The Obama administration called on the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 in a brief filed today, declaring the California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote on behalf of the Obama administration in the brief that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

"Proposition 8's denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection," the brief reads, adding that "heightened scrutiny" should be applied in the case because of the history of discrimination faced by gays and lesbians.

Although the brief was not a sweeping call for the high court to strike down same-sex marriage bans across the nation, which is not an issue before the court, the arguments made by the administration in the brief against California's ban could be applied in other states.

"I think the solicitor general has left open and charted a course that if followed in other states would require those laws to be struck down too," American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) attorney Ted Boutrous said of the arguments made in the brief during a conference call with reporters.

"This is really the last group in America who is being discriminated against because of their status," Boutrous added. "This is a really important day in our nation's history where the United States government has said in a brief in the Supreme Court basically, this discrimination cannot be tolerated." 

Taking issue with many of the arguments made by proponents of Proposition 8, which was approved by California voters in 2008 and banned same-sex marriage after that right was already granted to gay couples, the brief states that "reference to tradition, no matter how long established, cannot by itself justify a discriminatory law under equal protection principles."

California's extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8. It indicates that Proposition 8’s withholding of the designation of marriage is not based on an interest in promoting responsible procreation and child-rearing—petitioners' central claimed justification for the initiative—but instead on impermissible prejudice.

"Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law," the brief concludes.

The filing today was one of dozens of briefs filed today by various groups and businesses calling on the high court to strike down Proposition 8 and comes on the final day the court is accepting amicus curiae briefs. But today's brief was also a landmark move on the part of the Obama administration and another step in the president's long evolution on same-sex marriage. The filing comes after weeks of lobbying by plaintiffs in the case, who have urged the president to weigh in and insisted a brief from the administration would aid their cause and fuel the political climate that can affect the opinions of justices seeking to be on the right side of history.

While Obama made history in May 2012 as the first sitting president to endorse same-sex marriage and has slammed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, he had not commented on the Proposition 8 case. Since the Supreme Court announced in December they would hear arguments on the case, the White House has refused to comment on whether the administration would weigh in. As recently as this afternoon White House press secretary Jay Carney would not say if the administration would weigh in.

"In our filing today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement after the filing. "Throughout history, we have seen the unjust consequences of decisions and policies rooted in discrimination. The issues before the Supreme Court in this case and the Defense of Marriage Act case are not just important to the tens of thousands Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole."

The brief makes many of the arguments attorneys for AFER, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, have made over the years as the case has been litigated in lower courts. Adam Umhoefer, executive director of AFER, described the brief as "unprecedented."

"The brief filed by the Solicitor General is a powerful statement that Proposition 8 cannot be squared with the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded," Umhoefer said in a statement. "It is an unprecedented call to action by our Government that it is time to recognize gay and lesbian Americans as full and equal citizens under the law."

According to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who cofounded AFER and recruited Olson and Boies to the lead the legal fight against Proposition 8 in 2009, today's filing was reflective of the central argument of their case: that the Constitution guarantees all Americans equal protection.

"It is enormously gratifying to know that today, that the President and U.S. Government are standing with us against marriage discrimination," Griffin said.

Oral arguments are scheduled to begin before the Supreme Court on March 26 with a ruling expected in June.

[Photo: Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Joe Biden (Official White House photo by Pete Souza).]

Read the full brief here:

Obama Administration Prop 8 Brief 

An LGBT-inclusive Violence Against Women Act swept through the House of Representatives today, winning a bipartisan majority in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Voting 286-138 Thursday, the House approved the Senate version of VAWA, which includes protections for LGBT victims of abuse. First signed into law in 1994, the vote comes after Congress failed to reauthorize VAWA in October 2011 over objections from Republicans to the LGBT provision, as well as provisions for Native Americans and immigrants.

Although House Republicans attempted to pass their own version of VAWA today without those contested provisions, the House rejected that bill 166-257 and passed the Senate version of the bill, which that chamber approved earlier this month 78-22.

The Senate version of VAWA authorizing $659 million over five years for various programs that help prevent domestic violence and extending protections to LGBT people received unanimous Democratic support and 87 Republican votes. Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), who is an immigrant and LGBT ally, presided over the vote in the House.

"Today's vote will go even further by continuing to reduce domestic violence, improving how we treat victims of rape, and extending protections to Native American women and members of the LGBT community," President Barack Obama said in a statement following the vote. "Renewing this bill is an important step towards making sure no one in America is forced to live in fear, and I look forward to signing it into law as soon as it hits my desk."

Advocates praised today’s vote as a win for LGBT people, who face domestic violence at the same levels as straight people. 

"It's tremendous that both Republican and Democratic leaders came together to ensure that all domestic violence victims, including those who are LGBT, will not face discrimination when they seek services," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement. "There need not be a partisan divide on LGBT issues and this vote shows that we can come together to find common sense solutions to issues facing our community."

Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Gregory Angelo also applauded the Republicans who voted in favor of the LGBT-inclusive bill and "demonstrated the importance of equal protection under the law with their votes today."

"A survivor's distress should not be compounded by a lack of proper response from service providers or law enforcement,” added Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “Imagine being assaulted, scared and in pain – and then also being turned away from the care you need simply because of who you are or who you love. This legislation will better ensure that does not happen."

[Image: House approves VAWA (Screenshot courtesy of C-SPAN).]

The Obama administration will file a brief in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court, NBC News reported Thursday afternoon. 

"Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California, wading into the protracted legal battle over Proposition 8 and giving gay-rights advocates a new court ally," NBC's Pete Williams reported.

Obama Justice Dept to file Supreme Court amicus brief today opposing Prop 8 in Calif and expressing support for same-sex marriage to resume.

— Pete Williams (@PeteWilliamsNBC) February 28, 2013

The report did not indicate specifics of the brief, or how the administration will argue. They could argue narrowly, stating that it was unconstitutional for California to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry after already granting them that right, or they could argue broadly that the Constitution protects the right of all same-sex couples to marry. The administration has already filed a brief in the Defense of Marriage Act case, urging the high court to strike down the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage.

The news comes shortly after White House press secretary referred a number of questions today from reporters on the Proposition 8 case to the Department of Justice. As recently as yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder told ABC News that the Justice Department was still looking at the case. 

"From my perspective, this is really the latest civil-rights issue," Holder said of marriage equality. "It is the question of whether or not American citizens are going to be treated with equal protection of the laws. And so with regard to Prop. 8, we’re in the process now of deciding what position we’re gonna take." 

A brief from the Obama administration would be a major victory for advocates, who have urged the president to weigh in since the Supreme Court announced in December that it would hear arguments on the case challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban. A number of briefs will be filed in the Proposition 8 case, including one signed by more than 100 Republicans arguing same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The filing deadline for "friend of the court briefs" in the Proposition 8 case is today with oral arguments scheduled to begin March 26.

[Photo: Barack Obama (Official White House photo by Pete Souza).]

The Thursday deadline is rapidly approaching for the Obama administration to file a brief in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court. But while all eyes are on the White House, notably absent from the discussion of the broader constitutional questions raised by the landmark case before the Supreme Court are some of the LGBT community's closest allies: congressional Democrats.

It remains unclear if congressional Democrats will file a "friend of the court" brief in the Proposition 8 case. Sources from multiple LGBT-rights organizations involved in the challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage say they are unaware of any efforts among Democrats on Capitol Hill to make their views heard on what is expected to be one of the most high profile Supreme Court cases in recent history.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), confirmed to Metro Weekly what many expected — that Pelosi is leading a brief from congressional Democrats to be filed this week in the DOMA case. Hammill, however, provided no information on any similar efforts being taken in the Proposition 8 case.

Although Democrats, particularly those in the House, have been emphatic in their opposition to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and actions by House Republicans to defend that federal ban on same-sex marriage in court, they have been less vocal about the Proposition 8 case, including whether they believe the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry. 

With Obama's absence from addressing that question, it appears many Democrats have refrained from doing so as well. While that silence has not been all together surprising considering the sweeping argument attorneys for the plaintiffs are expected to make that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, it was magnified this week.

Indeed, on Monday The New York Times reported more than 80 prominent Republicans had attached their names to a brief that will be filed Thursday arguing same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The number of signees has now exceeded 100 and includes two Republican members of the House of Representatives — Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York.

