's youth and the majority of Americans."

Wolfson argued on behalf of former Eagle Scout James Dale, who sued after he was expelled from the organization in 1990 for being gay, before the Supreme Court in the 2000 case that ultimately upheld the BSA's gay ban. 

"Changing the policy would be a step in the right direction," Wolfson said in a statement, "but while an 'allow discrimination' local option is better than mandatory national discrimination, it still sends a harmful message to both gay and non-gay youth. The right answer is to be open to all boys, without discrimination, period."

The BSA's board of directors could vote on lifting the national ban as early as next week.

[Images: Bryan Fischer (left) and Tony Perkins (Screenshots courtesy of YouTube).]

If Virginia legislators take action this week, "living in sin" with one's boyfriend or girlfriend will be a step closer to legalization in the commonwealth.

The Virginia Senate is expected to pass a bill Thursday that would repeal a section of the Code of Virginia dating back to the 19th century that outlaws unmarried cohabitation.

The bill, SB969, introduced by Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax counties) repeals a section of the law that, although rarely enforced, makes people not married to each other who "lewdly or lasciviously associate and cohabit together" guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $500. That punishment is the same as the punishment for "open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior," such as public sex or nudity. Under the law, a second or subsequent conviction for cohabitation is considered a Class 1 misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

While the existing law makes no reference to sexual orientation, it also applies to same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, due to Virginia’s Marshall-Newman Amendment, which prevents the state from recognizing any form of same-sex partnership.

Originally, the bill struck out the clause relating to unmarried cohabitation but kept the punishment for "open and gross lewd or lascivious behavior." But a committee substitute was recommended and adopted that repealed the entire section of the law.

SB969 got a boost Monday when it passed out of the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice on a 15-0 vote Monday. It has since been read twice before the full Senate and engrossed, setting it up to pass the upper chamber following its third and final reading Thursday.

The bill will then be sent to the House of Delegates. If passed there, it head to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) for his signature into law.

McDonnell, who came under fire from opponents during his 2009 gubernatorial run for a Regent University graduate thesis that postulated that Republicans should shield heterosexual two-parent families from the effects of abortion, feminism, welfare and “cohabitors, homosexuals or fornicators,” said he supports ending the cohabitation ban in a Tuesday radio interview on WTOP’s “Ask the Governor” monthly series. 

[Photo: Gay couple holding hands (Photo credit: Till Krech, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).]

Barney Frank will not be the interim senator from Massachusetts.

At a press conference this morning, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick announced Mo Cowan, his former chief of staff, would fill the seat held by Sen. John Kerry until a special election is held in June. 

Frank, who retired earlier this month after 32 years in the House of Representatives, had been openly jockeying for the interim appointment after President Barack Obama announced Kerry's nomination as secretary of state. Yesterday, the Senate voted 94-3 to confirm Kerry as the successor to outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Following Kerry’s confirmation as secretary of state, first-term Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) became the senior senator from Massachusetts.

"I'm not going to be coy. It's not something I've ever been good at," Frank said during a Jan. 5 appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "I've told the governor that I would now like, frankly, to do that because I would like to be a part of that. It's only a three-month period; I wouldn't want to do anything more; I don't want to run again." 

After Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) was sworn in as the Senate’s first out member on Jan. 4, the potential of Frank serving only briefly as the Senate’s second out member sparked excitement among many in the LGBT community.

Indeed, John Kelley, a Massachusetts resident, launched a petition with the help of MoveOn.org urging Patrick to appoint Frank to the interim Senate seat. According to Bloomberg, the petition collected nearly 10,000 signatures, but Kelley was advised by an aide to Frank not to turn the petition into the governor’s office.

Frank has said he will continue to play a role in the national debate during his retirement. In an interview with Metro Weekly hours after the 113th Congress was sworn in Jan. 4, Frank said he was working on two books on what liberalism should be and the LGBT-rights movement.

[Photo: Barney Frank (Credit: Todd Franson/Metro Weekly).]

President Barack Obama revealed his plan for immigration reform today, calling for binational same-sex couples to be extended the same immigration rights as straight binational couples.

In a speech delivered in Las Vegas today, Obama laid out a four-part plan that consists of strengthening border security, cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, hold undocumented immigrants responsible before they can earn citizenship and streamlining legal immigration.

Within the plan Obama unveiled Tuesday are provisions that would allow Americans or permanent residents to seek visas for same-sex partners who are immigrants, something long sought by LGBT-rights advocates.

Although Obama did not mention LGBT families in his speech, according to a fact sheet released by the White House, "[The proposal] also treats same-sex families as families by giving U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the ability to seek a visa on the basis of a permanent relationship with a same-sex partner."

Under the Defense of Marriage Act, immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same-sex are denied various protections, including eligibility for green cards, because the federal government does not recognize such relationships.

"The President has long believed that Americans with same-sex partners from other countries should not be faced with the painful choice between staying with the person they love or staying in the country they love," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One on the way to Las Vegas earlier today.

According to Family Equality Council, there are more than 36,000 binational same-sex couples living in the United States today. Nearly half of them are raising children.

"Immigration is fundamentally a family issue," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, in a statement. "These children need to know that their family won't be torn apart simply because the government won't recognize their parents’ relationship. We can and will do better for these families."

Obama's plan received widespread praise among advocates, but stands in contrast to a plan unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators Monday that does not include provisions for binational same-sex couples. The group of senators have said their plan is not finalized, but many believe inclusion of same-sex couples could prove to be one of the most polarizing aspects of immigration reform.

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), both of whom are part of the eight-member working group on immigration reform, have expressed resistance to including same-sex couples in immigration reform.

"Well, it's something that frankly is not of paramount importance at this time," McCain said Tuesday on CBS’s This Morning. "We'll have to look at it, we'll have to gauge how the majority of Congress feels, but that to me is a red flag that frankly we will address in time."

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Graham was more direct in his opposition.

"Why don't we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out," Graham said, according to The Huffington Post.

[Photo: Official portrait of President Barack Obama (Courtesy of the White House).]

LGBT allies in the Maryland General Assembly introduced a bill Tuesday that would extend nondiscrimination protections to transgender individuals in the Free State, prohibiting the denial of employment, housing or credit based solely on a person’s gender identity or expression.

The "Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2013," sponsored by Sens. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery Co.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery Co.), already has 21 additional cosponsors, according to an email from LGBT rights group Equality Maryland, putting it one vote shy of passage. Twenty-two of the chamber's 35 Democrats - most from Baltimore City and Montgomery and Prince George's counties - and one Republican, Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Carroll, Howard counties) are among those supporting the legislation, according to a list from John Olderman, Madaleno's chief of staff. 

Similar measures have been introduced in previous legislative cycles, but have stalled in the Senate due in large part to the opposition of Senate President V. Thomas "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George’s counties). One such nondiscrimination bill passed the House of Delegates by an 86-52 margin in 2011, but the Senate voted to recommit the bill to committee, effectively killing it. 

But advocates of the bill told Metro Weekly earlier this month that they are optimistic about the bill’s chance of passing, particularly now that Maryland voters upheld a law legalizing marriage equality and Miller seems amenable to bringing up the measure if supporters can prove to him they have the votes in the upper chamber.

Furthermore, since the bill's defeat in 2011, Howard County and Baltimore County have joined Montgomery County and Baltimore City in adopting measures that prohibit discrimination in housing, employment and credit based on gender identity or expression, meaning that nearly half the state lives in a jurisdiction where transgender individuals enjoy nondiscrimination protections. Now, advocates say, it's up to the state to catch up with the surge of support at the local level.

With support on the rise, there is also evidence that opposition is waning. Attempts to repeal transgender nondiscrimination laws in Montgomery County and Baltimore County have failed in recent years after opponents could not collect enough signatures to force the issue on the ballot.

This new bill will first receive a hearing in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee sometime in the next month, after which the committee is expected to approve it and send it to the floor for a vote, if Miller consents. Advocates are confident they have the requisite number of votes needed to pass it in the upper chamber. It would then go to the House, where it is expected to pass easily.

[Photo 1: Sen. Rich Madaleno, cosponsor of the gender-identity bill (courtesy of the Maryland General Assembly). Photo 2: Sen. Jamie Raskin (courtesy of the Maryland General Assembly).]

[UPDATE: This entry was updated to include the list of cosponsors.]

White House press secretary Jay Carney appeared to confirm reports that President Barack Obama will include rights for binational same-sex couples in his plan for immigration reform.

Speaking to reporters traveling with the president on Air Force One today, Carney said inclusion of such provisions in Obama's plan should come as no surprise and "it would be entirely inconsistent not to have that position," according to a White House transcript.

Obama is scheduled to unveil his plan for immigration reform during a speech in Las Vegas later today. Yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the outline for their plan on immigration reform, but did not include provisions that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their partners for citizenship as straight Americans can.

Hours before President Barack Obama is set the unveil his immigration plan during a speech in Las Vegas, Sen. John McCain said that comprehensive immigration reform that includes rights for binational same-sex couples is “not of paramount importance.”

Appearing Tuesday on CBS's This Morning, the Arizona Republican responded to a BuzzFeed report that Obama will include rights for same-sex couples in his plan for immigration reform, stating, "Well, it's something that frankly is not of paramount importance at this time." 

"We'll have to look at it, we'll have to gauge how the majority of Congress feels, but that to me is a red flag that frankly we will address in time," McCain said, adding that there are still a number of "very difficult issues" that need to be resolved.

McCain is one of the eight senators who revealed the outline for the Senate's plan for immigration reform at a press conference yesterday. The bipartisan working group on immigration reform, dubbed the "gang of eight," did not include provisions in their plan that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their partners for citizenship as straight Americans can. 

Under the Defense of Marriage Act, immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same-sex are denied various protections, including eligibility for green cards, because the federal government does not recognize such relationships.

According to Family Equality Council, there are more than 36,000 binational same-sex couples living in the United States today. Nearly half of them are raising children.

Although the Senate's plan for immigration reform is not finalized, inclusion of rights for binational same-sex couples might prove to be one of the most controversial aspects of immigration reform.

In a statement released yesterday, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality Action Fund, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund and National Center for Transgender Equality said immigration reform "must include the ability of couples in same-sex relationships to sponsor their spouse or permanent-partner in the same way opposite-sex couples have long been able to under current immigration law."

Watch McCain's comments here:

A Virginia Senate committee unanimously approved a bill that would allow unmarried couples to cohabitate without fear of prosecution by the Commonwealth.

All fifteen members of the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice voted to send the bill, SB969, to the floor, where it is expected to receive a vote by the full body later this week, according to Sam Bosch, legislative assistant to Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax counties), the chief co-patron in the Senate.

SB969 would amend the Code of Virginia to strike out a clause within the law, dating back to the 19th century, which says that "any persons, not married to each other" who "lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together" shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, a crime punishable by a fine of up to $500.

Under the law as currently written, cohabitation by unmarried couples carries the same penalty as a person who engages in "open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior." A second conviction for either charge is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 12 months in jail or a fine of up to $2,500, or both. 

The law has generally been left unenforced for decades, but was used to threaten a Norfolk daycare worker who was living with her boyfriend of 16 years with the loss of her license, according to The Washington Post.

The amended law would legalize cohabitation by unmarried couples, which would include gay or lesbian couples due to Virginia's refusal to recognize any form of same-sex relationships. It would keep in place punishments against "open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior," such as public sex or nudity, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The bill is expected to be voted on by Thursday or Friday, depending when it is placed on the Senate calendar, after which it must be read three times and can be subsequently amended by senators before being passed by the full chamber. If passed by the senate, it would then move to the House of Delegates, where the measure is being shepherded by Del. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax Co.), and would then be sent to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) for his signature.

McDonnell has not yet taken a position on the bill, but came under fire during his 2009 gubernatorial race after a graduate school thesis he wrote while a student at Regent University came to light. In the paper, McDonnell had written that Republicans should shield heterosexual two-parent families from the effects of abortion, feminism, welfare and "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators."

[Photo: Sen. Adam Ebbin]

Two senators joined the call for outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to immediately extend benefits to same-sex military families.

In a letter sent today, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged Panetta to change Defense Department rules before retiring.

"As Secretary, you have the power to extend certain important supports programs for military families to all of our service members," the senators write, adding that the "lack of equal benefits undermines those service members whose families are denied the programs offered for military families."

With the Senate confirmation hearings for Panetta's likely successor, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, scheduled to begin Thursday, pressure continues to mount for Panetta to take action before leaving office. Although some benefits are contingent on the successful repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, many, including equal access to housing benefits, military ID cards, legal services and other spousal privileges, could be granted by Panetta independently making various regulatory changes.

OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson reitereated her calls for Panetta to act.

"After nearly two years of delay and equivocation that has hurt our service members and their families, it’s time for Secretary Panetta to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of the gay and lesbian military families –who may now serve openly, but are still anything but equal – by immediately extending all benefits within his authority under existing law," Robinson said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly.

The letter comes after the White House said Friday that President Barack Obama is aware of the issues still facing gay servicemembers, but would not say if he would pressure the Pentagon to act more than a year after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The Pentagon has said for more than a year that they are reviewing the possibility of extending benefits to same-sex military families, but provided no new updates on the situation today. According to Defense Department spokesperson Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, "Secretary Panetta responds to all members of Congress and will respond to the senators directly."

[Photos: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (left) and Jeanne Shaheen (Courtesy of the U.S. Senate).]

Read the full letter here:

Gillibrand/Shaheen letter to Panetta

Leaders of the Boy Scouts of America are discussing the possibility of lifting the organization's longstanding ban on gay members and leaders, NBC News reported today.

Only seven months after the BSA reaffirmed its ban on out gay members and leaders, the organization's board of directors is considering lifting the national ban in order to allow local sponsoring organizations to decide whether to permit gay members.

"Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization's mission, principles, or religious beliefs," BSA spokesman Deron Smith said in a statement. "BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families." 

According to Smith, the new policy, if adopted, would not "require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization's mission, principles, or religious beliefs." As such, local charters could still choose to ban gay members.

In July, the 102-year-old organization upheld its longstanding exclusionary policy after the recommendation of an 11-member committee that studied the issue for two years. At the time, Smith said the BSA's decision to uphold the ban was based largely on support from parents and is "absolutely the best policy for the organization."

Although a victory is not yet definite, Monday's news that the BSA would reconsider the ban was welcomed by advocates who have been pressuring the organization since July.

"This would be an incredible step forward in the right direction," said Zach Wahls, founder of Scouts for Equality, in a statement. An Eagle Scout and son of lesbian mothers, Wahls delivered almost 300,000 signatures to the BSA's annual convention last year urging an end to the ban.

"We look forward to working with BSA Councils and chartering organizations across the country to end the exclusion of our gay brothers in Scouting, as well as the gay and lesbian leaders who serve the organizations so well," Wahls said.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and Change.org have been at the forefront of the fight against the BSA's gay ban, with more than 1 million people signing onto Change.org petitions that have called for an end to the BSA’s discriminatory policy. A number of corporate supports have ceased donations to the BSA, including UPS and Intel because of the organization's gay ban. 

According to NBC News, the Human Rights Campaign planned to downgrade its nondiscrimination ratings for corporations that continued to make financial donations to the BSA.

"The pulse of equality is strong in America, and today it beats a bit faster with news that the Boy Scouts may finally put an end to its long history of discrimination," said HRC President Chad Griffin in a statement. "Our nation and its leaders respect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens, and it's time the Boy Scouts echo those values."

Pressure on the BSA has come from politicians as well, with both President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticizing the BSA's decision in August to uphold the gay ban.

"The President believes the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century. He also opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such opposes this policy that discriminates on basis of sexual orientation," White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Metro Weekly last August.

The White House has not yet commented on today's news. At Monday's press briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he was not aware of breaking reports that the BSA would consider ending its ban on gay members and leaders.

Under the threat of losing its charter, a local Maryland Cub Scout pack has ended its LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination policy. The group's National Capital Area Council of the Boys Scouts of America (BSA) charter is set to expire Jan. 31, according to a statement posted on the pack's website.

The statement from Pack 442 of Cloverly, Md., reads: "Due to pressure from the National Capital Area Council of BSA, Pack 442 was forced to remove its Non-Discrimination statement in order to keep our charter. This Non-Discrimination statement, previously posted here, welcomed ALL families. ... Pack 442 will continue to provide a wonderful and enriching program for scouts and families in the community."

Under BSA policy, gay people are prohibited from being scouts or serving as leaders, putting Pack 442's policy at odds with the parent organization.