"We're calling on the Supreme Court to correct this injustice and to bestow constitutional freedoms for all," Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement to The Miami Herald. "It should not be constitutional that we continue to deny to LGBT Americans rights enjoyed by others. We must act now to ensure the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are applied to all Americans."

Although the brief is signed primarily by Republicans who do not hold public office, the move by Ros-Lehtinen and Hanna goes further than the president himself has on same-sex marriage. While Obama made history as the first sitting president to endorse same-sex marriage, he has declined to say whether he believes the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

"You have seen no expression from the president on the constitutional or legal aspects of this," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters last week. "He has an opinion, obviously, about Proposition 8 as policy, but we have no comment and nothing to say at this point about an issue that is properly looked at as a legal and constitutional matter over at the Department of Justice."

Lead attorneys in the case, including Ted Olson, who served as solicitor general for President George W. Bush, have argued that a public stance from the Obama administration would aid their cause and fuel the political climate that can affect the opinions of justices seeking to be on the right side of history. Although the Democratic Party has closely aligned itself with LGBT issues in recent years, particularly after Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012, Democrats on Capitol Hill have been mum as to whether they will take a public stance on the Proposition 8 case. Much like the president himself, Democratic leadership has not indicated whether they believe the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.

"Obviously, it would have national implications in a state case, so I don’t know what the Justice Department thinking is on that," Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) told Metro Weekly when asked if she thinks the Obama administration should weigh in. On the brief signed by Republicans, Baldwin added, "It's a sign of progress and really some folks who a few years ago had a very different position are evolving much the way our president has, so I've been encouraged." 

Pelosi herself has come close to stating that she believes banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, but has not said so directly.

"By taking up the Prop 8 case, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to make a strong statement that laws, in California and nationwide, must not target the LGBT community unfairly and that families across our state and our country deserve fair and equal treatment under the law," Pelosi said in a statement in December after the Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments in the Proposition 8 case. "We have now reached a landmark moment in the history of civil rights in our nation."

In a letter to Obama sent Feb. 26, out gay Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) became one of the few congressional Democrats to publicly urge the president to weigh in, writing that it is "critical that the Supreme Court find Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. It is time for marriage equality." 

Oral arguments are scheduled to begin before the Supreme Court on March 26 with a ruling expected in June.

[Photo: Barack Obama delivers his 2011 State of the Union address to Congress (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson).]

Nearly 300 businesses and city governments filed a brief with the Supreme Court today calling for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage, be struck down as unconstitutional. 

Signed by approximately 278 employers, including major businesses such as Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Starbucks, Morgan Stanley, Google and cities from Baltimore to Los Angeles, the brief argues that DOMA hurts work efficiency and employee moral.

"In the modern workplace, the employer becomes the face of DOMA's discriminatory treatment, and is placed in the role of intrusive inquisitor, imputer of taxable income, and withholder of benefits," writes attorney Sabin Willett. "The employer is thus forced by DOMA to participate in the injury of its own workforce morale." 

Our principles are not platitudes. Our mission statements are not simply plaques in the lobby. Statements of principle are our agenda for success: born of experience, tested in laboratory, factory, and office, attuned to competition. Our principles reflect, in the truest sense, our business judgment. By force of law, DOMA rescinds that judgment and directs that we renounce these principles or, worse yet, betray them.

Several of the employers who have attached their names to the brief have spoken out on the issue of marriage equality before. The brief comes one day after attorneys for Edith Windsor, the 83-year-old lesbian widow at the center of the DOMA case before the Supreme Court, filed their brief with the high court. Windsor's lawyers echoed many of the arguments made in a brief filed by the Obama administration last week, arguing for "heightened scrutiny" in the case and dismissing arguments made by the Republican-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which has been defending DOMA in court since the Obama administration stopped doing so in February 2011.

Oral arguments are scheduled to begin on the DOMA case March 27, one day after the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Proposition 8 case.

Read the brief here:

Employers DOMA Brief

After weeks of delay, the U.S. Senate today confirmed Chuck Hagel as the next secretary of defense, voting 58-41. 

The vote comes nearly two months after President Barack Obama nominated Hagel to succeed Leon Penetta as Pentagon head. Although Hagel’s nomination initially faced criticism from LGBT advocates for statements and votes made by the Nebraska Republican when he served in the Senate, a public apology and promise to support the further implementation of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" helped those concerns to subside.

"I will be counting on Chuck's judgment and counsel as we end the war in Afghanistan, bring our troops home, stay ready to meet the threats of our time and keep our military the finest fighting force in the world," said Obama in a statement. "Most of all, I am grateful to Chuck for reminding us that when it comes to our national defense, we are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans, and our greatest responsibility is the security of the American people."

In recent weeks, Hagel has faced criticism from Republicans for his stances on Iran and Israel. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) described Hagel as unfit to lead the Pentagon during his confirmation hearing before the Armed Service Committee. Both men voted against Hagel's confirmation today.

Hagel's nomination was filibustered by Republican senators earlier this month as well, which was overcome earlier today when the Senate voted 71-27 to move forward with his nomination vote.

Among the senators voting in favor of Hagel today was the chamber's first out gay member, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Although Baldwin had said she had questions about Hagel’s positions on a number of issues since he left the Senate in 2009, those questions were answered. 

"In our meeting, Senator Hagel showed refreshing sincerity and candor. In addition, he presented a quality that is not seen enough of in Washington and will serve our country well in the role of Secretary of Defense, the humility to admit mistakes and learn from them," Baldwin said in statement earlier this month.

Following today's vote, the nation’s largest organization for LGBT servicemembers praised Hagel's confirmation as a win for gay and straight members of the military. 

"We congratulate Senator Hagel for enduring an incredibly arduous confirmation process to become our next Secretary of Defense – this is a win for all service members, and for LGBT service members and their families especially," said Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, in a statement. "We thank the Senator for his commitment to equal treatment and equal opportunity, and we urge him to take swift action to include our service members in non-discrimination and anti-harassment protections."

Although concerns over Hagel's LGBT record have largely subsided in recent weeks, Log Cabin Republicans, which ran ads against Hagel’s nomination, remained wary.

"Despite a history of hurtful comments against the LGBT community and a dismal record on our issues, we must look to the future now that Chuck Hagel has been confirmed as Secretary of Defense with the hope that his repudiation of past statements and declared commitment to supporting open service for all is genuine," said LCR Executive Director Gregory Angelo. "It is up to Secretary Hagel to turn his recent words into actions."

[Image: Chuck Hagel during his Senate confirmation hearing last month (Screenshot courtesy of C-SPAN).]

More than 80 Republicans and conservatives have attached their names to a brief to be filed with the Supreme Court later this week arguing that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

First reported last night by The New York Times, the brief will be filed in the Proposition 8 case before the high court. The signees include two Republican members of Congress — Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York — as well as a number of former Republican advisors and elected officials. Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman also attached his name to the brief. Last week, Huntsman, who is Mormon, announced his support for same-sex marriage. They all join Ted Olson, the former solicitor general for President George W. Bush and conservative attorney, who has been leading the suit against California's Proposition 8.

Olson, as well as co-counsel David Boies, are expected to argue that same-sex couples’ right to marry is protected by the Constitution when oral arguments begin before the Supreme Court next month. 

"The support for marriage equality demonstrated by this amicus brief represents a microcosm of what we see happening all across the country," stated Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which has been challenging Proposition 8 since California voters approved the ban on same-sex marriage in 2008. "Americans are united behind the concepts of freedom, dignity and strong families."

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and co-founder of AFER, praised the news, declaring in a statement, "We're proud to have these prominent Republicans join Ted Olson in supporting a freedom-based Constitutional argument for equality. None of us — Democrat, Republican or Independent — would want to be told that we can't marry the person we love, and these signatories are blazing the trail for the next generation of fair-minded Republicans still to come."

While the list continues to grow before Thursday's filing deadline for "friends of the court" briefs, AFER released the most current list of conservatives and Republicans to sign on to the brief.

• Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
• Tim Adams, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2005-2007
• David D. Aufhauser, General Counsel, Department of Treasury, 2001-2003
• Cliff S. Asness, Businessman, Philanthropist, and Author
• John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to the Department of State, 2005-2009
• Katie Biber, General Counsel, Romney for President, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
• Mary Bono Mack, Member of Congress, 1998-2013
• William A. Burck, Deputy Staff Secretary, Special Counsel and Deputy Counsel to the President, 2005-2009
• Alex Castellanos, Republican Media Advisor
• Paul Cellucci, Governor of Massachusetts, 1997-2001, and Ambassador to Canada, 2001-2005
• Mary Cheney, Director of Vice Presidential Operations, Bush-Cheney 2004
• Jim Cicconi, Assistant to the President & Deputy to the Chief of Staff, 1989-1990
• James B. Comey, United States Deputy Attorney General, 2003-2005
• R. Clarke Cooper, U.S. Alternative Representative, United Nations Security Council, 2007-2009
• Julie Cram, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director White House Office of Public Liaison, 2007-2009
• Michele Davis, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Department of the Treasury, 2006-2009
• Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President, 1981-1984 and 1987-1989
• Lew Eisenberg, Finance Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2002-2004
• Elizabeth Noyer Feld, Public Affairs Specialist, White House Office of Management and Budget, 1984-1987
• David Frum, Special Assistant to the President, 2001-2002
• Richard Galen, Communications Director, Speaker’s Political Office, 1996-1997
• Mark Gerson, Chairman, Gerson Lehrman Group and Author of The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars and In the Classroom: Dispatches from an Inner-City School that Works
• Benjamin Ginsberg, General Counsel, Bush-Cheney 2000 & 2004
• Adrian Gray, Director of Strategy, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
• Richard Grenell, Spokesman, U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, 2001-2008
• Patrick Guerriero, Mayor, Melrose Massachusetts and member of Massachusetts House of Representatives, 1993-2001
• Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, 2005-2009
• Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, 2005-2009
• Richard Hanna, Member of Congress, 2011-Present
• Israel Hernandez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, 2005-2009
• Margaret Hoover, Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2006
• Michael Huffington, Member of Congress, 1993-1995
• Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, 2005-2009
• David A. Javdan, General Counsel, United States Small Business Administration, 2002-2006
• Reuben Jeffery, Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs, 2007-2009
• Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Advance, 2003-2004
• Coddy Johnson, National Field Director, Bush-Cheney 2004
• Gary Johnson, Governor of New Mexico, 1995-2003
• Robert Kabel, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, 1982-1985
• Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, 2004-2005
• Jonathan Kislak, Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Development, 1989-1991
• David Kochel, Senior Advisor to Mitt Romney’s Iowa Campaign, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
• James Kolbe, Member of Congress, 1985-2007
• Jeffrey Kupfer, Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy, 2008-2009
• Kathryn Lehman, Chief of Staff, House Republican Conference, 2003-2005
• Daniel Loeb, Businessman and Philanthropist
• Alex Lundry, Director of Data Science, Romney for President, 2012
• Greg Mankiw, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
• Catherine Martin, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy & Planning, 2005-2007
• Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2005-2009
• David McCormick, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2007-2009
• Mark McKinnon, Republican Media Advisor
• Bruce P. Mehlman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, 2001-2003
• Connie Morella, Member of Congress, 1987-2003 and U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003-2007
• Michael E. Murphy, Republican Political Consultant
• Michael Napolitano, White House Office of Political Affairs, 2001-2003
• Ana Navarro, National Hispanic Co-Chair for Senator John McCain’s Presidential Campaign, 2008
• Noam Neusner, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Speechwriting, 2002-2005
• Nancy Pfotenhauer, Economist, Presidential Transition Team, 1988 and President's Council on Competitiveness, 1990
• J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Civil Rights Division), 1973-1977
• Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2001-2005
• Deborah Pryce, Member of Congress, 1993-2009
• John Reagan, New Hampshire State Senator, 2012-Present
• Kelley Robertson, Chief of Staff, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Member of Congress, 1989-Present
• Harvey S. Rosen, Member and Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
• Lee Rudofsky, Deputy General Counsel, Romney for President, 2012
• Patrick Ruffini, eCampaign Director, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
• Steve Schmidt, Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to the Vice President, 2004-2006
• Ken Spain, Communications Director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2009-2010
• Robert Steel, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, 2006-2008
• David Stockman, Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1985
• Jane Swift, Governor of Massachusetts, 2001-2003
• Michael E. Toner, Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Election Commission, 2002-2007
• Michael Turk, eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney 2004
• Mark Wallace, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Representative for UN Management and Reform, 2006-2008
• Nicolle Wallace, Assistant to the President and White House Communications Director, 2005-2008
• William F. Weld, Governor of Massachusetts, 1991-1997, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Criminal Division), 1986-1988
• Christine Todd Whitman, Governor of New Jersey, 1994-2001, and Administrator of the EPA, 2001-2003
• Meg Whitman, Republican Nominee for Governor of California, 2010
• Robert Wickers, Republican Political Consultant
• Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming State Representative, 2005-present

The D.C. Council voted 11-2 Monday on a resolution reprimanding Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of the city's two gay councilmembers, over findings in a report by the D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability that alleged that Graham violated the city’s code of employee conduct by trying to intervene on behalf of a campaign contributor bidding on a city contract.  

Graham, who has repeatedly denied any connection between campaign donations and actions taken in his roles as councilmember and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) board member, and insisted that he broke no ethics rules, voted no on the resolution, as did Councilmember Marion Barry (D-Ward 8).

The reprimand stems from the findings by the ethics board, which said it found "a substantial body of evidence” that Graham, in his roles as both a councilmember and a voting member on the WMATA board, indicated he would be willing to offer preferential treatment to a company bidding to administer the District’s lottery, as Metro Weekly previously reported.

In a matter not directly related to the ethics board's conclusions, the D.C. Council also voted 10-2-1 to remove oversight of the city’s Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board from the Committee on Human Services, which Graham chairs, instead putting it under the jurisdiction of another member’s committee. Graham and Barry again voted against that move, while Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At Large) voted present. 

The resolution reprimanding Graham, introduced by Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), quoted extensively from the 27-page opinion issued by the ethics board that found Graham made statements that appeared to imply he would support W2Tech – which formed a joint venture that was awarded the contract for the District’s lottery – if Banneker Ventures, a general contracting and construction management firm sharing a common principal with W2Tech, would withdraw from a bid to redevelop a Florida Avenue WMATA-owned site, allegedly in order to clear the way for firm LaKritz Adler, a campaign contributor of Graham’s.

Though the ethics board said it found evidence that Graham had attempted to intervene on behalf of LaKritz Adler, it stopped short of sanctioning Graham, because the alleged intervention happened before the formation of the ethics committee, created in 2012. Sanctioning Graham for actions taken prior would violate constitutional prohibitions on retroactive lawmaking, the board's chairman, Robert Spagnoletti, said when the findings were released.

Despite the lack of sanction, Graham's lawyers argued that the ethics board broke its own rules and denied Graham due process when it failed to hold a hearing at which Graham could respond to the evidence against him. Graham’s lawyers also filed a lawsuit against the ethics board and sought a restraining order against it, in the hope of preventing the D.C. Council from taking into account the board’s findings. However, those hopes were dashed Friday after a D.C. Superior Court judged declined to issue such a restraining order – though the lawsuit may proceed. 

Graham, who is up for re-election in 2014 and is expected to run for another D.C. Council term, previously said he had no plans to resign from office. 

Following the passage of the D.C. Council reprimand, Graham issued a statement saying it was "time to move on."

"I have very important responsibilities as chairman of the human services committee and all the responsibility of representing Ward 1," Graham said in the statement. "Going forward, I will continue to represent the people who elected me to serve with the same passion and fervor as I have from my first day in office."

GOProud picked up an unlikely ally over the weekend when liberal commentator Chris Hayes issued an ultimatum to the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Invited to participate on a panel at the annual conference scheduled for next month, which attracts leading conservative thinkers and politicians, Hayes said he would only accept the invitation after the ban on GOProud's attendance is lifted.

"GOProud is not an organization I share much with ideologically, or even, truth be told, like all that much. They come out of the Breitbart wing of the conservative movement that seems to relish nothing more than pissing off liberals," Hayes said Saturday during his MSNBC show. "GOProud is not really the point. The point is the principle, which is: it’s not OK to ban organizations for reasons of pure bigotry."

Although GOProud participated in CPAC in 2010 and 2011, the group for gay conservatives was kicked out of the conference last year after former GOProud board president Chris Barron labeled conservative attorney Cleta Mitchell as a "nasty bigot" and blamed her for the decision by the Heritage Foundation to remove itself from the conference over GOProud's participation. Although Barron apologized, GOProud has not be invited back since.