Meanwhile, NBC News reported today that the BSA ban on gay members and leaders may be comging to an end with the national board considering repealing it. The ban, long a source of controversy, made headlines after San Francisco-area Scout Ryan Andresen was denied Eagle rank because he is gay, and Jennifer Tyrell, an Ohio den mother of her son’s Tiger Cub pack, was dismissed because she is a lesbian.

According to NBC News, BSA's board of directors is considering a policy that would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations to decide their own policies, as Pack 442 did when its member families "overwhelmingly approved" the nondiscrimination policy in August 2012. 

NBC News reports that the change, if approved, could be announced as early as next week. The national organization previously decided to uphold the ban in July, with the executive board calling it "the best policy" for the organization. But Scout officials say that grassroots actions by local chapters, like Pack 442, are part of the reason the organization is re-evaluating the existing ban. 

For now, Pack 442 has – at least temporarily – rescinded its nondiscrimination policy in order to re-charter. The pack posted a poll on its website last week that asked members whether to keep the policy and risk losing their charter, or to return to a "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" sort of policy that would welcome all families so long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation. 

[Photo: Ryan Andresen, the California teen denied Eagle Scout rank because he is gay (courtesy of Change.org)]

President Barack Obama called on 3,000 LGBT rights activists gathered in Atlanta Jan. 25 to continue working toward full equality in a video message delivered to the 25th annual National Conference on LGBT Equality, Creating Change. 

"Change has always come from ordinary Americans who sit in or stand up or march to demand it," Obama told the conference, which is organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"The work will be hard, the road will be long," Obama added, "but I’m more confident than ever that we will reach a better future as long as Americans like you keep reaching for justice — and all of us keep marching together."

Watch Obama's video address here:

With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act on March 27, House Republicans have spent $3 million on outside legal counsel since their February 2011 decision to defend DOMA in court. In a graphic released last week, the Center for American Progress details nine alternative ways that $3 million could have been spent.

The White House today said President Barack Obama is aware that same-sex military families are still denied a number of benefits in the wake of the repeal of the ban on out servicemembers, but would not say if Obama would call on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to act.

White House press secretary Jay Carney dodged a number of questions from Metro Weekly and the Washington Blade at Friday's press briefing, simply reiterating that the president is focused on the issues that continue to face gay servicemembers more than a year after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Asked if Obama was aware that same-sex military couples are still denied benefits, Carney said yes, but would not say if Obama would direct the Pentagon to take action.

CARNEY: I can tell you broadly — I don't have specifics for you — the president is absolutely focused on and aware of the need to further implement DADT and to ensure that proper benefits are provided. For more details I would point you to the Defense Department, but this is an issue the president is aware of and has his attention. 

BLADE: The Pentagon has been saying since September 2011 they have been reviewing this issue, but no action has been taken. Isn't there reason to conclude that they need a little prodding?

CARNEY: Again, this issue has the president's attention.

***

METRO WEEKLY: Jay, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed more than a year ago but many of these benefits that are still denied to same-sex military couples, they could be extended with Secretary Panetta's signature. Is the president satisfied with the pace at which the Pentagon is moving?

CARNEY: I can only give you the answer I gave before, which is this is an issue that has the president's attention and I just don’t have anymore for you on that.

MW: Yesterday, in a statement following the lifting of the ban on women in combat positions, he said, "I am absolutely confident that — as with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' — the professionalism of our armed forces will ensure a smooth transition and keep our military the very best in the world."

This doesn't seem smooth when you have the Marines banning discrimination by spouses groups and the Army permitting it. You have some branches of the military permitting discrimination and others not. How is that a smooth transition?

CARNEY: Well, I would simply say what I've said, which, the president is aware of this issue, it has his attention. But I haven't got anything more on it, any announcements to make about it. But he is aware of it. 

Advocates continue to pressure outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to immediately grant full benefits to same-sex military couples. Although some benefits are contingent on the successful repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, many, including equal access to housing benefits, military ID cards, legal services and other spousal privileges, could be granted by Panetta independently making various regulatory changes.

Yesterday, Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Defense Department spokesperson, said, "[T]he Department is conducting a deliberative and comprehensive review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to same-sex domestic partners." After Carney's briefing, Hull-Ryde said she had nothing to add to her previous statement.

Stonewalling from the White House comes the same day NBC News reported Ashley Broadway, who was denied membership to a Fort Bragg spouses club because she is married to a lesbian Army officer, was named Fort Bragg’s 2013 "spouse of the year" after a national online vote among all military branches. 

Broadway was denied membership to a spouses club because she is ineligible to receive a military ID card under Pentagon regulations that refuse to recognize her marriage to another woman, Lt. Col. Heather Mack. The Pentagon recently backed the decision by Army leaders at Fort Bragg to not intervene in the case because a directive revised in 2008 before the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" prohibits private groups operating on military bases from discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, age, disability or national origin, but has yet to be updated to include sexual orientation.

Watch Metro Weekly's exchange with Carney here:

SB701, a bill to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in state employment, passed the Virginia Senate Friday morning by a 24-16 vote. The measure will now head to the House of Delegates.

Four Republicans sided with the upper chamber's 20 Democrats to ensure passage. Voting in the affirmative were Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment (R-James City, Hampton, Suffolk, Surry, Isle of Wight, Poquoson, New Kent, Gloucester, King William, King and Queen counties), Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach, Norfolk), Sen. John Watkins (R-Richmond, Chesterfield, Powhatan counties) and Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester, Frederick, Clarke, Fauquier, Loudoun and Stafford counties). Vogel paved the way for the measure's passage after she sided with Democrats to pass the bill out of the General Laws and Technology Committee on a narrow 8-7 vote.

The measure now faces a more difficult climb in the House of Delegates, where Republicans have a supermajority, controlling the chamber 68-32. Most House Democrats and three House Republicans have signed on as co-patrons so far. Supporters of SB701 are hopeful that grassroots campaigning and pressure from constituents will force some Republicans to vote for the bill. The measure needs 51 votes to pass the lower chamber.

"We're going to press forward with this momentum," said Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax counties), one of the bill's chief co-patrons. "No state employee should ever doubt Virginia’s commitment to equal opportunity employment for all. This assures state employees that they will be judged solely on their merits and that discrimination has no place in Virginia." 

"SB701 is all about fairness and all Virginians deserve equal opportunity, justice and fairness," Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Charles City and Henrico counties, Richmond), the other chief co-patron, said in a statement. "The people must continue to lead the legislature and remind the House that Virginia is an open state and welcoming to all folks as we move this bill ahead."

The bill would bring state government employers in line with policies already adopted and expanded upon by the private sector. According to LGBT rights group Equality Virginia, 80 percent of Virginia's top 25 employers have policies protecting at least sexual orientation, and 60 percent of those companies protect gender identity and expression. 

Several major employers in Virginia not only have nondiscrimination policies on the books, but offer domestic partner benefits. Those include consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., mortgage lender Freddie Mac, defense firms Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. and Capital One Financial Corp., according to the Human Rights Campaign's 2013 Corporate Equality Index.

"In Virginia, LGBT protections will not pass without bipartisan support," Equality Virginia Director James Parrish said in a statement following SB701's passage. "We are pleased four Republican senators joined their Democratic colleagues in passing SB701 to protect LGBT state employees. In the private sector, workplace protections are shown to decrease legal vulnerability while enhancing the employer's reputation, increasing job satisfaction and boosting employee morale and productivity."

As part of its push to pass SB701, Equality Virginia will be hosting a "Day of Action" in Richmond on Tuesday, Jan. 29, where they expect concerned citizens and LGBT allies will lobby reticent lawmakers to support the bill. Equality Virginia has said it has private polling showing nearly 90 percent of Virginians support employment protections for LGBT residents.

"Making sure elected officials hear LGBT issues are important to all Virginians is the most important thing any citizen can do to open hearts and minds across the state," Parrish continued. "We’re very fortunate the senators that voted in support today are listening to their constituents."

[Photo: Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (courtesy of the Virginia General Assembly)]

The Rhode Island House of Representatives voted 51-19 Thursday to approve a bill legalizing marriage equality in the Ocean State, setting the measure up to be heard by the state senate.

The bill, H5015, introduced by Rep. Art Handy (D-Cranston) would amend the law to allow two people – so long as they are not related, already married to another person, and are of legal age – to marry, regardless of the gender of each spouse.

The bill also contains provisions that convert existing same-sex civil unions, currently legal under Rhode Island law, into marriages and strikes language regarding civil unions, including the discriminatory Corvese Amendment, a broadly written clause allowing religious-based institutions, businesses, and individuals even tangentially connected to either to refuse to recognize civil unions, which marriage equality supporters say is in direct conflict with the state's 1995 nondiscrimination law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations.

However, the bill does contain lengthy and explicit provisions that protect the religious liberty of clergy and religious institutions in language more carefully crafted and specific than the Corvese Amendment that provides legal protections for religious institutions but doesn’t conflict with or undermine existing state law.

The bill reads: "Consistent with the guarantees of freedom of religion set forth by both the First Amendment to the United States constitution and article I, section 3 of the Rhode Island constitution, each religious institution has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy and teachings regarding who may marry within their faith, and on what terms."

The bill further states that no court or state or local governmental body or agency shall interfere with a religious institution’s determination of who may marry. It also says that no "regularly licensed clergyperson, minister, elder, priest, imam, rabbi or similar official" is required to perform same-sex marriages, that such officials are "immune from any civil claim or cause of action based on refusal to solemnize any marriage," and that no state agency or local government may "base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any church or religious institution on the refusal of a person associated with such a church to solemnize a marriage."

The vote was largely along party lines, with 50 Democrats and House Minority Leader Brian Newberry (R-North Smithfield) voting in favor of the measure, while 14 other Democrats - including William San Bento (D-Pawtucket), who had originally signed on as a cosponsor of the measure - and the chamber’s remaining five Republicans voted against it.

Five other Democrats were absent, but Rep. Donna Walsh (D-Charlestown) was a cosponsor of the bill. Two other representatives were thought to be opponents and the remaining two were thought to be swing votes. 

Just as the Rhode Island House of Representatives takes up a vote on a bill to legalize marriage equality, a Rhode Island state senator has introduced a bill that would place a referendum on the 2014 ballot asking voters to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage by defining marriage as "the lawful union between one man and one woman."

The bill, S0096, introduced Wednesday by Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence, North Providence), would keep in place Rhode Island’s civil unions law for same-sex couples, but would amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages from being recognized. Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an Independent, issued an executive order in 2012 that said the state would recognize legal same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  

Ciccone’s bill will likely be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will also hear the marriage-equality bill put forth by Sen. Donna Nesselbush (D-Pawtucket), a lesbian and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

The Providence Journal reports that Judiciary Chairman Sen. Michael McCaffrey (D-Warwick), is a cosponsor of Ciccone’s bill, but said a hearing for either bill would be held "sometime in the spring," telling the Journal, "Obviously, there are more important things than gay marriage to worry about in the state of Rhode Island right now."

Even were it to pass the Judiciary Committee, and then the full Senate, Ciccone’s bill would likely encounter fierce opposition in the House of Representatives, which is led by Speaker Gordon Fox (D-Providence), who is gay. In addition, Chafee has vowed to veto any legislation that would subject marriage equality to a referendum. 

[Photo: Sen. Frank Ciccone (courtesy of the R.I. General Assembly website).]

The same day the Defense Department lifted the ban on women in combat, advocates are calling on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to immediately grant full benefits to same-sex military couples.

In a letter sent to Panetta today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) called on the outgoing defense secretary to take administrative action in order to grant the spouses of gay servicemembers a number of benefits still denied to them after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." 

"Well over a hundred of these statutory benefits are contingent on marital status. These benefits will remain unavailable to legally married same-sex couples unless the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court this year or individual statutes are modified by Congress," Schiff wrote. "In the meantime, there are several executive actions that you can take to ease the burden and increase the inclusiveness of all of our service members and their families."

According to the congressman's office, Schiff plans to circulate the letter among his colleagues. Among other things, the letter calls for Panetta to grant same-sex spouses military identification cards; access to Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs; and allow access to family programs, including deployment support, marriage and family counseling, relocation assistance and financial management.

"Department of Defense current policy is treating same sex service members, their spouses and families as second class citizens," Schiff wrote.

The renewed call for Panetta to act comes two days after President Barack Obama called for full equality for "our gay brothers and sisters" in his second inaugural address and one day after it was first reported Panetta would lift the longstanding ban on women in combat. 

Advocates, meanwhile, remain puzzled by Panetta's inaction. Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, praised Panetta for acknowledging gender has as much to do with being fit for combat as sexual orientation, but urged him to fulfill his commitment to gay servicemembers.

"This doesn't need to be complicated," Robinson told Metro Weekly, stating that the decision to lift to ban on women in combat seems significantly more complicated than the actions Panetta could take to extend benefits to same-sex military couples. "All of the studies have been done. The secretary knows exactly what he needs to do to grant the full sweep of those benefits and it could be done immediately. It continues to baffle me that he chooses to delay on these things."

After repeated calls for Panetta to act during the past 18 months, LGBT-rights advocates are now seeking to turn Obama’s call for full equality on Inauguration Day into action. 

The Human Rights Campaign announced yesterday that they are mobilizing their network of supporters to call on Panetta to issue military IDs to the spouses of gay servicemembers in an action launched yesterday. Although HRC believes the military needs to update all of their nondiscrimination policies, they are calling on Panetta to act on military IDs after the wife of a lesbian Army officer at Fort Bragg in North Carolina was denied membership to a private spouses club operating on the base because she was not eligible for a military ID.

The Pentagon recently backed the decision of Army leaders at Fort Bragg to not intervene in the case, citing a 2008 department Instruction that does not prohibit non-federal entities operating on military installations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Today, HRC also renewed its call for Panetta to take regulatory steps on his own to ensure equal treatment for gay servicemembers.

"Secretary Panetta can easily take regulatory steps on his own to ensure equality for the brave gay and lesbian service members and their families who already sacrifice so much for this nation," said HRC Vice President for Communications Fred Sainz in a statement. "We urge the Secretary to act immediately, and ensure all members of the armed services have equal access to housing benefits, military ID cards, legal services and spousal privileges. These regulatory changes can be made independently of existing federal law, like the Defense of Marriage Act."

Due to the lack of a universal policy, discrimination remains acceptable in certain branches of the military but not others. Earlier this month the Marine Corps ordered spouses' groups operating on Marine installations to grant access to the spouses of same-sex servicemembers or face eviction.

It remains to be seen if Panetta will act before leaving office. Former Sen. Chuck Hagel's Senate confirmation hearings for defense secretary are scheduled to begin Jan. 31. Hagel has promised to "do everything possible to the extent permissible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members."

According to Robinson, she has received no indication that there is a willingness to act on this issue "beyond the fact that Secretary Panetta seems concerned with cementing his legacy."

"There is obviously a need for leadership," Robinson told Metro Weekly. "If you follow the story on the end of combat exclusion that initiation came from the chiefs. They have the courage to act on combat exclusions; they, thus far, have lacked the courage to act on these benefits for same-sex military families."

Indeed, earlier today White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters the order to end the ban on women in combat was one Obama agrees with, but did not come directly from the president.

"This is something that he and the secretary have discussed in their regular meetings over time," Carney said of Obama and Panetta. "But obviously, this is a decision that is generated by the Joint Chiefs and the secretary, which is appropriate -- not a directed decision. But it's certainly one that the president believes is appropriate, and I think that’s a position he’s held for some time."

After Panetta and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, lifted the ban on women in combat Thursday afternoon, Obama said in a statement he is "absolutely confident that — as with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' — the professionalism of our armed forces will ensure a smooth transition and keep our military the very best in the world."

The White House has not indicated if Obama will directly order Panetta to act on granting benefits to same-sex military couples, instead directing requests for comment to the Defense Department. According to Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Defense Department spokesperson, "the Department is conducting a deliberative and comprehensive review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to same-sex domestic partners."

Nevertheless, Robinson says Obama's views could not be clearer.

"I think the president made the 'commander's intent' crystal clear in his inaugural address," Robinson said. "It is the duty of the secretary and the chiefs to take the president's clear intent and finish the work we've begun with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' by granting to the full extend under the law equal treatment to same-sex military families."

[Photo: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, lift the ban on women in combat (Courtesy of Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo/Defense Department).]

[Editor's note: This post has been updated to include a statement from a Defense Department spokesperson.]

The Virginia Senate moved forward Thursday with the second reading and introduction of amendments for SB701, a bill that would prohibit discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, setting it up for a vote on Friday, Jan. 25.

SB701 passed on an 8-7 vote out of the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology Monday evening, when Republican Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester, Frederick, Clarke, Fauquier, Loudoun and Stafford counties) joined the seven Democrats on the committee in agreeing to send the bill to the full Senate chamber.