According to GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia, the group has had no communication with the American Conservative Union, which sponsors CPAC, since last year. While Hayes and GOProud may have little in common politically, LaSalvia said the group welcomes Hayes's support. 

"We certainly disagree with Chris Hayes politically, but we appreciate his commentary on Saturday," LaSalvia said in an email to Metro Weekly. "He was correct to state that we were kicked out of CPAC because of anti-gay bigotry." 

Writing in the conservative National Review Online, News Editor Daniel Foster joined with Hayes in calling for inclusion, writing that the conservative movement cannot afford to ignore shifting public opinion on gay issues and that gay voters should not automatically be considered Democrats.  

"[T]he election is over, and one of conservatism’s great intellectual strengths is that 'conservatism' is a contested concept," Foster wrote. "If confabs like CPAC aren’t going to reflect the robust and vital internal debate about the present and future of conservatism, what are they good for?"

It also does not appear Log Cabin Republicans will participate in this year's CPAC, after attending in 2011 but not doing so last year. According to LCR Executive Director Gregory Angelo, the group of gay Republicans has not been approached by organizers about participating in this year's conference.

With changing attitudes toward LGBT issues, particularly among young voters, leaders from both organizations have argued that the Republican Party must evolve on LGBT issues if it wants to remain relevant in the political process.

Watch Hayes's comments here:

The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act in a brief filed Friday, declaring the 1996 federal law to be unconstitutional.

Arguing that Section 3 of DOMA, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage, violates the Constitution, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli writes that DOMA also deserves heightened scrutiny because of the history of discrimination faced by gays and lesbians.

"Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection," the brief reads. "The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

On the issue of heightened scrutiny, the brief states that "gay and lesbian people have long suffered discrimination in employment, immigration, criminal violence, child custody, police enforcement, voter referenda, and other contexts."

[G]ay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power. Although some of the harshest and most overt forms of discrimination against gay and lesbian people have receded, that progress has hardly been uniform (either temporally or geographically), and has in significant respects been the result of judicial enforcement of the Constitution, not political action.

The brief also takes issue with arguments advanced by the Republican-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which has been defending DOMA in federal court since the Obama administration stopped doing so in February 2011, including its argument that this is an issue that should not be decided by the courts.

BLAG makes an appeal to this Court to allow the democratic process to run its course. That approach would be very well taken in most circumstances. This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.

Moreover, the brief states that arguments made by BLAG that DOMA protects the institution of marriage and its perceived purpose — procreation — are flawed. 

"Even apart from the expert consensus that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents, Section 3 does nothing to promote responsible opposite-sex parenting or to prevent irresponsible same-sex parenting," the brief reads. "Denying federal benefits to married same-sex couples creates no additional incentive for heterosexual couples to marry, procreate, or raise children together; nor does it disturb any state-conferred parental rights for same-sex couples."

The brief comes in the case of United States v. Windsor, which surrounds Edith Windsor, who has been challenging DOMA since 2010, following the death of her wife, Thea Spyer. Windsor is suing to recoup about $363,000, the federal estate tax she was forced to pay on her "inheritance" from Spyer. The federal government does not tax wealth that passes to a surviving heterosexual spouse. Because of DOMA, however, the federal government has refused to recognize Windsor and Spyer's marriage. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is assisting Windsor in her suit, payment of the federal estate tax is one of the most damaging impacts of DOMA. 

Living most of their lives in New York City's Greenwich Village, Windsor and Spyer were engaged to marry in 1967, and finally did so with a Canadian wedding license in May 2007. Nevertheless, Windsor's lawyers point out that DOMA requires the government to view the couple as legal strangers. 

The brief was one of two filed by the Department of Justice today. The other related to the administration's right to pursue an appeal. BLAG also filed a brief challenging the government's right to appeal and lawyers for Windsor filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to rule in the case. Oral arguments are scheduled to begin before the high court on March 27 with a ruling expected in June.

[Photo: Supreme Court (Courtesy of Matt Wade/Wikimedia Commons).]

Read the full brief here:

US Merits Brief Windsor

Follow @metroweekly   Follow @journosnow

Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman announced his support for same-sex marriage Thursday, declaring marriage equality to be a "conservative cause."

"We are at a crossroads," Huntsman wrote of the Republican Party in a column published today by The American Conservative. "I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game – because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty."

Writing that the "party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans," Huntsman said that conservatives should begin to push their states to join the nine that already allow same-sex marriage.

"I've been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life," Huntsman wrote. "There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love."

The declaration of support for the right of same-sex couples is the culmination of evolving comments from the former Utah governor and ambassador to China for the Obama administration. As a governor and candidate for president, Huntsman opposed marriage equality but supported civil unions. 

"I believe in traditional marriage," he said on CNN in August 2011 while still a candidate for the Republican nomination. "I don't think you can redefine marriage from the traditional sense."

For Huntsman, who said today that "consistent with the Republican Party's origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans," that position has changed. 

Joining a number of prominent Republicans who have endorsed same-sex marriage, Huntsman's announcement was welcomed by advocates. 

"Governor Jon Huntsman is one of a growing number of Republicans to embrace the idea that marriage should be for all Americans," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement. "From former Vice President Dick Cheney to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Huntsman is yet another high profile Republican official to make the case that treating people equally under the law is an American value."

According to Gregory Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, "Jon Huntsman is correct: The conservative movement is indeed at a crossroads, and it's inspiring to see more and more conservative leaders such as Governor Huntsman walking the road that leads to the right side of history." 

Read Huntsman's piece here.

[Photo: Jon Huntsman (Courtesy of Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)]

White House press secretary Jay Carney today left open the possibility that the Obama administration will take a public stance and file a brief in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court.

Responding to reports that the administration has not yet made a final decision as to whether to file a "friend of the court" brief in the case, Carney said he had "no comment on that case to which the United States is not a party at this time."

"I don't have a hint for you either way," Carney added. "That's a question I would take to [the Department of] Justice."

Carney's answer today was a slight departure from previous statements, in which he has simply said "the administration is not a party to this case" and referred questions to the Justice Department.

Plaintiffs in the case challenging California's Proposition 8, which amended the state's constitution in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage after already granting that right to gay couples, have argued that a public stance from the Obama administration would aid their cause and fuel the political climate that can affect the opinions of justices seeking to be on the right side of history. 

In December, shortly after the Supreme Court announced it would take up the Proposition 8 case, lead attorney Ted Olson urged the Obama administration to make its positions known.

"I would hate to predict what the United States government is doing, but given the stand the president of the United States and the attorney general of the United States made with respect to marriage equality, we would certainly hope that they would participate," Olson said. "And I'm quite confident that if they did participate that they would support our position in this case that the denial of equal rights is subject to close scrutiny by the courts and cannot withstand that scrutiny. It's a denial of rights, and it's quite clear that it is."

Plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case filed their one and only brief with the Supreme Court today, previewing oral arguments that will begin next month and arguing with sweeping language that the measure "denies gay men and lesbians their fundamental right to marry in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses."

Although Obama has voiced his opposition to Proposition 8, 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. 

That was a position reiterated by Carney today: "Again, I think you have seen no expression from the President on the constitutional or legal aspects of this. He has an opinion, obviously, about Proposition 8 as policy, but we have no comment and nothing to say at this point about an issue that is properly looked at as a legal and constitutional matter over at the Department of Justice."

During an interview with San Francisco's KGO-TV yesterday, Obama said the solicitor general was still looking into the issue.

"I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we're not a party to the case," Obama said. "I can tell you, though, obviously, my personal view, which is that I think that same-sex couples should have the same rights and be treated like everybody else, and that's something I feel very strongly about and my administration is acting on wherever we can."

The Obama administration has until Feb. 28 — one week from today — to issue a brief in the case.

[Photo: Barack Obama (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)]

Opponents of California's Proposition 8 filed their one and only brief with the Supreme Court before oral arguments are scheduled to begin next month, arguing that the measure "denies gay men and lesbians their fundamental right to marry in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses."

"This Court has characterized the right to marry as one of the most fundamental rights — if not the most fundamental right — of an individual," attorneys for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, argue in the 54-page brief. 

The brief also states that the case, which concerns a measure that amended California's Constitution in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage after already granting that right to same-sex couples, deserves "heightened scrutiny" due to the history of discrimination faced by gays and lesbians.

"With the full authority of the State behind it, Proposition 8 sends a clear and powerful message to gay men and lesbians: You are not good enough to marry. Your loving relationship is not equal to or respected enough to qualify to be called a marriage," the brief reads.

Because of their sexual orientation—a characteristic with which they were born and which they cannot change—Plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of gay men and lesbians in California and across the country are being excluded from one of life's most precious relationships. They may not marry the person they love, the person with whom they wish to partner in building a family and with whom they wish to share their future and their most intimate and private dreams. Although opening to them participation in the unique and immensely valuable institution of marriage will not diminish the value or status of marriage for heterosexuals, withholding it causes infinite and permanent stigma, pain, and isolation. It denies gay men and lesbians their identity and their dignity; it labels their families as second-rate. That outcome cannot be squared with the principle of equality and the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is the bedrock promise of America from the Declaration of Independence to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the dream of all Americans. This badge of inferiority, separateness, and inequality must be extinguished. When it is, America will be closer to fulfilling the aspirations of all its citizens. 

The brief is a preview of the oral arguments Olson and Boies will present to the Supreme Court justices on March 26. The high court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by June. 

It remains to be seen if President Barack Obama will weigh in on the Proposition 8 case and the broader arguments raised by the plaintiffs, including whether same-sex couples are protected by the Constitution to marry. In an interview with San Francisco's KGO-TV yesterday, Obama demurred from weighing in.

"The solicitor general is still looking at this," Obama said. "I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we're not a party to the case. I can tell you, though, obviously, my personal view, which is that I think that same-sex couples should have the same rights and be treated like everybody else, and that's something I feel very strongly about and my administration is acting on wherever we can."

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported the Obama administration has not yet made a final decision as to whether to file a "friend of the court" brief, according to a senior administration official. The administration's deadline is Feb. 28.

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

Read the full brief here:

Perry Respondents Merits Brief

One day after a coalition of more than 80 organizations supporting marriage equality unveiled a new ad featuring clips of three prominent Republicans voicing their support for same-sex marriage, Laura Bush has requested to be removed from the ad. 

In a statement to The Dallas Morning News, Bush spokeswoman Anne MacDonald said Wednesday that the former first lady "did not approve of her inclusion in this advertisement nor is she associated with the group that made the ad in any way." 

According to MacDonald, "When she became aware of the advertisement last night, we requested that the group remove her from it."

Bush is featured alongside former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Barack Obama voicing their support for same-sex marriage.

"When couples are committed to each other and love each other then they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has," Bush says in a clip pulled from a 2010 interview with CNN's Larry King.

The television ad is part of a $1 million ad campaign unveiled by the coalition, which is co-chaired by the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Marry, and begin running on cable networks yesterday and is scheduled to run during the Sunday talk shows in the weeks ahead. Full-page print versions of the ad were scheduled to run in major national newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, with online ads appearing on major news websites. 

It is not yet clear if the Respect for Marriage Coalition will remove Bush from the TV, print and online ads. Requests for comment from Metro Weekly were not immediately returned.

UPDATE: In a statement to Politico, the Respect for Marriage Coalition announced a new ad to replace the one featuring Bush.

"We used public comments for this ad from American leaders who have expressed support for civil marriage," the group said. "We appreciate Mrs. Bush's previous comments but are sorry she didn't want to be included in an ad. The ad launched a public education campaign that will now move to new and different voices that reflect the depth and breadth of our support."

The new ad features a Republican and former Marine, Craig Stowell, discussing his support for same-sex marriage and his gay brother.

Respect for Marriage Print Ad

Forget the budget or transportation. Some Richmond lawmakers went to the mat to prevent unmarried couples from living together and having sex without breaking the law. And on Wednesday, they lost.

By a 62-25 margin, the Virginia House of Delegates passed SB969, a bill that seeks to repeal a section of Virginia law that makes cohabitating or "lewdly and lasciviously associating" with a partner outside of marriage a crime.

Under current law, cohabitation by unmarried couples, straight or gay – or simply extramarital sex – is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $500 for the first offense; and by up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both, for a second offense.

Although the 19th century law is rarely enforced, it remains on the books and was used as recently as the 1990s to threaten a Norfolk daycare worker with the loss of her license for living with her boyfriend .

While current law makes no reference to sexual orientation, repealing the law will benefit same-sex couples as much as it does straight couples, since same-sex couples, even if legally married elsewhere, are considered unmarried, due to Virginia’s Marshall-Newman Amendment, which prevents the commonwealth from recognizing any form of same-sex partnership.

Although SB969 unanimously passed the Virginia Senate in January, it was less well received in the House of Delegates, where some members attempted to kill the bill by making a motion to send it back to committee. That motion failed.

Thirty-five Republicans and 27 Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while 21 Republicans, three Democrats and the House’s sole independent, Lacey Putney (Bedford, Alleghany, Botetourt counties), who caucuses with Republicans, voted against it. Eleven other Republicans and two Democrats did not vote.

Much of the opposition to the bill came delegates from the western half of the state, from Winchester down through Lynchburg, Roanoke, Blacksburg and Bristol, including some whose districts extend into Loudoun, Prince William and Fauquier counties in Northern Virginia. In all, 16 of the 25 "no" votes came from that region.

That tally of opponents includes six lawmakers – Dels. Terry Kilgore (R-Norton, Lee, Scott Wise counties); J. Randall Minchew (R-Clarke, Frederick, Loudoun counties); Todd Gilbert (R-Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Warren counties); Benjamin Cline (R-Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Rockbridge counties); Robert Bell (R-Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Rockingham counties); and Joseph Johnson (D-Dickenson, Russell, Washington, Wise counties) – who previously voted in favor of the bill in committee.

The measure will now go before Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who has said he supports ending the ban on cohabitation. 

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

More than 50 progressive organizations called on President Barack Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in a letter sent to the White House today.

Led by the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Work and the American Civil Liberties Union, the letter calls for Obama to "take an immediate step toward legal equality by signing an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans."

Noting the president's record on LGBT issues during his first term, the letter urges the president to begin his second term "by taking strong executive action to prevent irrational workplace discrimination against LGBT Americans."

"The time to act is now," the letter concludes.

The letter comes as Obama has faced increased pressure since his re-election to sign such an executive order, which already prohibits federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to federal contractor executive order would protect up to 16.5 million more workers. It remains legal in 29 states to fire someone based on sexual orientation and legal in 34 states to do so based on gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

"Issuing an executive order is a crucial step toward ending workplace discrimination against LGBT people," said HRC President Chad Griffin in a statement. "After a historic pro-equality first term, President Obama could level the playing field for LGBT employees of federal contractors with the stroke of a pen and ensure they have an equal opportunity to succeed."

Although Obama publicly supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, he has backed off of his support for an executive order after indicating as a candidate for president in 2008 that he would sign such an order. The White House has repeatedly said the president would prefer to see ENDA passed and all workers protected instead of adding proctecions only for those employed by federal contractors.

Advocates, however, have argued the executive order would help build momentum for ENDA and protect at least some LGBT workers now. As a policy memo released yesterday by the Center for American Progress and the Williams Institute notes, presidents have historically preempted Congress by signing executive orders making workplace nondiscrimination protections mandatory for federal contractors before the existence of federal statutes.

"Taking this action would result in at least some workplaces in all 50 states having legally binding protections for LGBT Americans — a first in our nation's history," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero in a statement.

Added Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, "Nearly 175,000 Americans have signed Freedom to Work's online petition asking President Obama to issue an executive order to save our taxpayer money from subsidizing workplace discrimination. We are grateful to the dozens of national organizations joining today's letter to urge the President that the time to act is now."

Today's letter comes on the heels of a similar letter signed by 37 senators last week calling for Obama to sign the executive order.

Despite growing pressure for action, the White House gave no new updates today on the executive order called for by advocates.

"The President has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and his Administration will continue to work to build support for it," White House spokesman Shin Inouye said in a statement to Metro Weekly. 

[Photo: Barack Obama (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)]

Read the full letter here:

Executive Order Letter

A coalition of more than 80 organizations supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry launched an "unprecedented" national advertising campaign today.