In accordance with Virginia law, the bill was read once on Wednesday and for a second time Thursday. Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond, Henrico, Charles City counties), one of the bill’s co-patrons along with out gay Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax counties), the General Assembly's only out legislator, offered an amendment making small, technical changes to the bill but did not change its substance. McEachin’s amendment was agreed to by all 40 senators, setting the bill up for its third and final reading Friday, after which the Senate will vote on the measure. 

The chances for the bill’s passage will depend on keeping the Democratic caucus united in an evenly divided Senate. If Vogel and the Senate’s 20 Democrats hold firm, the bill will pass the upper chamber before being sent to the House of Delegates, which Republicans control by a 68-32 margin. 

[Photo: Sen. A. Donald McEachin, one of the co-patrons of SB701 (courtesy of the Virginia General Assembly).]

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund is putting its weight and coveted endorsement behind New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn for mayor of New York City, the group announced today. 

A frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination for mayor, Quinn's election would make New York the largest municipality to ever be led by an out mayor.

"Her election would send a clear message that there are no barriers, no glass ceilings in New York City for LGBT leaders who want to serve their city as public officials," said Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, in a statement.

"Christine Quinn's record leading New York, in some of the city's most challenging times, speaks for itself. She has been a tireless advocate for all of the people of New York, passing seven on-time city budgets, expanding access to pre-kindergarten slots for tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and keeping thousands of teachers from being laid off," Wolfe added. "But she is also a hero to members of the LGBT community across New York and around the country, who see her honest and open service as a symbol of what's possible for all of us." 

The first female and first out speaker of the New York City Council, Quinn has also been endorsed by EMILY's List and Empire State Pride Agenda. 

Quinn was one of six mayoral candidates endorsed by Victory Fund today. The organization also endorsed Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt in Chapel Hill, N.C.; Daniel Miller in Harrisburg, Pa.; Ed Murray in Seattle; Mayor Annise Parker in Houston; and Gary Schiff in Minneapolis.

Victory Fund had what was their most successful Election Day ever in 2012. Having endorsed 180 candidates across the country, 124 won their races, including Tammy Baldwin, who became the Senate's first out member, and six members of the House of Representatives

According to Victory Fund's vice president of communications, Denis Dison, this year has the potential to be a big year on the mayoral level.

"Already we've endorsed six mayoral candidates, four of whom will compete in Top 50 U.S. cities, and we're not done yet," Dison told Metro Weekly. "This is shaping up to be the year of the gay mayor." 

Today, Victory Fund also announced 15 endorsements in state and local races across the country. As the country's largest LGBT political action committee, the nonpartisan Victory Fund funnels millions of dollars, as well as strategic and technical support, into races across the country, having helped elect thousands of qualified, out LGBT candidates over the years.

[Photo: Christine Quinn (Courtesy of William Alatriste/New York City Council).]

House Republicans urged the Supreme Court to uphold the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage, in a brief filed with the high court Tuesday.

The 60-page brief filed by the Republican-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) slammed the Obama administration's February 2011 decision to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA in court and argued that gays have not faced the same level of discrimination as other minorities.

"[T]he decision of the President and Attorney General to stop defending and start attacking DOMA itself demonstrates the remarkable political clout of the same-sex marriage movement," the brief reads.

Noting that the Justice Department defended DOMA for the first two years of Obama's presidency, the brief stated that "the Administration abruptly reversed course and abdicated its duty to defend DOMA's constitutionality" in February 2011.

Echoing a similar argument made by proponents of California's Proposition 8 in a brief filed yesterday, BLAG states that there is a "unique relationship between marriage and procreation" and there is "nothing irrational" about refusing to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples who can not procreate.

"[G]ays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history," the brief continues, arguing that sexual-orientation laws do not require higher scrutiny as do other laws that fall under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

"Gays and lesbians not only have the attention of lawmakers, they are winning many legislative battles," the brief continues.

With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments in U.S. v. Windsor March 27, House Republicans have spent $3 million on outside legal counsel since their February 2011 decision to defend DOMA in court.

[Photo: House Speaker John Boehner (Courtesy of Bryant Avondoglio/John Boehner's office).]

BLAG Windsor Brief by

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin is publicly urging President Barack Obama to weigh in on the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court.

Following comments made today by White House press secretary Jay Carney in which Carney reiterated that the administration is not a party to the case regarding California's ban on same-sex marriage, Griffin issued the following statement: 

In his inaugural address yesterday, President Barack Obama called for the equal protection of our nation’s laws for gays and lesbians families. Now, as the United States Supreme Court prepares to hear a landmark marriage equality case on this same question, it seems only logical for the White House to take yet another important step toward fulfilling that promise of equality by filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

In the contemporary challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring federal recognition of lawful same-sex marriages, the Justice Department has made clear its belief that that odious law defies our Constitution’s promise of equality. As the Justices deliberate in a building that bears the chiseled words ‘equal justice under law,’ we hope the White House will ensure that its thinking in the Perry case—and the voice of a decisive majority of Americans—is heard loud and clear.

Although Obama's inaugural remarks indicated he might weigh in on whether he believes the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry, Carney said today that the president's position remains the same: "The president believes that it's an issue that should be addressed by the states."

Griffin has played a key role in the fight against Proposition 8, having founded the American Foundation for Equal Rights in 2009 to challenge California's ban on same-sex marriage.

[Photo: Chad Griffin (Courtesy of HRC).]

Supporters of California's ban on same-sex marriage filed their opening brief with the Supreme Court justices today, marking the start of what will be one of the most high-profile Supreme Court cases in recent history.

In the 65-page brief, proponents of Proposition 8 argue that the high court should "allow the public debate regarding marriage to continue through the democratic process."

"[T]here is no warrant in precedent or precept for invalidating marriage as it has existed in California for virtually all of its history, as it was universally understood throughout this Nation (and the world) until just the last decade," the brief reads in part.

Additionally, proponents of the 2008 constitutional amendment, which banned same-sex marriage in California after already granting that right to same-sex couples, argue that the case is unlike a 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws and the 1967 ruling against restrictions on interracial marriage.

The defendants in Hollingsworth v. Perry go on to argue that marriage is "inextricably linked to the objective biological fact that opposite-sex couples, and only such couples, are capable of creating new life together and, therefore, are capable of furthering, or threatening, society’s existential interests in responsible procreation and childrearing."

Opponents of Proposition 8 are expected to issue their brief before arguments in the case begin on March 26. The brief comes the same day the White House reiterated that they do not have a position on the case.

READ the full brief here (courtesy of SCOTUSblog):

Proposition 8 Brief of Petitioners

A House committee in Rhode Island unanimously approved a bill to legalize marriage equality Tuesday afternoon, sending the measure to the floor and setting it up for a vote by the full chamber later this week.

Eleven of the 13 members on the Judiciary Committee who were present voted to move the bill out of committee, including two legislators – John DeSimone (D-Providence) and Doreen Costa (R-North Kingstown), a tea party darling and the panel’s sole Republican – who many political observers believe are opposed to the measure.

An absent legislator, Donna Walsh (D-Charlestown), is a cosponsor of the bill. Another representative, Charlene Lima (D-Cranston, Providence) arrived after the vote and indicated she supported it. 

The bill, HB5015, sponsored by Rep. Art Handy (D-Cranston), allows two consenting individuals who meet particular criteria to marry, regardless of gender. The bill also has provisions that would convert existing same-sex civil unions into civil marriages, and would repeal the discriminatory "Corvese Amendment," a broadly written clause approved in 2011 to ensure passage of Rhode Island's civil unions bill, which allows religious-based institutions, businesses and individuals even tangentially connected to such institutions to refuse to recognize the validity of civil unions. For instance, under the Corvese Amendment, a Catholic hospital could deny same-sex partners visitation rights, or universities with a religious affiliation could deny family or medical leave if a person's partner becomes ill.

Supporters of marriage equality praised the committee's vote, which marked the first time a marriage-equality bill has been approved by a committee of the Rhode Island General Assembly. A bill to legalize same-sex marriage was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee in 2001, but was defeated, with openly gay U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), at the time a state representative from Providence, casting the sole vote in favor of it.

"After hearing testimony from everyday Rhode Islanders – gay and straight, friends, family and community leaders – the committee resoundingly endorsed extending the unique protections and recognition of marriage to all loving, committed couples," Ray Sullivan, campaign director for Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, said in a statement. "This historic, affirmative vote moves us one step closer to finally making the Ocean State a place where all families are valued, respected and treated equally.

"We are grateful to Speaker Fox, his leadership team, Rep. Handy and all our sponsors for their commitment to acting swiftly on this important legislation and we look forward to having this bill debated by the full House," Sullivan continued. "Momentum is clearly with us, but we’re not taking anything for granted and will double our efforts in the coming days to grow the broad and bipartisan coalition of supportive legislators in both chambers."

The marriage-equality bill has been placed on the House schedule for Thursday, Jan. 24, when legislators will debate and vote whether to approve it. Democrats, led by Speaker Gordon Fox (D-Providence), an out gay man, control the lower chamber 69-6, but the bulk of opposition is expected to come from within the Democratic caucus.

While the bill has 42 co-sponsors, four more than are needed to pass the 75-member House, opponents are expected to offer amendments to defeat or weaken the bill, particularly amendments that invoke or make appeals to religion as a means of fracturing the pro-equality coalition in the heavily Catholic state. Opponents may also seek to force a statewide referendum on the law. Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an Independent, has promised to veto any bill that would put marriage equality to a popular vote.

If the bill passes the House, it will face a much steeper climb in the Senate, where Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed (D-Newport) is opposed. Although Paiva-Weed has agreed to allow a committee vote in the upper chamber, the measure could still potentially die the Judiciary Committee, where only four of 10 committee members are on record as supporting marriage equality. 

UPDATE: The Providence Journal reports that Gov. Chafee issued a statement praising the committee's actions, declaring it a "significant step forward toward marriage equality."

"As I noted in my State of the State address last week, there are a number of reasons why we should bring marriage equality to Rhode Island this year," Chafee said in a statement. "It's a civil rights issue, it is an issue of basic fairness, and it is an economic development issue. We are at an economic disadvantage with our neighboring states when we do not 'have the welcome mat out' for all those who want to work here and contribute to our economy."

Rhode Island is the only state in New England that does not recognize same-sex marriage. 

[Photo: Rep. Art Handy, chief sponsor of the marriage equality bill (courtesy of R.I. General Assembly website).]

[Correction: The original article stated, correctly, that Charlene Lima was absent from the committee vote. There was subsequently some confusion as to whether her late arrival and expressed support for the bill would be counted by the House committee clerk as a vote in favor of the measure, which would bring the number of legislators to 12. The official tally remains at 11-0, with Lima recorded as "absent."] 

One day after President Barack Obama made a historic call for full equality for gay Americans during his second inaugural address, the White House is giving no indication that the president will address the question of whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.

During a press briefing Tuesday morning, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the president continues to believe same-sex marriage is not a federal issue and should be decided at the state level.

Asked by NBC's Kristen Welker if Obama's call for equal treatment for "our gay brothers and sisters" suggests Obama now believes same-sex marriage is an issue that should be addressed at the federal level, Carney appeared to skip around the issue before reaffirming the president's position.

"The president's position on this has been clear in terms of his personal views," Carney said. "He believes that individuals who love each other should not be barred from marriage."

"We have taken positions on various efforts to restrict the rights of Americans, which he generally thinks is a bad idea," Carney said, noting the Obama administration’s involvement in several cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act since the Justice Department stopped defending the 1996 federal law in February 2011. "But the overall principal that we should not discriminate or treat differently LGBT Americans is one he believes in deeply."

Carney said that the administration's opposition to DOMA shows that they do not believe the issue of same-sex marriage should be addressed through federal litigation.

Asked later to clarify the president's position, Carney reiterated: "The president believes that it's an issue that should be addressed by the states." 

Carney's statements come as LGBT-rights advocates questioned whether Obama's historic call for gay equality was an indication that he would address whether he believes state restrictions banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. 

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Obama said during his inaugural speech yesterday from the West Side of the Capitol in what some have described as Obama's strongest call yet for LGBT equality.

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall," Obama said, referencing the 1969 Stonewall Riots in the same sentence as the 1848 women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., and the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala.

According to Human Rights Campaign Vice President Fred Sainz, Obama's call for equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans is at the center of the argument against Proposition 8. 

"We view the president's filing of an amicus brief in this case as the next natural step of his inaugural remarks," Sainz told Metro Weekly.

Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson noted that Carney did not specifically say same-sex marriage is not a federal issue, adding that the White House appears to be trying to frame the question very carefully.

"The bottom line is that the president has never said that the denial of the freedom to marry is not a federal question," Wolfson told Metro Weekly. "What he's said is it's something addressed by states, and that is true as far as it goes." 

Wolfson added that he is confident the president knows the Constitution guarantees the right to marry.

"The profound moral statement and the way in which the president talked about the freedom to marry yesterday was so magnificent," Wolfson said. "It's time now to put that vision into action, in this case by stating clearly what the Constitution requires." 

In an interview with Time in December for the magazine's annual "Person of the Year," Obama said that because the briefs in the Proposition 8 case are still being written, he should "probably be careful about making any specific comments on it."

Obama's vow to continue to push for LGBT rights in his second term was welcomed by advocates who continue to pressure the president on a number of issues, including the signing of an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and granting same-sex military couples rights that continue to be denied to them under DOMA.

At today's briefing, however, Carney gave no specifics as to what Obama hopes to accomplish in his second term on LGBT rights. 

"He will build on the progress that was made in achieving equality for LGBT Americans. And, again, that is not a proposition that he believes will be embraced only by one political party or faction of the country, because there is a link here between the March on Washington, Seneca Falls and Stonewall," Carney said, adding that the pursuit of equal rights is something that Democrats and Republicans have historically worked on together.

[Photo: Barack Obama official portrait (Courtesy of the White House).]

LGBT-equality advocates in Virginia are celebrating a small victory after SB701, a bill prohibiting discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, passed out of the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee on an 8-7 vote Monday evening, clearing its first hurdle on what supporters hope is its path to eventual passage.

The bill was introduced by Democratic Senators A. Donald McEachin and Adam Ebbin.

Regarding employment protections based on sexual orientaion and gender identity/expression, the commonwealth lags significantly behind the private sector, as many of the top employers in the state, including consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., quasi-governmental mortgage lender Freddie Mac, defense firms Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., Dominion Resources Inc., Volkswagen Group of America Inc., and computer and data services firms Computer Sciences Corp. and SRA International Inc. have already adopted such policies, according to the Human Rights Campaign's 2013 Corporate Equality Index.

Since its introduction, 15 other Senate Democrats, 28 House Democrats and three House Republicans – Thomas Rust (R-Fairfax and Loudoun counties), R. Lee Ware (R-Chesterfield, Powhatan, Goochland and Fluvanna counties) and Joseph Yost (R-Radford, Giles, Montgomery and Pulaski counties) - have signed on as co-patrons of SB701.

Having been voted out of committee, the bill will now receive a vote by the 40-member senate, which is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. If it passes the upper chamber, it will then be sent to the Republican-controlled House of Delegates.

"We're glad the committee listened to the thousands of Virginians that messaged their delegates and senators on this issue," James Parrish, the executive director of Equality Virginia, said in a statement released following the committee vote. "Now, we must continue spreading the word about the importance of workplace protections for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender state employees to move this out of the Senate."

In an inaugural first, President Barack Obama called for full equality for "our gay brothers and sisters" during his second inaugural address.

Speaking shortly after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the oath of office, Obama alluded to the Stonewall Riots and his support for marriage equality during his 20-minute speech.

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall," Obama said, repeating a phrase he used during a Barnard College commencement speech in May 2012.

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Obama added as the Supreme Court justices, who will consider two cases regarding the right of same-sex couples to marry later this year, sat feet away.

Obama's reference to LGBT equality – from the first president to openly endorse same-sex marriage – was a historic first that did not go unnoticed.

"It was beautiful," Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said of Obama's reference to the 1969 Stonewall Riots in the same sentence as the 1848 women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., and the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala. "It was a beautiful tying together of the American tradition of making real our founders' words."

According to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, the reference to Stonewall was a "testament to the valiant contributions of LGBT Americans past and present who seek nothing more than to be treated equally by the country they love."

In a statement, Griffin said Obama's remarks were particularly important as the momentum for marriage equality continues to build.

"As the merits of marriage equality come up for debate from state houses to the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court, and a broad majority of Americans are standing up for liberty and fairness, the President's unequivocal support for equality is a clarion call that all Americans should receive with celebration," Griffin said.

Baldwin, who was sworn in as the Senate’s first out member earlier this month, lauded Obama's second inaugural speech as hitting the "perfect tone."