The Respect for Marriage Coalition plans to invest more than $1 million over the next few weeks to run ads advocating for marriage equality on the airwaves, in print and online. 

In a 30-second TV ad released by the coalition, clips of bipartisan leaders — including President Barack Obama, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former first lady Laura Bush and former Secretary of State Colin Powell — can be seen voicing their support for same-sex marriage. Entitled "Leadership," the ad will begin running on cable networks today and during the Sunday talk shows in the weeks ahead. 

"It's time for marriage," the ad declares.

According to the coalition, which is co-chaired by the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Marry, full-page print versions of the ad will run in major national newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, and online ads will appear on major news websites. 

The new ad comes one day after the same coalition released a new poll conducted by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research that found 75 percent of Americans believe the right to marry is a constitutional right. It is a sentiment that breaches party lines, according to the poll, with 91 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of independents and 56 percent of Republicans responding so. Moreover, 83 percent of voters believes same-sex marriage will be legal nationally in the next five to 10 years and 77 percent believe that it will be legal nationally "in the next couple of years."

In a separate poll released yesterday by the Center for American Progress and Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, 59 percent of Americans were found to oppose Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research and Voter Consumer Research, the poll also found that 52 percent of Americans support marriage equality.

The new ad campaign and polls come as several states, including Illinois, which approved a same-sex marriage bill in the Senate on Valentine's Day, are poised to consider marriage-equality legislation. Next month, the Supreme Court is also scheduled to begin oral arguments on two cases concerning DOMA and California's Proposition 8.

[Editor's note: As originally posted, Colin Powell was misidentified as fomer secretary of defense.]

Watch the new ad here:

D.C. lawmakers are rallying around a bill introduced Tuesday that would amend the Vital Records Act of 1981 to allow transgender individuals born in the District more easily obtain new birth certificates reflecting correct gender and, in some cases, new name.

The bill, co-introduced by Councilmembers David Catania (I-At Large), David Grosso (I-At Large), Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), Kenyan McDuffie (D-Ward 5), Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), and co-sponsored by the remaining members of the D.C. Council, has been named the "JaParker Deoni Jones Birth Certificate Equality Amendment Act of 2013," in honor of the transgender woman who died last year after being stabbed in the face while waiting at a Northeast bus stop.

According to Andy Bowen, social policy organizer for the DC Trans Coalition (DCTC), the bill is a technical modernization of D.C.’s laws to enable individuals who transition genders to have their sex and name, if applicable, recorded on their birth certificates. That change will make it easier for individuals who need to use their birth certificate as proof of identification for common activities ranging from finding employment to obtaining a new driver’s license to applying for a passport.

The first major element of the proposed bill requires that a new birth certificate reflecting a person’s expressed gender be issued upon receipt of a written and signed request from the individual born in the District (or the applicant's parent, guardian or legal representative in the case of a minor) and a signed statement from a licensed health care provider who has treated or evaluated the person applying for a new certificate, which attests that the applicant has received treatment for a gender transition. That new certificate will be substituted for the original birth certificate, with the original being sealed and made available only upon the request of the individual to whom it pertains or by court order.

Such procedures bring the District in line with policies currently used by the State Department regarding gender reassignment, Bowen said.

The second major element of the bill exempts individuals transitioning from having to fulfill publication requirements that once required those in the process of transitioning gender to publish their names in a newspaper for three consecutive weeks.

"The bill lowers the risk of outing, and thus, discrimination, allowing trans people in D.C. to live freer and safer lives," Bowen told Metro Weekly in an interview Tuesday.

The bill has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, but is slated for a hearing before two committees – the Committee on Health, chaired by Councilmember Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7), and the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, chaired by Wells – before it receives a vote from the full D.C. Council.

Bowen told Metro Weekly that the bill will likely receive a hearing in front of the Committee on Health sometime in April, but there has been no word on when it will be taken up by the Judiciary Committee. 

[Photo: Councilmember David Catania, photographed by Todd Franson/Metro Weekly]

The Virginia Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill Monday that sets in place a framework for local school boards to follow when crafting and adopting policies and procedures aimed at curbing bullying in Virginia schools.

After the Senate adopted some technical amendments, the measure, HB1871, passed the Senate by a 37-3 vote, with Sen. Dick Black (R-Loudoun, Prince William counties), a vocal opponent of LGBT rights; Sen. Thomas Garrett (R-Lynchburg, Appomattox, Amherst, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince Edward counties); and Sen. Charles Carrico Sr. (R-Bristol, Grayson, Washington, Smyth, Wythe, Scott, Lee counties) voting against the bill. All three had initially voted against it in committee.

A prior version of the bill, without the technical amendments, passed the House 93-6 earlier this month. The Senate bill containing the amendments will now be placed on the House calendar so that the body may vote on the Senate amendments. The bill is expected to pass by a similarly large margin, after which it will be sent to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R).

HB1871 defines "bullying" as "any aggressive and unwanted behavior that is intended to harm, intimidate, or humiliate the victim; involves a real or perceived power imbalance between the aggressor or aggressors and victim; and is repeated over time or causes severe emotional trauma," including cyber-bullying. The bill specifically exempts ordinary teasing, horseplay, arguments or conflicts between students from being classified as bullying.

The bill provides a framework for local education boards to establish guidelines and model policies, both for student codes of conduct and for in-service training of school personnel. Each school board must require a prohibition on bullying in student codes of conduct, but other policies and procedures that may be adopted are left to the discretion of individual school boards.

The commonwealth's main LGBT0-rights group, Equality Virginia, is relying on that provision in the hope of influencing local school boards to adopt additional policies addressing anti-LGBT bullying.

To placate conservatives, who dominate the General Assembly, particularly in the House of Delegates, the bill states that anti-bullying policies in a student code of conduct "shall not be interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and are not intended to prohibit expression of religious, philosophical or political views, provided that such expression does not cause an actual, material disruption or the work of the school." In practice, that could mean that students who choose to speak out against homosexuality or wear anti-gay T-shirts may continue to do so, as long as they do not single out particular LGBT students for harassment and their behavior or speech is within acceptable limits for a school environment.

The bill also requires each school board to adopt a "character education" program aimed at preventing bullying before it starts by promoting certain values or character traits deemed acceptable for school environments, including respect, accountability, self-control, kindness, nondiscrimination and even "citizenship, including the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the American flag, concern for the common good, respect for authority and law and community-mindedness."

[Photo: Sen. Dick Black (Courtesy of the Virginia General Assembly)]

Coming on the heels of the Pentagon's decision earlier this week to extend certain benefits to same-sex military families, members of the House and Senate introduced legislation this week that would grant full benefits to gay servicemembers and their families. 

With the Pentagon forced to limit the number of benefits extended to same-sex military families due to the Defense of Marriage Act, lawmakers are hoping to change the definition of "spouse" in various regulations to include same-sex couples.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking members of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced the Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act on Thursday, which would change the definition of "spouse" in various areas of U.S. code related to recognition, support and benefits for married servicemembers and veterans.

The Senate version of the bill was introduced today by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) as the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, named after the 48-year-old New Hampshire National Guard Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan who died of breast cancer Feb. 10.

"The story of Charlie Morgan offers a powerful example of why we need immediate action to end LGBT discrimination in our military," said Shaheen in a statement. "Charlie served on the front lines for our country, but because of her sexual orientation her family is wrongfully being denied many of the same benefits given to those who stood beside her. That is an unacceptable reality and I'm committed to doing all I can to make sure that no spouses, children and families are denied benefits they have earned and rightly deserve."

Added Gillibrand, "This legislation is an important step forward in achieving full equality for all of our men and women serving and fighting for our nation."

Shaheen announced the legislation on the floor of the Senate yesterday, the same day funeral services were held for Morgan in New Hampshire. Morgan was a public advocate against DADT and a plaintiff in OutServe-SLDN's lawsuit challenging DOMA and other federal statutes that deny benefits to gay servicemembers. Due to DOMA, Morgan's widow, now a single parent to the couple's 5-year-old daughter, is not eligible to receive various military, Social Security and other benefits.

"This bill would make sure that servicemembers and veterans with same-sex spouses receive the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts," Smith said of the House version of the bill in a statement. "All spouses of those serving in our Armed Services make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and no one should be prevented from receiving hard-earned benefits simply because they are the same sex as their partner."