"I thought it was really magnificent and, I think, it was what everyone was hoping for," Baldwin told Metro Weekly. "It was about how to bring the nation together in such difficult economic times and partisan times."

Among those who could be seen applauding the president's call for gay equality was Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Sen. John McCain.

The Arizona Republican, who opposed the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," told Metro Weekly that his applause did not signal a shift in his opposition to same-sex marriage.

"I was applauding his belief that all of us should be together," McCain said.

Obama's speech was not the only signal of a shifting political landscape on LGBT rights. The Rev. Luis Leon of St. John's Episcopal Church in D.C. delivered the benediction and made reference to gay Americans.

"We pray for your blessing, because without it, we will see only what the eye can see, but with your blessing, we will see that we are created in your image, whether brown, black or white; male or female; first-generation immigrant American or Daughter of the American Revolution; gay or straight, rich or poor," Leon said. 

Leon replaced Rev. Louie Giglio, who withdrew from the ceremony shortly after an anti-gay sermon he delivered in the mid 1990s was unearthed by ThinkProgress. Four years ago, same-sex marriage opponent Pastor Rick Warren delivered the invocation despite protests from Obama's liberal base.

Richard Blanco also delivered his poem "One Today," becoming the first LGBT poet to participate in a presidential inauguration.

[Image: Obama takes the oath of office (Screenshot courtesy of YouTube.]

WATCH Obama's remarks here:

In a resolution adopted Jan. 12 by the board of directors of GOProud, the group of gay conservatives formally endorsed same-sex marriage, according to a statement released today.

"GOProud believes that stable, loving, committed relationships are the cornerstone of our society and should be protected and encouraged for all couples - including gay and lesbian couples," the group announced in a statement released this morning.

We believe that the decision about how to best do this is one that should be made at the state level and that these decisions are best made by the people directly or through their elected representatives - not by unelected judges.

Where civil marriage is possible, we support civil marriage.  Where civil unions are possible, we support civil unions.  Where domestic partner benefits are possible, we support domestic partner benefits.  As federalists, we do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach on almost any issue and that includes relationship recognition for gay couples.

 We are firmly committed to winning hearts and minds, which is why we understand that not everyone who doesn't support marriage for gay couples is automatically a bigot or homophobe.  We understand that there are people of deep faith who may have religious objections to marriage.  We respect those differences and believe that no church or religious institution should ever be force to solemnize a marriage that is against its teachings. 

The decision to put the organization's support behind same-sex marriage efforts comes nearly four years after the group's founding as a group for gay conservatives focused exclusively on federal issues. Since its founding, GOProud has focused on the conservative agenda rather than social issues and has pegged itself as a more conservative alternative to Log Cabin Republicans.

With GOProud's growth, its leaders have now sought to begin work on the state and local level. According to GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia, this shift in focus is what led the group to put its support behind same-sex marriage campaigns.

"This decision came about as a result of our growth," LaSalvia told Metro Weekly. "We have this demand from folks across the country to build state and local chapters and that made it necessary to state what our principles are when it comes to marriage, since that is an issue decided at the local level."

Although GOProud has always opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage, as an overreach of federal power, it has refrained from weighing in on state marriage-equality campaigns. But now, with local chapters expected in states such as Pennsylvania and Georgia, LaSalvia says the group will shift its focus based on the dynamics of particular states.

"Some states, the political reality is they're considering marriage and in other states they’re considering civil unions," said LaSalvia. "We'll support the policy based on the political reality."

GOProud's decision to support civil union efforts diverges from other organizations that have campaigned for same-sex marriage. Many LGBT rights organizations have argued civil unions are separate and unequal.

LaSalvia, however, says GOProud will approach the issue on a state-by-state basis.

"Any given state will determine what’s best for them. We laid out principals and we support same-sex marriage, but even when states do legalize same-sex marriage they're going to come at it in different ways," said LaSalvia. "Marriage laws for straight people differ from state to state. That's for the people in that state to determine."

As the group works to organize its supporters into a new database, LaSalvia says GOProud's expansion to the state and local level is a challenge they’re ready for.

"The whole reason we decided to do this is after the election people wanted to get involved. It's hard to tell people we have a D.C. office and work only on federal issues when there’s not a tangible way for them to get involved in their community," said LaSalvia. "Last year's election helped us to see we really needed that."

[Photo: GOProud co-founders Chris Barron (left) and Jimmy LaSalvia (Credit: Todd Franson, Metro Weekly).]

Sam Arora, the Maryland delegate who received a barrage of criticism from the LGBT community after he infamously switched from supporting and cosponsoring a marriage equality bill to opposing it – opposition that, along with several fellow Democrats, led House leadership to recommit the bill to committee, effectively killing the bill during the 2011 legislative session – dodged a question on a local news show earlier this month regarding what made him switch his position. 

Arora, a Democrat from Montgomery County representing parts of Wheaton, Glenmont, Aspen Hill, Williamsburg Village and Laytonsville, was on WJLA’s NewsTalk with host Bruce DePuyt on Jan. 8 discussing the agenda for the 2013 legislative session when a caller asked him why he had switched from supporting marriage equality to opposing it.

A similar bill to the one that was killed in 2011 passed the General Assembly in 2012, without Arora’s support. After being signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and placed on the November ballot, 52 percent of Maryland voters agreed to uphold the law and allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain civil marriage licenses.

In responding to the caller’s question, Arora did not give a specific reason as to his change of heart, saying, "I think a lot of us wanted the goal of full legal equality for all couples. We had different ways of getting there. Ultimately, the governor’s bill passed, the voters approved it and I think one thing we can all celebrate is that gay and lesbian couples will have the same legal rights we all have, and the state is going to move forward now ...."

When DePuyt interjected to push Arora on his cosponsoring the 2011 bill, Arora said his aim had been to find a way to give same-sex couples full legal equality, and thought he had found another way. Arora said he offered an amendment, but that the state didn’t go along with his idea. But Arora did not cite any specific reason or influence for his change of heart.

When he first ran for the House of Delegates in 2010, Arora said he supported marriage equality, and came in third in the Democratic primary for one of three delegate seats available in District 19.

Maryland’s chief LGBT rights group, Equality Maryland, had endorsed Arora's fellow delegates, Benjamin Cramer and Bonnie Cullison, and Democratic candidate Jay Hutchins during the primary, but supported Arora over two Republicans in the general election after he expressed support for a marriage-equality bill. But Arora later backed off of his campaign promise, shocking even his fellow delegates. 

[Photo: Del. Sam Arora official photo (courtesy of Maryland General Assembly website). Video: NewsTalk interview with Bruce DePuyt (courtesy of WJLA).]

Maryland Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery Co.), who could become the Free State’s first out lesbian candidate for governor should she officially announce such a bid, announced Wednesday that she raised more than $155,000 over a 10-week period, but campaign finance reports show she still lags behind other potential rivals seeking to replace term-limited Gov. Martin O'Malley (D).

In an email sent to supporters, Mizeur touted that she raised $155,671 during the period from Nov. 1 to Jan. 9, compared to O'Malley, who raised $93,976 during the same period prior to his 2010 re-election fight.

According to campaign finance reports filed on the Maryland State Board of Elections website, Mizeur raised $248,831 in 2012 and has over $381,000 cash on hand. She reported in the email to supporters that she had raised $248,761.

Mizeur told her supporters that 64 percent of her contributors over the past year were donors who gave $100 or less. She also said that she was meeting many people across Maryland who encouraged her to run for governor in 2014.

"In every corner of the state, voters tell me they want a Governor with clear ideas for the future and a track record of results," Mizeur said in a statement. "I'm honored that so many are encouraging me to run, and I will never stop working to strengthen our economy, protect our natural resources, and ensure that every Marylander receives equal protections and rights under the law." 

Mizeur, who has established herself as an advocate for education, small business, civil rights and environmental causes since being elected delegate in 2006, has seen her profile rise, even debating former Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) on television regarding the 2012 presidential race. NewsTalk host Bruce Depuyt even jokingly referred to Mizeur making a run for governor official, billing the debate as "the former governor against the future governor."

Yet despite any support Mizeur may be getting on the ground, she's running behind several of her other opponents in fundraising, due in part to starting her fundraising much later than other Democrats. Attorney General Doug Gansler (D) filed a report Wednesday that showed he raised more than $1.2 million in 2012 and had $5.2 million in cash on hand. Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown reported raising $1.2 million during 2012 and having $1.6 million in cash on hand. Howard County Executive Ken Ulman reported he raised $1.1 million in 2012 and has $2.1 million on hand.

For Republicans, campaign finance reports show that Frederick County Commissioner Blaine Young, the only announced candidate for governor, raised nearly $450,000 in 2012 and has $349,000 in cash on hand. Harford County Executive David Craig raised more than $232,000 and has $202,000 on hand. 

[Photo: Del. Heather Mizeur (courtesy of campaign website).]

[UPDATE: The original post incorrectly stated the year that Mizeur was elected to the House of Delegates. It has since been corrected.]

Senators A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond, Henrico, Hanover, Charles City counties) and Adam Ebbin (D-Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax counties), the chief co-patrons of SB701, the bill that protects state employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, announced Thursday they had garnered support from 43 other members of the General Assembly for their bill.

Twenty-eight of 32 Democrats in the House of Delegates and 17 of 20 Senate Democrats have signed on as co-patrons of SB701. That tally includes five legislators who either refused or failed to sign a statement attesting that they do not discriminate in hiring based on a person's gender identity or sexual orientation, after being asked to do so by LGBT rights group Equality Virginia in 2012. No Republicans have signed on as co-patrons of SB701.

The only seven Democrats who have not signed on as co-patrons are Sens. Louis Lucas (D-Portsmouth, Suffolk, Emporia, Surry, Sussex, Brunswick, Chesapeake counties), Chuck Colgan (D-Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William Co.) and Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax Co.) and Dels. Algie Howell, Jr. (D-Norfolk, Virginia Beach), Matthew James (D-Norfolk, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Portsmouth), Johnny Joannou (D-Norfolk, Portsmouth) and Joseph Johnson (D-Dickenson, Russell, Washington, Wise counties). Of those, Petersen, Colgan and Howell, signed a nondiscrimination in hiring statement that included sexual orientation and gender identity. Lucas, Joannou and Johnson signed a statement that did not specifically reference sexual orientation or gender identity, and James refused to sign any nondiscrimination statement. 

"This is about fairness," McEachin said in a statement. "Employment and advancement should be solely dependent on job performance. No one should be subject to discrimination on the job, including sexual orientation or gender identity."

"All Virginians deserve equal opportunity, fairness and justice," Ebbin said in a statement. "The Commonwealth must remain competitive and now is the time to move forward and protect our state workers."

Despite overwhelming support from Democrats, the fate of the bill will depend on the actions of Republicans, who control both chambers of the General Assembly. In expectation of resistance from GOP legislators, Equality Virginia and 10 other organizations supporting SB701, including but not limited to ProgressVA, People of Faith for Equality in Virginia, the local American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) chapter and Roanoke Pride, Inc., have been trying to rally constituents with Republican representatives to lean on their legislators to pass the bill. The organizations traveled around the state in the months when the legislature was not in session to educate Virginians about the lack of workplace protections for LGBT people.

According to Equality Virginia, the General Assembly has received more than 11,235 constituent messages in support of SB701. The organization has previously said it has polling showing that 90 percent of Virginians believe gays and lesbians should have the right to work for the government without discrimination.

"This is an amazing response we’ve seen from Virginians in favor of protecting our state employees," James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, said in a statement. "We hope every senator and delegate is listening to their constituents on this issue."

Currently, 80 percent of Virginia's top 25 private employers already have policies on their books that protect discrimination based on sexual orientation and 60 percent protect discrimination based on gender identity or expression, meaning the private sector is well ahead of the public sector on this issue. 

"This shows the state should do for its employees what these businesses do for theirs," Ebbin said.

SB701 is expected to receive a vote in the Senate's General Laws and Technology Committee, which Republicans control 8-7, on Jan. 21. Supporters hope they can flip at least one Republican on the committee to agree to send the bill to the floor for a vote by the full chamber. 

[Photo: Adam Ebbin]

An Air Force sergeant discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will serve as one of the eight citizen co-chairs of President Barack Obama's inauguration, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced today. 

David Hall will join seven other Americans selected to highlight the accomplishments of Obama's first term throughout the Inauguration weekend, including attendance at Monday's swearing-in ceremony and inaugural parade. 

"This is certainly the honor of a lifetime, and I am grateful to President Obama for his leadership in repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' so that no qualified American who wants to serve this country in uniform will ever again be denied that right simply because they are gay or lesbian," Hall, who serves as director of development for OutServe-SLDN, said in a statement.

As his father and stepfather did before him, Hall joined the Air Force in March 1996. After being promoted to staff sergeant and graduating from Airman Leadership School, Hall was accepted into Air Force ROTC in May 2001. Distinguishing himself as a leader, Hall was one of just 500 cadets to receive a pilot slot that year. It was only after a fellow cadet told his commanders that he was gay that Hall was dis-enrolled for "homosexual conduct" in August 2002. Hall soon joined the SLDN's constitutional challenge to DADT as a plaintiff, later joining the staff of the LGBT-rights organization in 2006. 

"Every day, I'm inspired by the determination, grit, and resilience of the American people," Obama said in a statement announcing the citizen co-chairs. "The stories of these extraordinary men and women highlight both the progress we’ve made and how much we have left to do. They remind us that when we live up to the example set by the American people, there is no limit to how bright our future can be."

Obama has cited the repeal of DADT and the role he has played in shifting views of LGBT Americans as one of his proudest accomplishments of his first term.

According to OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson, Hall could not have been a better choice. 

"There is a great deal more to do on the road to full LGBT equality in our military, but it's important for us to take a moment this weekend to honor the leadership of this President and recognize just how far we have come," Robinson said in a statement. "There could be no better personification of that than former Air Force Sergeant David Hall."

The news of Hall's participation in the inaugural ceremony comes after reports that the Rev. Luis Leon, an Episcopal priest in Washington, will deliver the benediction. A source close to the inaugural committee confirms to Metro Weekly that Leon will replace Rev. Louie Giglio, who withdrew from the inaugural ceremony after an anti-gay sermon he delivered in the mid-1990s was unearthed by ThinkProgress.

In contrast to Giglio, who is an evangelical, Leon presides over a parish that welcomes gay members. Known as the "church of presidents," St. John's Church near the White House is regularly attended by the Obama family. Leon also delivered the invocation at President George W. Bush's second inauguration in 2005.

The Episcopal Church has a history of accepting LGBT members. With out gay priests, the Episcopal Church was the first major Christian denomination to have an out bishop after Gene Robinson was consecrated as the bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. This summer the church announced it would sanction same-sex blessings and ordain transgender priests. Earlier this month, Washington National Cathedral, which is an Episcopal church, also announced it would allow same-sex marriage ceremonies.

[Photo: David Hall meets with Michelle Obama at the White House earlier today (Courtesy of Twitter).]

The DC Log Cabin Republicans, the District’s top political organization for LGBT conservatives, unanimously endorsed DC Council candidate Patrick Mara Wednesday, ahead of an April special election for the at-large seat temporarily filled by Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At-Large). 

Bonds was named to the seat by the State Democratic Party as an interim replacement in accordance with D.C. election law after Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large) was elected Council Chairman in a 2012 special election that appeared on November’s ballot. Mendelson had been appointed to the chairman position by his colleagues former Chairman Kwame Brown stepped down ahead of pleading guilty to a felony charge of bank fraud and a misdemeanor charge of violating District campaign finance laws. 

Mara, a pro-gay Republican and elected DC State Board of Education Member from Ward 1 who has run for Council twice before, spoke to DC Log Cabin membership at the group’s monthly meeting Wednesday night, billing himself as a "fiscally conservative, socially progressive Republican" in the Northeastern Rockefeller mold.

Mara, who originally hails from Rhode Island and previously worked for the late U.S. Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.), also touted his support of school reforms begun by former Chancellor Michelle Rhee and continued by her successor, Kaya Henderson, based on his experience on the State Board of Education. 

Mara also stressed the need for ethics reform on the Council and promised he would speak out against corruption in D.C. government, saying that while some of his opponents would use his party affiliation to try and "scare" voters into voting against him, being elected as a Republican means he is not indebted to other councilmembers and can serve as a check on the power of a Democratic mayor and Democrat-dominated Council that has seen two members resign in disgrace and several other current councilmembers become the subjects of ethical or campaign finance investigations.

Mara first made headlines in 2008 when he defeated incumbent Councilmember Carol Schwartz (R-At-Large) in a primary in which Mara endorsed marriage equality while Schwartz – not to mention several Democratic members of the Council – hedged on the issue. Mara lost the general election to Independent Michael A. Brown, but the Council later approved a marriage bill in late 2009.

Mara ran again in an April 2011 special election to replace Kwame Brown after he was elected chairman. During that campaign, in which he also received Log Cabin's endorsement, Mara came 1,732 votes short of defeating current Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At-Large). But Mara and DC Log Cabin’s current president, Robert Turner II, both pointed out to those assembled that a number of registered Republicans failed to turn out in Ward 2 and 3, and that Mara, running as a pro-ethics and pro-school reform candidate, split the vote with interim incumbent Councilmember Sekou Biddle (D) and Ward 1 community activist Bryan Weaver, who garnered 20 and 13 percent of the vote, respectively.

This time around, Mara said, Biddle and Weaver won’t be running, lessening the chance that pro-reform vote will be split. It’s not a possibility that escapes Mara’s opponents, either. One of the other 19 candidates for April’s special election, Democrat A.J. Coooper, dropped out and endorsed fellow candidate Elissa Silverman, saying that he wanted to avoid splitting the Democratic vote to prevent Mara from getting on the Council.

"This election is more winnable than the two that I won," Mara told the Log Cabin members, referring to his primary victory and election to the State Board of Education. "It's great to have this endorsement. Log Cabin has always been one of the most helpful organizations of any organization, due to its manpower and the dedication of its volunteers."

The official endorsement allows Log Cabin to begin helping Mara fundraise and to dedicate volunteers to help circulate petitions to earn Mara a place on the ballot, host meet-and-greet events with D.C. voters of all political affiliations, phone bank and canvass as the campaign moves forward. Mara, who needs 3,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot, announced on his website that he has already submitted 4,360 signatures to the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, but says he will need help collecting more than 6,000, largely because of expected challenges that his Democratic competitors will lodge to try and knock him off the ballot. 

Turner, speaking on behalf of the other Log Cabin members, pledged that the organization would dedicate the necessary resources and manpower needed to rally the GOP base in the city and get them out to vote so that Mara would be able to focus on convincing reform-minded Democrats and Independents to support his candidacy, particularly over his two main competitors, Bonds and Michael A. Brown, who was recently defeated by Councilmember David Grosso (I-At-Large) in the 2012 elections.

In addition to Mara's endorsement, Turner also used the meeting to confirm that he was recently appointed by Ron Phillips, the new chairman of the D.C. Republican Committee, as the organization's executive director, making Turner the first out gay man to serve as executive director of a state Republican party. 

In an e-mail sent to Log Cabin members dated Jan. 10, Turner told them that he had informed Log Cabin's Board of Directors that he will be stepping down next month. The organization will hold a special election on Feb. 20 to appoint an interim replacement to serve out the remaining three months of Turner's term before its regularly-scheduled elections for board members and executive officers in May.

"I am very proud of my tenure as your president!" Turner said in the Jan. 10 email. "In nearly three years, I have more than doubled the membership of the DC Chapter, left the club on solid financial standing, help (sic) exert influence within the DC Republican Party and the LGBT community at large, and given us a greater voice within the gay media. I have every confidence that my successor will continue this trend." 

[Photo: Patrick Mara (courtesy of candidate's official campaign site).]

Following controversy at the Army's Fort Bragg in North Carolina, pressure is mounting on the Defense Department to issue new regulations granting the spouses and partners of gay servicemembers military IDs.

After a Pentagon announcement late Tuesday to back the decision by Army leaders at Fort Bragg to not intervene in the case of a military spouses club that denied membership to Ashley Broadway because she is ineligible to receive a military ID card under Pentagon regulations that refuse to recognize her marriage to another woman, Lt. Col. Heather Mack, LGBT-rights advocates are calling on Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to update military policy.

"This situation would not have occurred if the Pentagon was not dragging its heels on updating military regulations to include the families of gay service members," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement released Wednesday.

First reported by BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner, the Pentagon's decision to back Army leaders at Fort Bragg comes one week after the Marine Corps instructed legal staff that spouses clubs operating on Marine bases must admit same-sex spouses or face eviction.

According to an email from the Marine Corps commandant's staff judge advocate obtained by the Associated Press last week, "We would interpret a spouses club's decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse's sex."

"We do not want a story like this developing in our backyard," the email continued. 

The actions by the Marines was not enough for the Army to follow suit, however, with an Army spokesman at Fort Bragg telling BuzzFeed that "federal discrimination laws don't extend to sexual orientation."

According to a Fort Bragg spokesman, "The Association of Bragg Officers' Spouses, to the judgment that we have here at Fort Bragg, are not in violation of federal discrimination laws because federal discrimination laws don't extend to sexual orientation."

A directive revised in 2008 before the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" prohibits private groups operating on military bases from discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, age, disability or national origin, but has yet to be updated to include sexual orientation.

"It makes no sense that the spouse of a service member can face discrimination in one branch of the Armed Services yet be protected from discrimination in another," said Griffin, announcing that HRC would send a letter to Panetta today calling on him to immediately issue new regulations granting military ID cards to the spouses and partners of gay servicemembers.

HRC joins OutServe-SLDN in calling for the secretary of defense to update military policy. After the Marines announced an update to their policy regarding spouses clubs last week, OutServe-SLDN called on Panetta to "use his authority immediately to bring consistency across the services with regard to this issue and in doing so, a greater measure of equity to LGBT service members and their families."

With Panetta expected to be replaced by Chuck Hagel after his Senate confirmation hearings, Hagel has promised he will "do everything possible to the extent permissible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members."

[Photo: Leon Panetta (Credit: R. D. Ward/Defense Department via Wikimedia Commons).]

Former Rep. Barney Frank isn't buying arguments that the signing of an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity would build momentum for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

In an interview with Metro Weekly shortly after the 113th Congress was sworn in Jan. 3, the Massachusetts Democrat and former champion of ENDA in the House said President Barack Obama's delay in signing the executive order, which Obama indicated he would support as a presidential candidate in 2008, should not be interpreted as anti-LGBT.

"That's a pretty far-reaching policy decision to be made by the executive alone and the Republicans have made a lot of arguments and have scored some points by arguing he has done too much executive power without congressional approval. So I think it is unfair to impugn their reluctance to sign that," said Frank. "It's a reluctance to do too many things by executive order and feed into their argument that there’s an executive overreach."

Advocates have pushed the White House to sign such an executive order, which would apply to contractors who do more than $10,000 of work with the federal government and affect 26 million workers. Many believe Obama could help refocus attention on ENDA and cast a spotlight on legislation that has widespread public support but has faced Republican opposition for decades. According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, the White House remains focused on securing passage of comprehensive federal legislation in the form of ENDA rather than an executive order that would only apply to federal contractors.

"[The executive order] would be hugely helpful to ENDA efforts on the Hill, which the White House has made clear it supports," Jeff Krehely, vice president of LGBT research at the Center for American Progress, told Metro Weekly last month. "Although we know the rates of anti-LGBT discrimination are high, we also know that many Americans already think federal laws exist to prevent and crack down on this type of discrimination."

Frank, however, disagrees: "That argument is dumb. D-U-M-B. Dumb."

"The problem is partisan," Frank said, adding that while polling indicates many Americans believe workplace protections already exist for LGBT people, "political action does not necessarily mean other people see things more."

"I guarantee you the Republican members of Congress who vote against it know that," Frank said. "It's not that people don't know there's discrimination, it's that the Republicans think it's a good thing."

Frank's comments come after he and 71 other lawmakers signed a letter in April urging Obama to sign the executive order, linking its implementation to congressional action on ENDA.

"This order would extend important workplace protections to millions of Americans, while at the same time laying the groundwork for Congressional passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a goal that we share with you," the letter read in part, noting that polls show "support for such protections transcends partisan, age and religious lines."

Nevertheless, Frank argues approval of ENDA will only come when Democrats control all three branches of the federal government.

"The problem is the Republicans control the House," said Frank, "and as long as the Republicans control the House nothing will pass."

Several groups have publicly urged action on the executive order since Obama's re-election, including the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Work, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality. Protections already exist prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. 

Noting the long history of executive action to protect employees of federal contractors from discrimination, Freedom to Work President Tico Almeida believes the historical record will counter any arguments of executive overreach.

"If any opponents make the overreach argument after President Obama signs this LGBT executive order, we will be able to point to seventy years of American history with both Republican Presidents like Dwight Eisenhower and Democratic presidents like Lyndon Johnson signing executive orders banning workplace discrimination against African-Americans and women who work for federal contractors," Almeida said via email.

HRC declined to address Frank's arguments, simply reiterating the organization's continued commitment to seeing such an executive order signed by the president.

"As far back as FDR, presidents have prohibited federal contractors from engaging in racial discrimination, and we think President Obama should build on these past measures to stop the discriminatory practices against LGBT employees," said HRC spokesman Kevin Nix in a statement. "Such a move would be a concrete step toward full equality."

Although no longer a member of Congress for the first time in three decades, Frank remains a potent voice in the LGBT rights movement and may not be done in Washington just yet. With Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) expected to be confirmed as secretary of state, Frank is openly jockeying for the temporary appointment to Kerry's Senate seat. 

[Photo: Barney Frank (Credit: Todd Franson/Metro Weekly).]

Read Metro Weekly's full interview with former Rep. Barney Frank on newsstands and online Jan. 17.

House Democratic leaders slammed Speaker John Boehner today for "secretly" raising the cap on the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act to $3 million.

In a letter signed by House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the two Democratic members of the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) called the "Republican-led campaign to defend DOMA" a "practice in futility and a waste of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars."

"This is not the first time that House Republicans have made a unilateral decision to raise the ceiling on expenditures for this wasteful litigation that supports a discriminatory statute, without any public discussion or advance notice to Democratic members of the BLAG, Members of the House, or the public," the House Democrats wrote. "This clandestine commitment of taxpayer funds is highly irregular and objectionable, and it must end now."

Pelosi and Hoyer urged Boehner to exercise transparency in their dealings with outside legal counsel as well.

"Until Republicans decide to abandon this effort once and for all, we ask you to make your legal plans clear; to make public every contract signed with outside counsel in this case in a timely manner; to declare the total cost of this case to the taxpayers; and to abide by the highest standards of transparency and accountability," Pelosi and Hoyer wrote.

According to Pelosi's office, late Monday House Democrats learned that Republicans had "secretly increased" the contract with a private law firm defending DOMA in court to $3 million. The revelation comes after it was revealed last month that House Administration Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) signed off on a $500,000 increase in funds for DOMA’s defense.

The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is controlled by Republicans, has been at the forefront of defending DOMA since the Obama administration’s February 2011 decision to stop defending the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. With arguments scheduled to begin on the DOMA case before the Supreme Court in March, Pelosi and Hoyer state "it is only a matter of time before this offensive law is a discarded relic of a bygone era."

[Photo: Nancy Pelosi (Courtesy of the U.S. House of Representatives).]

Chuck Hagel promised to extend benefits to same-sex military couples in a letter sent to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) yesterday. 

Addressing a number of Democratic concerns over his nomination as President Barack Obama's next secretary of defense, the former Republican senator from Nebraska reiterated that he supports open service and would seek to extend benefits currently denied to same-sex military couples.

"I fully support the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and value the service of all those who fight for our country," Hagel wrote. "I know firsthand the profound sacrifice our service members and their families make, and if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I will do everything possible to the extent permissible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members."

Hagel's letter comes after some Democrats voiced qualms over Hagel's nomination, which Obama formally announced Jan. 7.

According to Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, "Senator Hagel's commitment is a turning point for our gay and lesbian military families. His promise to grant these service members the family benefits they have earned demonstrates his deepening grasp of the injustice currently being done to them."

In a statement, Robinson said that Hagel must amend the military’s nondiscrimination and equal-opportunity policies to cover the LGBT community.

"These documents help establish the command climate for the entire force, and for Senator Hagel to expand them in this way would send a very clear message that the days of treating LGBT service members as second class citizens will be coming to an end under his leadership," said Robinson.

[Photo: Chuck Hagel (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).]

A Virginia House subcommittee Monday tabled a bill to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment, the 2006 amendment to the Virginia state constitution that banned any and all forms of same-sex relationship recognition, effectively killing the bill for at least three more years.

Under Virginia law, any amendment to the state constitution must be passed by a majority of members in both chambers. It then must be held over for a succeeding legislature after the next election, where it must garner a majority in both chambers. Then, it gets placed on the ballot for a referendum and is adopted if approved by a majority of the voters.

LGBT advocates and allies had hoped to pass the legislation in the 2013 session, prior to this year’s gubernatorial and House elections, where it could then be approved in 2014 and placed on the ballot during the congressional midterm elections. But the bill’s defeat means that supporters can’t bring a repeal initiative before the legislature until 2015, prior to that year’s Senate and House elections, whereupon it would need to be passed again in the 2016 legislative session and approved by a majority of voters in that year’s presidential election before taking effect.

The repeal bill, sponsored by Del. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax Co.) was referred to the Republican-dominated Committee on Privileges and Elections, whose chairman, Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg) assigned it to the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee, who voted to table the bill. No roll call was immediately available, but Republicans dominate the subcommittee 6-1.

Kevin Clay, a spokesman for the LGBT rights group Equality Virginia, said the organization was disappointed about the defeat of the bill.

"At Equality Virginia, we support relationship recognition for all couples," Clay told Metro Weekly in an interview Monday afternoon. "Marriage equality has been a winning issue by ballot vote, and we’re discouraged that Virginia has not caught up to other states on this issue."

Looking forward, Clay said the organization will be focusing its efforts on its biggest initiative, SB701, which would prohibit discrimination in public employment based on an individual’s sexual orientation, which is defined as a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity and expression.

SB701 is currently before the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee, where Republicans outnumber Democrats 8-7. With eight votes needed to pass, supporters hope to flip at least one Republican to vote to move the bill to the full Senate. Clay said Equality Virginia was particularly focusing on Sen. Walter Stosch (R-Henrico, Hanover counties), because in laying the groundwork for its grassroots lobbying campaign, Equality Virginia encountered a number of constituents living in Stosch’s district who support nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.

In addition, committee member Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Loudoun, Clarke, Fauquier, Stafford counties, Winchester) and Chairman Frank Ruff (R-Danville, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg and Pittsylvania counties) both signed statements last year attesting to Equality Virginia that they already, in practice, do not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity in their hiring practices, which is what SB701 would do for Virginians seeking public employment. Sen. Stephen Martin (R-Chesterfield, Amelia counties) issued a general statement saying he would not discriminate in hiring but did not specifically address sexual orientation or gender identity.

Clay said the committee is expected to vote on the legislation next week, where the members will then decide to pass or table the bill. If the bill is tabled, it can be brought up again at the end of the session, but such a possibility is highly unlikely, Clay said. 

Clay was hopeful of the chances of the bill in the Senate, particularly because of attempts by Equality Virginia to mobilize residents to lobby their legislators..

"We’re hearing from legislators that this is the most they’ve ever heard from their constituents about a nondiscrimination bill," Clay told Metro Weekly.

[Photo: Del. Scott Surovell (Courtesy of the Virginia House of Delegates).]

Dr. Angela McCaskill, the chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University at the center of the local debate over gay marriage, was reinstated last week, following a three-month suspension imposed by the university after it was revealed that she had signed a petition to force the Civil Marriage Protection Act that legalized marriage equality to appear on Maryland's 2012 ballot.

Gallaudet University President Alan Hurwitz placed McCaskill on administrative leave in October after a fellow faculty member filed a complaint against McCaskill for signing the petition, prompting both opponents and supporters of marriage equality to call for him to reverse his decision.  

Opponents of Question 6, the referendum seeking to uphold Maryland's marriage equality law, featured McCaskill in one of their ads urging voters to reject the law. McCaskill later objected to being featured in the commercial.

But several ministers associated with the pro-Question 6 campaign also held demonstrations at Gallaudet to protest McCaskill’s suspension. They, as well as McCaskill's lawyer, J. Wyndal Gordon, pointed out that signing the petition did not necessarily mean that McCaskill opposed marriage equality, just that she wanted the opportunity to vote on the issue.

In an interview with WJLA’s Mike Conneen, McCaskill reflected on her reinstatement, saying she was "thrilled" to be back at the school. 

"I know there are many challenges ahead for me and I look forward to working with the faculty, staff and students here as we move forward to make Gallaudet a more inclusive university and the area of higher education that shows respect for different points of view," she said.

University officials would not comment on why they chose to reinstate McCaskill, saying only that it was a personnel matter. 

[Screenshot of video interview with Dr. Angela McCaskill, chief diversity officer at Gallaudet (Courtesy of WJLA).]

Several local and national organizations announced this morning the launch of Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, a campaign to legalize marriage equality in the state.