According to OutServe-SLDN, the bill is necessary even if DOMA is struck down by the Supreme Court because it addresses separate laws governing support and benefits for military members and veterans and would provide greater uniformity of benefits for same-sex spouses.

"Treating service members equally, without partiality or favoritism, is one of the most basic principles of sound military leadership," said Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, in a statement. "For this reason, equality for LGBT troops and their families is a national security issue. Commanders should not be forced to treat some service members like second-class citizens because the federal government does not recognize their marriages."

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

Watch Shaheen's Senate floor speech honoring Morgan here:

President Barack Obama today honored Jeanne Manford, the late founder of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

During a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Obama presented the Presidential Citizen Medal to Manford's daughter, Suzanne Swan, who accepted the medal on her mother’s behalf. Manford died last month at the age of 92.

"We host a lot of events at the White House but I have to admit this is one of my favorites, because it’s a moment when, as a people, we get to recognize some extraordinary men and women who have gone above and beyond for their country and for their fellow citizens -- often without fanfare; often with not a lot of attention; very rarely for any profit," Obama said.

Obama selected Manford and the 17 other recipients of the nation's highest civilian honor after the White House received more than 6,000 nominations. 

"When Jeanne Manford learned that her son Morty had been badly beaten up at a gay rights demonstration, nobody would have faulted her for bringing him home, holding him close, just focusing on her child," Obama said. "This was back in 1972. There was a lot of hate, a lot of vitriol towards gays and lesbians and anyone who supported them. But instead, she wrote to the local newspaper and took to the streets with a simple message: No matter who her son was -- no matter who he loved –- she loved him, and wouldn’t put up with this kind of nonsense. And in that simple act, she inspired a movement and gave rise to a national organization that has given so much support to parents and families and friends, and helped to change this country. We lost Jeanne last month, but her legacy carries on, every day, in the countless lives that she touched."

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 New York's 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 in support of 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 with more than 200,000 members.

[Photo: Suzanne Swan accepts the Presidential Citizens Medal from Barack Obama on behalf of her mother (Credit: Justin Snow/Metro Weekly)]

Watch the ceremony here:

With the inclusion of gay couples in comprehensive immigration reform uncertain, lawmakers are moving forward with legislation that would extend immigration rights still denied to binational same-sex couples.

Earlier this week, bills were introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives that would recognize immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same-sex and grant them various protections, including eligibility for visas. 

During a Feb. 13 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on comprehensive immigration reform, Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced he and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) will reintroduce the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). 

"We must also do better by gay and lesbian Americans who face discrimination in our immigration law," Leahy said during his opening remarks, according to Immigration Equality. "Too many citizens, including Vermonters who I have come to know personally and who want nothing more than to be with their loved ones, are denied this basic human right. This policy serves no legitimate purpose and it is wrong." 

According to Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, Leahy's call for an LGBT-inclusive reform package "sets the tone for the Committee’s work on fixing our country's broken immigration system."

On Feb. 5, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) reintroduced the Uniting American Families Act in the House of Representatives.

Collins, who in September became the first Republican senator to co-sponsor UAFA, has said she would be open to seeing rights for same-sex couples passed in comprehensive immigration reform or passed separately in the form of UAFA.

"Either way, I'd like to see it passed, whichever way is the easier route," Collins told The Huffington Post in December. "I'm not sure which way is the easier route."

Yesterday in the House of Representatives, Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) also introduced the Reuniting Families Act, which would alleviate wait times for visas and extend rights to LGBT Americans and their foreign-born partners.

"Our family-based immigration system has not been updated in 20 years, separating spouses, children and their parents, who have played by the rules for years," Honda said in a statement. "For every day Congress delays, more families face separation." 

According to the 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. Without recognition of same-sex relationships in deportation proceedings, many of these families risk being torn apart.

Whether rights for same-sex couples will be included in immigration reform remains uncertain. Although President Barack Obama has said rights should be extended, the plan unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators late last month did not include protections for same-sex couples. Some Republicans have taken issue with the inclusion of such a provision.

The White House has been cautious to say whether the president is willing to compromise on that aspect of immigration reform.

During a Google "Fireside Hangout" held yesterday, Obama reiterated that he believes LGBT people should "not be treated differently when it comes to any aspect of American life, and that includes our immigration laws," but demurred when asked how willing he would be to compromise.

"What I'm trying to do right now is to give Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and in the House, the opportunity to work through some of these issues to see where their compromises are, and not be too heavy-handed in a way that might end up breaking up these discussions because I think it's very important for us to get immigration reform done," Obama said. "But we've been very clear that we think that it makes sense for same-sex couples to be treated the same when it comes to immigration laws and every other law."

[Photo: Sen. Patrick Leahy (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).]

Illinois took one step closer to granting same-sex couples the right to marry today. 

On Valentine's Day, the Illinois Senate voted 34-21 in favor of a marriage equality bill that would allow same-sex marriage in the state, sending the legislation to the House. 

Although the bill is expected to face a tougher batter in the House, Gov. Pat Quinn (D) has said he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Nine states and D.C. recognize same-sex marriage. Two years ago, Illinois legalized civil unions for gay and straight couples.

The debate that played out in the Democratically controlled Senate today echoed those that have played out in state legislatures across the country. Supporters argued that the bill would extend rights to LGBT people currently denied to them while protecting religious groups from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.

"The sky is not falling, Chicken Little," said Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul.

Opponents, however, said the bill was a slippery slope that would erode religious freedom

"People have the right to live as they choose. They don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us," said Republican Sen. Kyle McCarter, who predicted freedom would be jeopardized by the bill. Taking issue with the scheduling of the vote on Valentine's Day, McCarter went on to say the vote was scheduled on a holiday celebrating love to "disguise what is truly a devaluing of traditional marriage."

One Republican voted for the bill and three Democrats voted against. Two Democrats voted "present" and two others did not vote.

Advocates have set their sights on Illinois as one of the next states likely to legalize marriage equality, investing money and resources into that fight.

"History is happening before our eyes," said Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, in a statement. "We have just one last hurdle to clear to ensure that all loving, committed couples in Illinois have the freedom to marry."

In December, President Barack Obama, through a spokesman, endorsed same-sex marriage in his home state of Illinois. 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."

[Photo: Illinois Senate chamber (Credit: Daniel Schwen/Wikimedia Commons).]

President Barack Obama is facing increased pressure to sign an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity after 37 senators sent a letter to the president today urging him to act.

"We are committed to enacting legislation to protect all Americans," the senators – all supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) – write. "In the meantime, you are in a position to protect millions of American workers immediately by including sexual orientation and gender identity alongside long-standing anti-discrimination protections."

The letter comes after a renewed focus on workplace protections for LGBT people. Although Obama publicly supports ENDA, he has backed off of his support for an executive order after indicating as a candidate for president in 2008 that he would sign such an order. 

First signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, Executive Order 11246 has been expanded by a number of presidents to prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, such an executive order would protect up to 16.5 million workers.

"It's outrageous that in the year 2013, it is still legal to fire someone based on who they love," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who is the lead sponsor of ENDA in the Senate, said in statement. "The President can protect millions of workers from unfair discrimination with the stroke of a pen. I'm pleased that 36 of my colleagues have joined together to push for more equality in the workplace."

The 37 senators join 72 members of the House of Representatives and nearly 175,000 Americans who have signed a Freedom to Work petition urging Obama to "keep a campaign promise and sign an executive order to protect taxpayer money from being squandered on harassment and discrimination against LGBT Americans," according to Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work. 

"An executive order from President Obama would ensure that hundreds of thousands of LGBT federal contract employees could go to work every day without fear of being fired for who they are or who they love," added Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement.

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Obama alluded to workplace protections for LGBT people, stating, "It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country — the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love."

The White House has repeatedly said the administration would rather see ENDA passed and all workers protected instead of just federal contractors. As recently as Monday, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters the president believes "we ought to move forward with congressional comprehensive action on this issue, and we will continue to press Congress to do that."

White House spokesman Shin Inouye reiterated that position today, giving no updates on the executive order called for by the 37 senators. 

"The President has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and his Administration will continue to work to build support for it," Inouye told Metro Weekly. "We welcome Chairman Harkin's announcement that he will hold a vote on ENDA this year."