The coalition includes several religious, labor and civic groups including the Rhode Island Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality, which represents more than 100 clergy and faith leaders from 13 different denominations; the Rhode Island AFL-CIO; local chapters of the National Education Association (NEA); the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW); the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); and Rhode Island Progressive Democrats.

Rhode Islanders United for Marriage is expected to employ grassroots organizing techniques, similar to those used successfully from legislature to ballot box in Maryland and Washington state.

"Rhode Islanders United for Marriage is a broad and growing non-partisan coalition of organizations who are coming together to stand up for all families and ensure the Ocean State joins the rest of New England in providing the unique protection and recognition that only marriage can afford," Ray Sullivan, campaign director for Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, said in a statement. "With more legislative sponsors and supporters than ever before, we believe we can win passage of this important civil rights act in 2013."

Applying a campaign component helpful in other states, supporters emphasized the legislative guarantees of religious entities to choose whether or not to perform same-sex marriages, regardless of securing marriage equality in Rhode Island.

"There is broad diversity within communities of faith on this issue," the Rev. Don Anderson, executive minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, said in a statement. "That’s why this bill includes a number of commonsense exemptions that affirm a religious institution’s control over marriage eligibility within its particular faith’s tradition. No church or clergy would be required by this law to perform or recognize same-sex marriages if they go against the teachings of their particular faith."

Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, chair of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality, pointed out that the current law discriminates against churches or religions that recognize same-sex unions.

"Giving all Rhode Islanders full access to marriage is an opportunity to remove roadblocks to pastoral care for those faith traditions that welcome and affirm same-sex relationships," Dyszlewski said in the Jan. 14 announcement. "Christ welcomed all to His table and so, as faith leaders for equality, we hope to walk on the path He set for us – living by his example – and affirming His commitment to tolerance and justice."

The news event was attended by several local leaders, among them Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who has made passing a marriage-equality law one of his priorities.

"Rhode Island has been engaged in a lively experiment in freedom and tolerance for 350 years, and the inclusion of all our friends and neighbors under the aegis of civil marriage is the logical extension of Roger Williams’ bold stand for liberty," Chaffee said, according to the campaign’s announcement. "I am proud to stand with Rhode Islanders United for Marriage in calling for the General Assembly to send marriage equality legislation for my signature without delay, so that I can finally sign it, and we can better live up to our founder’s inclusive vision."

Chafee’s support follows his Jan. 10 announcement that he would likely veto any bill that called for a statewide referendum on the issue of marriage equality. State Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence), a longtime opponent of marriage equality, is expected to introduce such a bill. Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed (D-Newport), also a marriage-equality opponent, has only committed to a vote in the Judiciary Committee, but told reporters she anticipated that "the concept of initiative or referendum will probably be more thoroughly debated this year than in past years."

With 42 cosponsors in the 75-member Rhode Island House of Representatives, and strong support from House Speaker Gordon Fox (D-Providence), who is gay, the lower chamber has more than enough votes to pass a marriage-equality bill. 

Fox came under criticism in 2011 after he refused to allow a vote in the lower chamber on marriage equality, instead opting for a bill that legalized same-sex civil unions and included an amendment allowing any religious entity to refuse to recognize the legality of any civil union for any reason. In 2012 Rhode Islanders elected 16 new House legislators, 12 of whom support marriage equality. And a reshuffling of the House Judiciary Committee has resulted in a friendlier committee, with 9 of its 13 members cosponsoring the bill.

The largest hurdle to marriage equality remains the State Senate, particularly the Judiciary Committee. Four of committee’s 10 members are cosponsoring the bill. 

A September 2012 poll by CBS-affiliate WPRI showed that 56 percent of presidential-year likely voters in Rhode Island support marriage equality, with 36 percent opposed and 8 percent unsure. Close to three-quarters of Democrats, one-third of Republicans and half of Independents support marriage equality, the poll found. The issue has wide support among voters ages 18 to 59. Voters 60 and older are evenly split.

The House Judiciary Committee will hear the marriage-equality legislation, introduced by Rep. Arthur Handy (D-Cranston), Jan. 15.

In a follow-up interview with Metro Weekly, Sullivan said he did not expect a vote at Tuesday’s hearing, but hoped the legislation would be forwarded to the Senate by the end of the month.

When asked about Paiva-Weed’s decision-making in assigning what some perceive as potential opponents to the Judiciary Committee, Sullivan, himself a former House member, said that internal decisions on committee assignments often reflect more than just one issue, also noting that two legislators who were public "no" votes were removed from the committee.

"The press and some of the pundits like to focus on whip counts, a lot of the inside baseball," Sullivan said. "But really this is a campaign about protecting families, and what better way to do that than through marriage? This will be about people telling and sharing their personal stories."

He also told Metro Weekly that he doesn't believe Paiva-Weed favors bringing the issue to a referendum. 

Sullivan said Rhode Islanders United for Marriage is holding phone banks and organizing volunteers to contact legislators in key districts in an attempt to lobby them to support the bill.

While he said he couldn’t comment on the internal decision-making of the many unions involved in the coalition as to how they would score legislators when it comes to voting on marriage equality, Sullivan did say that George Nee, Rhode Island AFL-CIO president, had helped lead the effort to rally unions around the cause, and said he expects Nee to testify before the General Assembly in favor of marriage equality, as he did last year.

Characterizing himself as "cautiously and guardedly optimistic" for the bill’s passage, Sullivan said he believes supporters have momentum at their backs, at both the local and national levels, for legalizing marriage equality.

[Photo 1: Ray Sullivan, from Twitter Account @RaySullivan; Photo 2: Gordon Fox, from RI House of Representatives official website.]

A Maryland delegate who has made opposition to marriage equality one of his signature issues told the Maryland Gazette in an interview that marriage equality was one of two factors contributing to increased drinking, which culminated in a powerboat crash in August in which Dwyer, another adult and four children sustained serious injuries.

Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel Co.) told the Gazette that the two major factors that caused his drinking to increase were his November 2011 separation from his wife of 31 years and what he felt was a “betrayal” by three other delegates who ended up “flipping” their votes in favor of the Civil Marriage Protection Act.

Specifically, Dwyer singled out Dels. Wade Kach (R-Baltimore Co.), Robert Costa (R-Anne Arundel Co.), and former Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George’s Co.) for voting to approve the marriage equality bill. Kach and Alston, who both voted against the measure in committee, surprised Dwyer by becoming the 71st and 72nd votes for the bill after Del. Veronica Turner (D-Prince George’s Co.), a marriage equality supporter, was hospitalized, threatening the bill’s chances of passage.

In the Gazette interview, Dwyer called the vote by the three lawmakers a "betrayal" that made him "physically ill."

"I felt a tremendous amount of pressure in my family," Dwyer is quoted as saying. "You take those personal issues (and) add betrayal on the professional side, and it really gets to be overwhelming."

Dwyer has spent much of his legislative career opposing same-sex nuptials, even going as far as to lead a failed attempt to impeach Attorney General Doug Gansler (D) after Gansler issues a legal opinion saying that Maryland would recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. Dwyer has several times proposed amendments to ban gay marriages, and called for the removal of Baltimore County Circuit Judge Brooke Murdoch after she found the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

On Aug. 22, Dwyer and a friend, John Moran IV, a former candidate for sheriff and County Council in Anne Arundel County, were boating on the Magothy River when their 26-foot boat collided with an 18-foot boat containing Mark “Randy” Harbin, another adult, and five children. Dwyer’s boat later sank as a result of the collision, while Dwyer, another adult, and four of the children were taken to the hospital.

The day after the accident, Dwyer appeared at a press conference in a wheelchair, neck brace and leg cast and admitted to drinking alcohol prior to the crash. Investigators later revealed Dwyer’s blood-alcohol level was 0.24 percent, three times the legal limit for operating a vehicle.

Dwyer was later charged in December by Maryland Natural Resources Police with operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol, reckless operation of a vessel, negligent operation of a vessel, failing to register his boat and a rules-of-the-road violation, meaning he did not exercise the proper precautions to avoid an accident.

Harbin was charged with negligent operation of a vehicle, failing to register his boat and a rules-of-the-road violation, according to The Baltimore Sun.

Dwyer’s trial in the matter is scheduled for May 14. The Anne Arundel state’s attorney sought outside prosecutors from Howard County, because two of Dwyer’s House colleagues, Del. Ted Sophocleus (D-Anne Arundel Co.) and Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), work the Anne Arundel state’s attorney’s office, the Sun reported. If convicted, Dwyer could face up to a year in jail and be liable for nearly $2,000 in fines.

As a result of his legal troubles, Dwyer announced Thursday that House Speaker Michael Busch (D-Anne Arundel Co.) was removed from the House Judiciary Committee, the committee that oversees legislation regarding drunken driving and boating, and reassigned to the Ways and Means Committee, which deals with taxation and education. 

In a statement announcing his reassignment, Dwyer said he would miss serving on the House Judiciary Committee, but understood Busch’s position and welcomed the opportunity to serve on his new committee. 

[Photo: Don Dwyer, courtesy of Maryland General Assembly]

In just over a year, the number of Americans who believe being gay is a sin has decreased dramatically, according to a poll conducted by a Southern Baptist research group.

A LifeWay Research survey of 1,191 adults in November 2012 found 37 percent of Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, a seven point decrease from one year earlier. According to a similar survey conducted in September 2011, 44 percent of 2,144 respondents said they believe homosexuality is a sin.

The number who believe homosexuality is not a sin remained about the same, with 43 percent responding "No" in 2011 and 45 percent responding "No" in 2012.

Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, credited the dramatic change in public opinion to President Barack Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage in May 2012. 

"The president's evolution on homosexuality probably impacted the evolution of cultural values - there is a real and substantive shift, surprisingly large for a one-year timeframe - though this was hardly a normal year on this issue," Stetzer said in a statement.

The survey comes after a "watershed moment" for marriage equality at the polls on Election Day 2012. Three states — Maryland, Maine and Washington — approved same-sex marriage at the polls and voters in Minnesota rejected a measure that would have amended the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

The release notes the breakdown of the November 2012 results:

The November 2012 survey also reveals Americans in the South (40 percent) are the most likely to select "Yes" to the question "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" as are Americans who attend religious services at least about once a week (61 percent), and those calling themselves "born-again, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christian" (73 percent).

Americans who never attend religious services are the most likely to say they do not believe homosexual behavior is a sin (71 percent).

According to Stetzer, "The culture is clearly shifting on homosexuality and this creates a whole new issue: How will America deal with a minority view, strongly held by Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and so many others?"

Yesterday, the Rev. Louie Giglio, previously tapped to deliver the benediction at Obama's second inauguration, withdrew from the ceremony due to criticism of an anti-gay sermon he delivered in the mid-1990s.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Presidential Inaugural Committee said they were unaware of Giglio's previous statements.

"Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part for his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world,” the spokesperson said. "As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans." 

[Image: Poll breakdown (Courtesy of LifeWay Research).]

The Republican Party remains divided on how to address the issue of same-sex marriage, according to a poll of political insiders conducted by National Journal.

Of 99 Republicans polled, 48 percent said the party should avoid the issue of same-sex marriage altogether.

"Government doesn’t need to be in every facet of our lives. Politically, we should probably avoid the issue so as not to alienate the base, but Ted Olson is right.... This is a basic right, and if forced to a discussion, we should support it," one respondent told National Journal. "No good can come from messing with it," another Republican respondent added.

According to the poll, 27 percent of Republican respondents said the party should support same-sex marriage and 11 percent said the party should oppose it.

"Wouldn't it be fascinating if, for once, the Republicans were on the front side of a historic wave, rather than thrashed around in the undertow?" said one Republican respondent.

Not surprisingly, Democratic support for same-sex marriage was much higher with 97 percent of 109 polled Democrats saying the party should support same-sex marriage, 2 percent saying the topic should be avoided and 0 percent saying the party should oppose same-sex marriage.

The poll comes as the GOP continues to grapple with its position on same-sex marriage after a series of defeats at the ballot box last November that have been partially credited to the party’s views on social issues. In the 2012 presidential election, LGB voters made up 5 percet of the electorate, 76 percent of whom voted for President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker chronicled his battle with homophobia in a college newspaper column published more than a decade ago. 

Republished online by The Stanford Daily for the first time since it ran on April 8, 1992, the New Jersey Democrat wrote that he "hated gays."

"The disgust and latent hostility I felt toward gays were subcategories of hatred, plain and simple," Booker wrote. "I sheepishly shook hands with gays or completely shied away from physical contact. I still remember how my brow would often unconsciously furrow when I was with gays as thoughts would flash in my mind, 'What sinners I am amongst' or 'How unnatural these people are.'"

Booker earned his bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford in 1991 and 1992, respectively. In his column, Booker wrote it was only after hearing the stories of discrimination from a gay person that he faced his own bigotry.

"It was chilling to find that so much of the testimony he shared with me was almost identical to stories my grandparents told me about growing up Black," Booker wrote, adding, "it didn’t take me long to realize that the root of my hatred did not lie with gays but with myself. It was my problem. A problem I dealt with by ceasing to tolerate gays and instead seeking to embrace them."

The unearthed column comes as the 43-year-old Booker's national profile continues to rise. Last month, Booker announced he would explore running for the U.S. Senate in 2014.

One of the most outspoken advocates of marriage equality in the Democratic Party, Booker spoke at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual national dinner in October. In that speech Booker equated the fight for marriage equality to the struggles endured by other minorities. 

"We are the ones who must say, like the spirit of our ancestors, 'I am black and I am here. I am Polish and I am here. I am Irish and I am here. I am Jewish and I am here. I am gay, I am transgender, I am queer and I am here. Get used to it,'" Booker said.

READ Booker's entire column on The Stanford Daily's website.

[Photo: Booker's column as it appeared in 1992 (Courtesy of The Standford Daily).]

Rev. Louie Giglio, the pastor of the Georgia-based Passion City Church chosen to deliver the benediction at President Barack Obama's second inauguration, has removed himself from the ceremony after anti-gay comments made in the 1990s were unearthed yesterday.

In a statement delivered to the White House and inaugural committee this morning, Giglio withdrew his participation, blaming the distraction his presence would cause. 

"Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration," Giglio said. "Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."

"Neither I, nor our team, feel it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing, thus I respectfully withdraw my acceptance of the President's invitation," said Giglio, adding that he would continue to pray for the president. "Our nation is deeply divided and hurting, and more than ever need God's grace and mercy in our time of need."

First reported by ABC's Jonathan Karl, Giglio's withdrawal from the inauguration comes two days after the inagural committee announced he would deliver the benediction and one day after ThinkProgress, affiliated with the Center for American Progress, published a vehemently anti-gay sermon Giglio delivered in the mid-1990s.

In the 54-minute sermon, titled "In Search of a Standard – Christian response to Homosexuality," Giglio railed against the "homosexual lifestyle" and encouraged Christians to "lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community."

In November, Giglio was also the convocation speaker at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner reports Giglio was one of Obama's guests at the White House's 2012 Easter prayer breakfast as well.

According to a statement from a spokesperson for the Presidential Inaugural Committee rebuking Giglio's comments, the committee was unaware of Giglio's anti-gay sermon.

"We were not aware of Pastor Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural," said Addie Whisenant. "Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part for his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans." 

It is unclear how the inaugural committee overlooked the sermon discovered by ThinkProgress yesterday.

Although Giglio's invitation ultimately came from President Obama, the White House has not responded to Giglio's decision to excuse himself from the inauguration ceremony. A White House spokesperson directed all questions to the inaugural committee. Yesterday, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters he was unaware of the ThinkProgress report.

The controversy surrounding Giglio comes four years after the LGBT community criticized the participation of Rick Warren, a staunch opponent to same-sex marriage and pastor of California's Saddleback Church, in Obama's first inauguration. Despite that criticism, Warren went on to deliver the invocation. Four years later and less than a year after Obama endorsed same-sex marriage in May 2011, it appears times have changed.

"It was the right decision," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement. "Participants in the Inaugural festivities should unite rather than divide. Choosing an affirming and fair-minded voice as his replacement would be in keeping with the tone the president wants to set for his Inaugural."

Darlene Nipper, deputy executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said they had informed the White House about their concerns over the choice of Giglio. Nipper added that the selection of Cuban-American gay poet Richard Blanco as inaugural poet further magnified "how out of step the choice of Giglio was." 

"We are hopeful that Obama will now choose a faith leader who embraces fairness, equality and the ideals the president himself has called the nation to uphold," said Nipper.

The inaugural committee has not yet announced who will now deliver the benediction on Jan. 21.

Bryan Fischer of the anti-gay American Family Association took to Twitter to denounce the inaugural committee and the LGBT community for forcing Giglio to remove himself from the ceremony.

"The bully bigots at Big Gay win huge victory for fascistic intolerance," Fischer tweeted. "Bouncing Giglio a shameful display of intolerant anti-Christian bigotry and hate. Welcome to Obama's America."

[Image: Louie Giglio speaks at Liberty Univeristy in November (Screenshot from YouTube).]

The Marine Corps has instructed legal staff that spouses clubs operating on Marine bases must admit same-sex spouses or face eviction, the Associated Press reports.

According to an email from the Marine Corps commandant's staff judge advocate obtained by the AP, "We would interpret a spouses club's decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse's sex."

The memo notes ongoing controversy surrounding a spouses club at the Army's Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Last month, Ashley Broadway was refused membership to the spouses club because she is ineligible to receive a military ID card under Pentagon regulations that refuse to recognize her marriage to another woman, Lt. Col. Heather Mack.

"We do not want a story like this developing in our backyard," the email reads. 

The action taken by the Marine Corps appears to go further than any steps taken by the Pentagon or other branches of the military to remedy this problem.

According to OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson, there is no legal basis for excluding same-sex military spouses from such clubs, which are private, nonprofit organizations not governed by the federal government.

"The facts here are simple: There is no legal need or justification for any spouse to be excluded from a group like this, which exists to provide support to the spouses and families of our military men and women and the communities they serve," Robinson said. 

In a statement, Robinson applauded the action taken today, describing the Marine Corps as leading the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"The Marine Corps guidance issued today is a breakthrough and a clear indication that General Amos meant what he said when he said Marines would lead the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell," said Robinson. "Secretary Panetta should use his authority immediately to bring consistency across the services with regard to this issue and in doing so, a greater measure of equity to LGBT service members and their families."

It was a sentiment echoed by Stephen Peters of the American Military Partners Association, who told the AP his organization would pressure the Pentagon to adopt an inclusive policy that applies to all branches of the military. 

"You can't have different standards with the different branches," Peters said.

According to OutServe-SLDN, Broadway was notified in an email today that Fort Bragg will issue "Friends of Bragg" passes to same-sex spouses who can show a marriage certificate and whose military spouse sponsors them. Although this will allow the spouses access to Fort Bragg, it will still deny a number of services granted to military spouses, including shopping privileges at the post exchange and commissary. It also does not guarantee the Association of Bragg Officers' Spouses will grant membership based on the pass.

"The 'consolation prize' offered by Ft. Bragg’s leaders to Ashley Broadway and others does nothing to remedy the situation at hand - the ongoing discrimination by the Association of Bragg Officers' Spouses - nor does it truly advance equity for gay and lesbian service members and their families," Robinson said. "Ft. Bragg had the opportunity to lead here. Instead, its leaders delayed, equivocated, and made excuses. Now that opportunity is lost."

[Photo: Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos (Courtesy of the Marine Corps).]

The White House is sticking by President Obama's nominee for defense secretary despite continued qualms from advocates.

White House press secretary Jay Carney defended former Sen. Chuck Hagel during Wednesday's briefing, telling reporters Hagel has been clear about his views in his recent apology and endorsement of open military service.

Asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl during Wednesday’s White House briefing why Hagel only apologized a month ago for calling former Ambassador James Hormel "aggressively gay" in 1998, Carney deflected, stating that as secretary of defense Hagel will be responsible for carrying out the president's policies.

"I think Sen. Hagel was very clear about the fact that he thought those comments were not appropriate, he regretted them and that they don't represent the totality of his views," said Carney, adding that senators will have the opportunity to ask Hagel questions about his views during his confirmation process.

"The secretary of defense — Sen. Hagel when he is confirmed as we hope he will be — carries out the president's policies. And I think the president's policies on LGBT issues are both commendable, supported by the LGBT community and will continue to be the policies of this administration as long as President Obama is in office," said Carney. "Again, I think you've seen what Sen. Hagel said about this and the president is very confident that Sen. Hagel will be confirmed and that he will be an excellent secretary of defense and will implement all of the president’s policies with regards to the Defense Department."

Asked again about Hagel's record later in the briefing, Carney reiterated: "I think I've addressed the question about Sen. Hagel and I would simply point you to President Obama's record on LGBT issues as representative of his beliefs and convictions, his policies and where he believes this country is moving and where he hopes to lead it."

Carney's defense of Hagel comes as more is revealed about the Nebraska Republican's record in the Senate. The Omaha World-Herald republished on its website the 1998 story that quoted Hagel calling Hormel "aggressively gay." With the 1998 quote resurfacing in December one day before Hagel apologized for his remarks, Hagel went further in the original article.

Ambassadorial posts are sensitive, Hagel explained.

"They are representing America," he said. "They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay - openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel - to do an effective job."

Hagel noted a documentary, filmed with money Hormel donated, that showed teachers how they could teach children about homosexuality. He said he had seen another video clip that showed Hormel at what Hagel called an anti-Catholic event in San Francisco, featuring the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," a group of male drag queens.

"It is very clear on this tape that he's laughing and enjoying the antics of an anti-Catholic gay group in this gay parade," Hagel said. "I think it's wise for the president not to go forward with this nomination."

The article continued: 

Hagel, meanwhile, said a homosexual should not necessarily be disqualified from all ambassadorships.

His approach to nominees, he said, has been to examine the person's qualifications first. The United States has had gay ambassadors in the past and gays in the military, who have done well by quietly adopting the Pentagon's current "don't ask, don't tell" attitude.

Hormel, however, has gone beyond that, Hagel said.

He "very aggressively told the world of his gayness and the funding and all the things he's been involved in. I think you do go beyond common sense there, and reason and a certain amount of decorum," Hagel said.

"If you send an ambassador abroad with a cloud of controversy hanging over him, then I think it's unfair to our country, it's unfair to the host country and it's unfair to the ambassador because the effectiveness of that individual is going to be seriously curtailed. That's just a fact of life. And I believe Hormel's situation is one of those."

The liberal LGBT-rights group GetEqual has also criticized the totality of Hagel's record on social issues.

In a statement released yesterday, the group notes that Hagel earned a 4 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign, 14 percent from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 12 percent from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 5 percent from the League of Conservation Voters and 7 percent from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

On the other hand, Hagel finished his Senate career with a 100 percent rating from the anti-gay Family Research Council.

"With our country facing so many important battles ahead on such crucial issues as immigration reform, climate justice, and gun control, it's baffling why President Obama would spend political capital on a nominee who so clearly is at odds with his Administration's values," said Heather Cronk, managing director for GetEqual, in a statement.

Hagel also ran for the Senate opposed to abortion in cases of rape and incest, according to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski. Although the defense bill recently signed by Obama expanded Defense Department coverage for abortion in cases of sexual assault, Hagel voted against allowing servicewomen access to abortion services at military hospitals.

Hagel is expected to face a controversial confirmation process, but will likely be confirmed. Out Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) has said she plans to ask Hagel about his comments and apology. "I do want to speak with him particularly about his comments 14 years ago to see if his apology is sincere and sufficient," Baldwin said on MSNBC last week.

[Photo: Chuck Hagel (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).]

In a full-page ad published in The Hill newspaper today, Log Cabin Republicans urged Congressional Republicans to "Get It Right on Gay Marriage."

Commending the GOP for being right on taxes, spending and health care, the ad asks if the party is on the "Right Side of History" on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Log Cabin Republicans applauds those Republican members of Congress who have signed on to the Respect for Marriage Act and urges other Republicans to follow their lead. To be the party of limited government, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility, the Republican Party must stop standing in the way of caring adults building a family and a life together. A full 53 percent of Americans now support the freedom to marry. It's time for Republicans to stop spending taxpayer money defending DOMA and start defending the right of ALL Americans to pursue happiness with the person they love.

In the past LCR has argued that while the group of LGBT Republicans opposes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, as long as DOMA is law Congress is obligated to defend it if the Obama administration will not.

"The House Counsel is a nonpartisan administrative entity tasked with defending current statute passed by Congress. The law is entitled to a defense no matter how bad it may be, just as a murderer is entitled to a defense," former LCR Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper told Metro Weekly last month.

According to interim Executive Director Gregory Angelo, LCR's renewed focus on DOMA is not a change from this policy.

"What our ad today in The Hill calls attention to is the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars used by the House to defend DOMA. Unfortunately, they are only doing that because the President has abdicated his responsibility to defend the law," Angelo said in an email to Metro Weekly. "The recent decision to formally incorporate funding for DOMA defense into the Congressional Rules was an unnecessary extra step the House Republicans took, and as such we felt they needed to be called out on that."

Angelo added that LCR maintains the best way to take the issue of DOMA off the table is to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which currently has the open support of three House Republicans.

"I do agree with past Log Cabin Republicans precedent that as long as DOMA is law, it must be defended, but we take issue with the added attention incorporating funding for DOMA defense into the Congressional Rules brings to the issue, while distracting Republicans from what unites us as a party," said Angelo.

Today's DOMA ad is the third full-page newspaper ad bought by LCR in as many weeks. On Dec. 27, 2012, LCR ran a full-page ad in The New York Times preemptively declaring President Barack Obama's nominee for defense secretary, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, wrong on "gay rights," Israel and Iran. In a second full-page ad in the Jan. 7 Washington Post, LCR chronicled Hagel's record on "gay rights" and declared the Nebraska Republican's recent apology for anti-gay comments made in 1998 "Too Little, Too Late."

LCR has faced criticism for their opposition to Hagel as defense secretary after endorsing Mitt Romney for president in 2012, who had a decidedly more anti-gay record than Hagel.

The ads signal a renewed effort to raise the profile of the national organization after a series of defeats for Republicans last election that many have credited to the party's views on social issues. With LCR's counter organization, Stonewall Democrats, closing its doors until 2014 after failing to make up a budget shortfall, LCR's spending on advertising appears to indicate the organization is on sound financial footing.

That said, Angelo has declined to indicate the source of the funding for the recent ad campaign.

"What I will say is that this new, bolder, stronger Log Cabin Republicans the public has seen in recent weeks is the result of a year-long concerted effort by our board of directors to put us on sound financial footing so we are able to focus on raising the national profile of Log Cabin Republicans," Angelo said. "From my perspective, it seems to be working."

[Image: LCR ad from Jan. 9 The Hill (Courtesy of LCR).]

Jeanne Manford, activist and founder of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, died today at the age of 92.

Hailed as one of the LGBT-rights movement's first straight allies, Manford founded PFLAG after her son, Morty Manford, who died of AIDS-related complications in 1992, was among those patrons at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village when a police raid sparked the 1969 Stonewall riots. When Morty Manford was beaten during a Gay Activists Alliance demonstration in April 1972 and police failed to intervene, Jeanne Manford wrote a letter to the New York Post standing by her son.

"I have a homosexual son, and I love him," her letter read.

That same year Jeanne Manford marched with her son in New York City's Christopher Street Liberation Day March. The outpouring of support from those marching in the parade who asked her to talk to their parents led her to found a support group that later became PFLAG. Today, the organization has 350 chapters in the U.S. with more than 200,000 members.

PFLAG's executive director, Jody Huckaby, issued a statement remembering Manford as a "pioneer" and "Mother of the Straight Ally movement."

Jeanne was one of the fiercest fighters in the battle for acceptance and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. It is truly humbling to imagine in 1972 – just 40 years ago – a simple schoolteacher started this movement of family and ally support, without benefit of any of the technology that today makes a grassroots movement so easy to organize. No Internet. No cellphones. Just a deep love for her son and a sign reading “Parents of Gays: Unite in Support for Our Children."

All of us – people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight allies alike – owe Jeanne our gratitude. We are all beneficiaries of her courage. Jeanne Manford proved the power of a single person to transform the world. She paved the way for us to speak out for what is right, uniting the unique parent, family, and ally voice with the voice of LGBT people everywhere.

In 2009, President Barack Obama told the story of PFLAG's founding at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner.

"And that's the story of America, of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change," Obama said of Manford's founding of PLFAG. "Of hope stronger than hate, of love more powerful than any insult or injury. Of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit."

[Photo: Jeanne Manford marches with her son Morty Manford in 1972. (Courtesy PFLAG)]

WATCH Obama's 2009 remarks here:

National Stonewall Democrats has suspended operations until 2014, according to executive director Jerame Davis.

In an interview with Dallas Voice, Davis said the group of LGBT Democrats is "on hiatus" until next year, when a relaunch is expected. The news comes after Davis warned members in December that the organization faced a $30,000 budget shortfall that threatened to shutdown the group if the necessary funds were not raised. 

Although David told the Dallas Voice that gains had been made in recent weeks, it was not enough to counter the organization's deficit.

"We hoped an angel would step in," Davis told the Texas LGBT publication. "That didn't happen."

According to Davis, the following non-election year will be a "rebuilding year" and there is a plan to come back after a new board is elected. Meanwhile, Davis will remain as an unpaid volunteer, but said the group's national D.C. offices will be closed for most of 2013. The more than 90 local and state chapters are expected to continue operations.

Stonewall Democrats was founded in 1998 by former Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. With LGBT equality becoming more mainstream in the Democratic Party, Davis suggested Stonewall Democrats' fiscal challenges may be due to some extent by those who support his group's mission having numerous other options when pledging their donations.

"One thing we didn't do well was sell ourselves," Davis told the Dallas Voice. "The Republican Party has made it so easy for LGBT people to not be Republican, we’re not seen as important."

There was little love lost with Stonewall Democrats' counterparts in the Republican Party. In a statement provided to Metro Weekly, Gregory Angelo, interim executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said, "Considering their record of volleying ridiculous attacks at us, you can bet we're not going to shed any tears over this news."

One day after the Supreme Court announced arguments on the two cases before the court regarding same-sex marriage are scheduled for late March, the White House is keeping mum on whether President Barack Obama will weigh in on the Proposition 8 case.

Asked by NBC's Peter Alexander if Obama would publicly oppose Proposition 8 and advocate for same-sex couples to have the right to federal benefits, Carney demurred.

"For comment on specific Supreme Court cases I would point you to the Department of Justice," said Carney. "On the issue of DOMA, the administration's position on this is well known and has been and that's that the president has determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that his administration will no longer defend equal protection challenges against it in the courts. The DOJ has participated in the DOMA cases consistent with that position and asked the Supreme Court to resolve the question."

Carney added, "On Prop. 8, the administration is not a party to that case and I have nothing for you on that."

Asked again if the president would speak out actively, Carney reiterated he had no new information.

Although Obama has said he opposed California's Proposition 8, which amended the state's constitution in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage after already granting that right to same-sex couples, he has not addressed the broader issues raised in the rulings against Proposition 8, in particular whether he believes the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from banning same-sex marriage.

Plaintiffs in the case have urged the Obama administration to take a public stance on the case, and with lead attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies expected to raise that broad question in their arguments before the high court, they are urging President Obama to weigh in.

Asked by Metro Weekly at a press briefing on Dec. 11 if the administration would take a public stance on the broader questions raised by that case, Carney gave no new updates. In an interview with Time the following day for the magazine's annual "Person of the Year," Obama again refrained from weighing in.

"We are looking at the cases right now," Obama said. "I've already been very clear about DOMA, so there is no doubt that we would continue the position we're on, that DOMA is unconstitutional and should be struck down. And I think the Prop. 8 case, because the briefs are still being written, I should probably be careful about making any specific comments on it."

Yesterday, the justices announced the high court would hear arguments on the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, on March 26. On March 27, the justices will hear arguments on the DOMA case, U.S. v. Windsor. Rulings are expected to be issued in June.

[Image: White House press secretary Jay Carney (YouTube screenshot).]

Members of the military honorably discharged because of their homosexuality since Nov. 10, 2004 will receive full separation pay after a settlement reached yesterday between the Defense Department and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU and the ACLU of New Mexico filed a class action lawsuit representing 181 honorably discharged veterans who had had their separation pay cut in half due to the discriminatory policy. Approximately $2.4 million was withheld from gay veterans under the law, which was not part of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

According to the ACLU, all servicemembers covered by the lawsuit will be notified by the government that they are eligible to receive their full separation pay. Federal law entitled those involuntarily and honorably discharged from the military after six years of service to separation pay in order to ease the transition to civilian life. Due to the statute of limitations, the settlement only applies to those discharged since Nov. 10, 2004.

Under the settlement, all servicemembers covered by the lawsuit will be contacted by the government and notified that they are eligible to opt in to the settlement and receive 100 percent of the separation pay that they would have received had they been discharged for any other honorable reason. 

"It makes no sense to continue to penalize service members who were discharged under a discriminatory statute that has already been repealed," said Joshua Block, staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, in statement. "The amount of the pay owed to these veterans is small by military standards, but is hugely significant in acknowledging their service to their country."

The lead plaintiff in the case, Richard Collins, said the decision was momentous to those who were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation.

"This means so much to those of us who dedicated ourselves to the military, only to be forced out against our will for being who we are," said Collins, a nine-year Air Force veteran who was stationed in New Mexico when he was discharged after being seen kissing his boyfriend off-base. "We gave all we had to our country, and just wanted the same dignity and respect for our service as any other veterans."

[Photo: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (Courtesy of Tech. Sgt. Jacob N. Bailey, U.S. Air Force/Wikimedia Commons).]

President Barack Obama formally nominated former Sen. Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense Monday, leaving advocates cautious and curious about the Nebraska Republican's views on a number of LGBT issues that continue to face the military.

During a nomination ceremony in the East Room of the White House for Hagel, and John Brennan as CIA director, Obama and Hagel made little mention of the controversy that has surrounded Hagel in the weeks since it was first reported he was at the top of Obama's list to replace Leon Panetta as head of the Pentagon. Describing him as the "leader that our troops deserve," Obama said there is still much to do to protect the nation, including ensuring "our men and women in uniform can serve the country they love, no matter who they love."

Hagel's nomination comes after weeks of speculation and controversy surrounding comments and positions Hagel took during his years in the U.S. Senate. Criticized by the right for his stances on Israel and Iran, Hagel also faced criticism from LGBT-rights advocates for anti-gay positions, including comments made in 1998 criticizing President Bill Clinton's appointment of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg because he is gay.

"They are representing America," Hagel told The Omaha World-Herald in 1998, describing ambassadorial posts as sensitive. "They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job."

Facing the ire of LGBT-rights activists, Hagel apologized for those remarks and affirmed his commitment to open service and LGBT military families despite voicing his opposition to repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1999, then stating, "The U.S. armed forces aren't some social experiment."

"My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive,” Hagel said in a statement released Dec. 21, 2012. "They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military families."

Although Hagel earned a reputation as an independent after becoming one of the most vocal Republican defectors to criticize President George W. Bush for the war in Iraq, his record on LGBT rights as a senator was in line with some of the most conservative members of the Republican Party. He consistently voted against legislation that would have expanded hate-crime protections to LGBT Americans. According to the Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard, he earned a 0 percent for the 107th, 108th and 109th sessions of Congress. During the 110th session of Congress, Hagel earned a 20 percent due to his vote to reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which, among other things, lifted the ban on HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.

While Hagel's nomination surprised few, advocates found themselves questioning less Hagel's record than what he plans to do if confirmed by the Senate as the next defense secretary.

"Our message to the next Secretary of Defense would be the same, no matter who was nominated and confirmed," Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, said in a statement. "A commitment to support LGBT service members and their families must be a commitment to action. It's past time to extend all benefits available to married same-sex military couples and families while the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still on the books. It's past time to put in place military equal opportunity and nondiscrimination protections so that all qualified Americans who wish to serve this nation in uniform may do so without fear of harassment or discrimination."

Appearing on MSNBC, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who was sworn in as the upper chamber's first out member on Jan. 3 and will question Hagel during his Senate confirmation hearings, said she plans to "ask some tough questions, give a thorough review and be fair," adding that Hagel's anti-gay comments 14 years ago will be a topic of conversation.

"I do want to speak with him particularly about his comments 14 years ago to see if his apology is sincere and sufficient," Baldwin said. "I want to hear how he's evolved on this issue in the last 14 years because the significance to the post to which he's been nominated is the respect for now openly-gay members of the military who, because of the repeal of ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' can serve openly. And we need to see that implemented successfully, especially because the security of this nation is at stake in all of these regards."

Former Rep. Barney Frank was among those to soften his stance on Hagel. In December, Frank declared his opposition to Hagel's nomination in a highly charged statement, claiming that Hagel's "aggressively bigoted opposition to President Clinton's naming the first openly gay Ambassador in U.S. history was not, as Sen. Hagel now claims, an aberration."

Speaking to The Boston Globe the morning of Hagel's nomination, the gay Massachusetts Democrat said he had hoped Hagel would not be nominated, but insisted he be confirmed.

"As much as I regret what Hagel said, and resent what he said, the question now is going to be Afghanistan and scaling back the military," Frank told the Globe. "In terms of the policy stuff, if he would be rejected [by the Senate], it would be a setback for those things."

Frank added, "With the attack coming out of the right, I hope he gets confirmed."

Indeed, among those not to soften their opposition was the LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans, who ran their second full-page ad criticizing Hagel's nomination in the Jan. 7 Washington Post. On Dec. 27, LCR ran a full-page ad criticizing Hagel in The New York Times.

In a statement, Gregory Angelo, interim executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said the organization is invested in not losing ground on the gains made for gay servicemembers in recent years.

"Until his name surfaced as a potential nominee for Secretary of Defense, he has stood firmly and aggressively against not only gay marriage, but also against gay people in general," Angelo said in a statement.

The White House appears fully aware of the trepidation that continues among some of the president's staunchest supporters. In a blog post published on The Huffington Post and the White House's website, senior advisor to the president Valerie Jarrett noted concerns among the LGBT community, but reiterated Obama's commitment to open military service.

"He is confident that, as Secretary of Defense, Senator Hagel will ensure that all who serve the country we love are treated equally -- no matter who they love," Jarrett said of Obama.

"One of the great successes of the LGBT civil rights movement is that it provides the space and opportunity for people to change their hearts and minds, to right past wrongs, and, over time, to evolve," Jarrett wrote. "The President believes Senator Hagel's statement of apology, and his commitment to ensuring that all service members and their families are treated equally. The President would not have chosen him unless he had every confidence that, working together, they will continue to ensure that our military and DoD civilian workforce are as welcoming, inclusive, and respectful as possible."

Obama has urged the Senate to confirm Hagel as secretary of defense as soon as possible.

[Photo: Obama speaks at nomination ceremony with Leon Panetta (left), Chuck Hagel, John Brennan, Michael Morrell (Photo by Justin Snow).]

For two days in late March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the two cases before the high court regarding same-sex marriage, the justices announced Monday.

On March 26, the justices will hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, concerning California's Proposition 8. Approved by California voters in 2008, Proposition 8 amending the state's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage after already granting that right to same-sex couples. 

On March 27, the justices will hear U.S. v. Windsor, concerning the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. Several lower courts have struck down section 3 of DOMA, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriages and denies rights and benefits to same-sex couples enjoyed by straight couples, as unconstitutional.

When oral arguments on DOMA and Proposition 8 begin in March, it will likely be one of the most high profile Supreme Court cases in recent history. With about 150 first-come, first-serve public seats in the courtroom, the editors of SCOTUSblog predict some of the longest lines ever, forming as many as three days in advance.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings on the two cases in June.

[Photo: The Supreme Court building (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).]

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is openly jockeying for the Senate seat currently held by Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry.

In an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe Friday, Frank said he had called Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) and asked for the interim appointment to Kerry's Senate seat if Kerry is confirmed as President Barack Obama's next secretary of state.

Frank had hinted last month in an interview with Politico that he was interested in the interim appointment, stating he would not reject an offer that had not yet been made. In his comments today, Frank went further. 

"I'm not going to be coy. It's not something I've ever been good at," Frank said. "I've told the governor that I would now like, frankly, to do that because I would like to be a part of that. It's only a three-month period; I wouldn't want to do anything more; I don't want to run again." 

In an interview with The Boston Globe, Frank said Patrick was "noncommittal." His change of heart comes after the fiscal cliff compromise between the White House and Congress over the New Year's holiday.

"The first months of the new Senate will be among the most important in American history. I may be a little immodest, but I called the governor and said I think I can be a help in reaching a fair solution to some of these issues," Frank told the Globe, adding key decisions will be made on financial policy and his 30 years in Congress would allow him to slip easily into the role of senator.

"I think there are progressive ways to work on Social Security and Medicare. I think making the case against them (Tea Party Republicans) on the debt limit is important," Frank said, according to the Globe. "A split emerged in the Republican Party over the fiscal cliff, with mainstream Republicans splitting with the radical right. I think it’s important for us to continue to exploit that. We need to reach out to conservative Republicans who nonetheless are willing to compromise, and find a way to reach a deal."

Patrick has said he will not announce a replacement for Kerry until he is confirmed as secretary of state. If Frank is picked, he will become the second out senator in American history. Upon her swearing in yesterday, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) became the upper chamber's first out gay member.

WATCH Frank's comments here via Talking Points Memo:

Tammy Baldwin made history yesterday when she was sworn in as the U.S. Senate's first out member.

Vice President Joe Biden administered the oath of office to the Wisconsin Democrat, who was one of seven out members to take their seats in the 113th Congress. Baldwin, who previously served in the House of Representatives as that chamber's first out lesbian, is also the first woman to represent Wisconsin in the Senate.

WATCH video of Baldwin's swearing in ceremony here:

As one of their first acts of the 113th Congress, the House of Representatives voted to allow the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to continue defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

In a 228-196 vote approving the House rules, the full House voted for the first time to continue funding the legal defense of DOMA as the 1996 federal law prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages sits before the Supreme Court. The last vote concerning BLAG came in March 2011, when the Republican-controlled BLAG voted 3-2 to defend DOMA in court after the Obama administration declared the law unconstitutional in February 2011.

Democrats and LGBT-rights advocates blasted the move as a waste of taxpayer dollars. House Republicans have spent nearly $2 million on the legal defense of DOMA. 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared the vote a message from Republicans to LGBT families that "their fiscal responsibility mantra does not extend to their efforts to stand firmly on the wrong side of the future."

"Additionally, for the first time in the House Rules, the Republican leadership has decided to include an explicit acknowledgement that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) 'continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears…,'" Pelosi said in a statement, adding, "As House Democrats have time and time again made clear, the BLAG does not speak for all Members of the House of Representatives and we will continue to oppose this wasteful use of taxpayer funds to defend DOMA."

The vote comes the same day the largest number of out LGB lawmakers in American history took their seats on Capitol Hill at the start of the 113th Congress. According to Human Rights Campaign Legislative Director Allison Herwitt, "It is particularly disappointing that this historic Congress – with the largest-ever class of openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Members and same-sex congressional spouses – has begun with a vote that disrespects those new Members and all LGBT Americans."

"This law has been struck down as unconstitutional 10 times, with support from judges appointed by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes," added Marc Solomon, national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, in a statement. "It's past time for the Republican leadership to listen to their constituents, a majority of whom support the freedom to marry, and stop wasting precious resources in an effort to treat fellow Americans as second-class citizens." 

Log Cabin Republicans also criticized the move by House Republicans, all but one of which voted against the House rules.

"At a time when sound fiscal policy should be front-and-center, diverting taxpayer funds to defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act should not be a priority, period," said Gregory Angelo, interim executive director of LCR, who was appointed following former executive director R. Clarke Cooper's official exit at the end of last year. In a statement, Angelo urged Congress to repeal DOMA through the Respect for Marriage Act, which gained two Republican supporters in recent weeks. Republican Reps. Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Charlie Bass (N.H.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) each support the legislation that would repeal DOMA.

Although LCR has argued under the leadership of Cooper that the law is entitled to a defense no matter how bad it may be, Angelo told Metro Weekly that LCR's opposition to DOMA has not changed.

"Clark was always opposed to DOMA. He thought the House pursuing the defense of DOMA judicially was not a net positive for the Republican Party but also acknowledged that President Obama was making this a political issue through his actions in not upholding the law," said Angelo. "I wouldn't say this is a difference in his opinion."

[Image: Screenshot of vote on House Rules  (Courtesy of C-SPAN).]

President Barack Obama approved the defense budget for 2013, issuing a lengthy statement in the early morning hours of Thursday Eastern Time about his qualms with the more than $600 billion defense authorization bill.

"Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all," Obama stated, adding the Constitution forbids him from rejecting specific sections.

Obama led his three-page statement by voicing his concerns with the "unnecessary and ill-advised" provision that purports to protect the religious beliefs of servicemembers. A Defense Department policy that already ensures no chaplain can be forced to perform a same-sex marriage.

According to Obama:

Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.

The final language of Section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act is a watered down version of a much more anti-gay provision proposed by outgoing Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.). The "conscience clause" simply states that servicemembers' and chaplains' "moral principles" and "religious beliefs" must be accommodated "in so far as practicable."

Moreover, no member of the military may "require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain."

Chaplains are also protected against discrimination or "adverse personnel action" on the basis of their refusal to comply with any of the previously described rituals or ceremonies. According to a summary of the bill released by Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, "The protection does not protect the speech or conduct of an individual, and preserves the authority to take disciplinary or administrative actions that threaten good order and discipline."

Democrats and LGBT-rights advocates had voiced concerns that the conscience clause, declaring it unnecessary and indicative of opposition that remains to open service. 

"This fight is a reminder that the gains we have made are fragile and that we must be ready to defend them at a moment’s notice, even while we are pressing forward on issues such as military nondiscrimination protections for LGBT service members and benefits for same-sex spouses and families to achieve true equality in our military," said Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, in a statement last month.

Drew Hammill, spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, declared the language a “completely unnecessary attempt to address a phantom problem."

According to a White House official, the defense bill was delivered to the president over the weekend and brought with him to Hawaii, where it was signed.

[Photo: Barack Obama (Courtesy of the White House).]

With it appearing more and more likely that Illinois will become the next state to grant same-sex couples the right to marry, the bill before the state Legislature gained the support of the chair of the Illinois Republican Party Wednesday.

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady is urging GOP lawmakers in the state to support the Religious Freedom and Fairness Act. Brady, acting as a citizen and not in the capacity of his official role in the GOP, is calling members of his party and asking them to support the legislation, according to the Daily Herald.

"More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way," Brady said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. "Giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to get married honors the best conservative principles. It strengthens families and reinforces a key Republican value - that the law should treat all citizens equally."

"Importantly, the pending legislation would protect the freedom of religion," Brady added. "No church or religious organization would ever be required to perform a union with which it disagrees."

Reports indicate Brady's support and leadership could push Republican lawmakers to vote for the bill. The Chicago Sun-Times reports a top GOP source says up to three Republican senators are "heavily weighing supporting the gay-marriage legislation." Only one Republican senator voted for a civil-unions law approved in 2011.

Brady joins President Barack Obama in supporting the legislation, who announced his support through a spokesman shortly after Christmas. Speaking to the Chicago Sun-Times, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said the president would vote for the measure if he was still serving in the Illinois General Assembly.

"While the president does not weigh in on every measure being considered by state legislatures, he believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect," Inouye said. "As he has said, his personal view is that it's wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. Were the president still in the Illinois State Legislature, he would support this measure that would treat all Illinois couples equally."

A state Senate vote on the bill could come as soon as Thursday. As of Wednesday evening the bill was stalled in committee because the legislation fell two votes short of the 30 needed to grant a legislative hearing. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, two backers of the bill were absent from committee.

Supporters hope to have lawmakers vote on the bill before Jan. 9, when a new class of legislators will take office. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has vowed to sign the legislation if it reaches his desk. Advocates suspect persuadable lawmakers leaving office at the end of the lame-duck session could be key to the bill's success.

[Photo: Pat Brady (Courtesy of the Illinois Republican Party/weareillinois.org).]

Bank of America settled a claim with the Department of Housing and Urban Development over the mortgage lender's refusal to provide financing to a lesbian couple because of their sexual orientation and marital status. 

Announced today, the settlement is the first enforcement action taken against a lender under a new rule prohibiting mortgage lenders from basing eligibility decision on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. HUD's rule applies to all mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration and all housing programs administered by HUD. The rule was implemented in 2012 by HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan.

According to a press release announcing the agreement:

BOA agrees to pay HUD $7,500 and to notify its residential mortgage loan originators, processors and underwriters of its Settlement Agreement with HUD. In addition, BOA will remind its employees that they are prohibited from discriminating against FHA-loan applicants on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. BOA will also update its fair lending training program to include information on HUD's rule.

HUD claimed Bank of America denied a loan to a same-sex Florida couple seeking to obtain an FHA-insured mortgage because of their sexual orientation and marital status. 

"Because one partner was not employed, the applicant enlisted her partner's mother as a co-applicant on the loan," read the release. "The couple worked with BOA for several weeks to provide all of the necessary loan application documents and the couple was assured by BOA that they were likely to receive a mortgage. One business day prior to closing, BOA denied the mortgage because it did not consider the loan applicant and the co-applicant directly related because the applicant and her partner were not married. As a result of BOA's actions, the couple was not able to close on the loan."

In a statement, HUD's general counsel, Helen Kanovsky, said the agreement demonstrates HUD will "vigorously enforce its Equal Access rule and pursue lenders that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status." Moreover, Kanovsky commended Bank of America for taking immediate action to rectify the situation.

[Photo courtesy of Brian Katt/Wikimedia Commons]