However, advocates have argued Obama could protect at least some workers now and build momentum for ENDA, which has faced decades of Republican opposition.

Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who is chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said action will be taken on ENDA this year.

"We're going to move ENDA this year," Harkin declared during an event at the Center for American Progress.

Although ENDA may finally see movement in the Senate after years of delay, it remains unlikely to gain the same traction in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

UPDATE: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 civil rights groups, also sent a letter to the White House today urging Obama to sign the executive order for federal contractors. 

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 210 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States, we write to urge you to build on your record of promoting equality by signing an executive order to ban federal contractors from engaging in workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Leadership Conference agrees with your recent remarks in your second inaugural address that “our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,” and believes that issuing an executive order to ban federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees helps promote equality for all individuals under the law.

The Leadership Conference was founded on the principle that all individuals should be afforded equal opportunity. An executive order banning discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity would ensure that federal contractors can no longer discriminate. While many businesses and states have extended equal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, a large number of federal contractors who employ millions of workers do not currently have such non-discrimination policies in place. This executive order would ensure that that there are workplaces in every state with legally binding protections for LGBT individuals. Research by the Williams Institute shows that an executive order will provide 11 million additional employees protection against sexual orientation discrimination and 16 million employees will be protected against gender identity discrimination.

This executive order would also be good for businesses and U.S. taxpayers. Most of the top government contractors already have LGBT non-discrimination policies, and they adopted them because they realize that discrimination hurts the bottom line.

The Leadership Conference strongly urges you to take executive action to prevent further workplace discrimination against LGBT individuals by issuing the executive order as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Wade Henderson
President & CEO

Nancy Zirkin
Executive Vice President

 

Read the letter from the 37 senators here:

Executive Order Letter 

Follow @metroweekly   Follow @journosnow

President Barack Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union address Tuesday night before a joint session of Congress, making brief reference to the LGBT community. 

Coming on the heels of the president's second inaugural address, in which he made a historic call for full equality for "our gay brothers and sisters," Obama’s mention of LGBT issues was brief in comparison.

"It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country — the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love," Obama said, in what was perceived by some to be an allusion to federal workplace protections for LGBT Americans.

In his most direct statement about LGBT issues, Obama referred to the successful repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Pentagon's decision one day earlier to extend certain benefits to same-sex military families. 

"We will ensure equal treatment for all service members, and equal benefits for their families – gay and straight," Obama declared.

Although Obama went on to mention comprehensive immigration reform as well as the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, both of which he supports including LGBT provisions, there was no mention of the Defense of Marriage Act or Obama's support for same-sex marriage.

Despite Obama's brief mention of LGBT issues, which he has made a cornerstone of his presidency, many advocates praised the speech as speaking to broader national issues that affect all Americans.

"The references in the speech were meaningful. Both reaffirm his commitment to equality in ways that are substantively and thematically important," Human Rights Campaign Vice President Fred Sainz told Metro Weekly. "This president has done a lot for LGBT people, but one of his greatest legacies will be the unapologetic way in which he has included LGBT people when speaking about our country and the way it should afford opportunity to all." 

The LGBT community was on display at Obama's speech as well, with Apple CEO Tim Cook, who is reportedly gay, seated with first lady Michelle Obama, along with Tracey Hepner, the wife of Army Brigadier Gen. Tammy Smith, the nation's highest ranking out servicemember. Hepner, who is also a co-founder of the Military Partners and Families Coalition, presented Smith with her stars when she was promoted to general in August. 

According to Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, Hepner and Smith represent the progress made after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but also the struggles that remain. 

"Sadly, Tracey Hepner and General Smith also embody some of the work that remains ahead of us to achieve full LGBT military equality, because they are still treated as second-class citizens by our military because of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and other federal laws that prevent the military from treating all military families equally," Robinson said in a statement.

The reference to equal benefits for same-sex military families in particular pleased advocates who have been pressuring the Pentagon to act more than a year after the repeal of DADT.

"President Obama was very clear tonight in his assertion that lesbian and gay service members and their families must be treated equally by the nation they serve," Robinson said.

According to Robinson, to finish that task DOMA must be struck down by the Supreme Court, equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policies must be enacted by the next defense secretary, and "outmoded, obsolete policies that bar qualified American patriots who are transgender from military service must be eliminated." 

Obama's allusion to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was also welcomed by advocates, even if it wasn't the open declaration of support some had hoped for. 

"We were heartened to hear President Obama allude to the need to outlaw workplace discrimination against LGBT Americans as part of America’s unfinished business," Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, told Metro Weekly in an email. "We hope the President will explicitly call on both Chambers of Congress to pass ENDA in another speech sometime before the Senate votes that are expected this year."

According to Almeida, Obama must do two things to advance workplace fairness: encourage Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bring ENDA for a floor vote, and sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The White House has said Obama would prefer to see federal legislation passed extending workplace protections rather than take executive action. Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who is chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said action will be taken on ENDA this year.

"We're going to move ENDA this year," Harkin declared.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who serves on the HELP committee and is the upper chamber''s first out member, told Metro Weekly she "couldn't agree more" that ENDA will finally begin to move forward this year.

"I was pleased with the power of his language, especially with regard to seeing through the implementation of the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and respecting not only the right to serve, but the right to full recognition of family members of those who serve," Baldwin added.

Not all were pleased with the president’s message, however. Gregory T. Angelo, interim executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, criticized the economic vision presented by Obama.

"As LGBT conservatives, Log Cabin Republicans is pleased with recent progress toward equality for gay and lesbian Americans. As citizens, however, we are fearful of the future that the next generation of gay Americans will inherit," Angelo said in a statement. "If the President truly wants to be an ally to our community, he will not only continue pushing for social equality, but stop with the platitudes and get serious with a plan that addresses our nation's fiscal problems."

[Image: Obama delivers the State of the Union address (Screenshot via YouTube).]

A Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee voted Tuesday to table SB701, a bill that would prohibit discrimination in public employment based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, effectively killing the measure for the remainder of the session despite widespread support for LGBT employment protections across the commonwealth, including among Republicans in the state Senate.

The House General Laws Subcommittee on Professions/Occupations and Administrative Process voted to table the bill, which would have extended nondiscrimination protections to LGBT state employees, bringing Virginia in line with the overwhelming majority of the state’s major private employers, such as Booz Allen Hamilton, Northrop Grumman and Capital One Financial Corp., which have nondiscrimination policies regarding LGBT individuals, and of which several offer domestic-partner benefits, according to information from the Human Rights Campaign’s 2013 Corporate Equality Index.

Both Democrats on the subcommittee, Dels. Luke Torian (D-Prince William Co.) and Delores McQuinn (D-Richmond, Henrico, Chesterfield counties), were co-patrons of the measure. But the six Republicans on the panel banded together to table the bill, denying it the votes needed just to be considered by the full Committee on General Laws. 

Prior to its defeat, SB701 had received bipartisan support from 46 co-patrons in both chambers of the General Assembly, and passed the Senate on Jan. 25 by a vote of 24-16, earning the support of four moderate Republicans in the upper chamber, including Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment (R-James City, Poquoson, Hampton, Suffolk, Surry, Isle of Wight, New Kent, Gloucester, King William, King and Queen counties).

LGBT-rights group Equality Virginia and its partner organization, ProgressVA, issued a statement condemning the subcommittee's actions.

"State employees must now go another year without workplace protections," James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, said in a statement. "It's downright disrespectful that this subcommittee did not listen to the thousands of Virginians that messaged their delegates and senators over the past two months in support of protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender state employees."

As part of its work in the field prior to the start of the 2013 General Assembly session, Equality Virginia had organized thousands of constituents across the state to lobby their elected officials on behalf of the bill. Equality Virginia previously reported that the General Assembly had received more than 12,000 constituent messages in support of SB701.

The organization and its partners also touted a poll by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates and the Schapiro Group that showed that 90 percent of Virginians believe employment protections should exist for LGBT residents.

"It’s outrageous that a few state delegates refuse to ensure Virginia law reflects the basic tenet of fairness and provide workplace protections for all Virginians," Anna Scholl, executive director of ProgressVA, said in a press release. "No citizen should fear the loss of their livelihood because of who they are and who they love."

The bill's defeat came just a day after the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution of support for it, making the mostly rural county in southwestern Virginia the 13th such jurisdiction in the commonwealth supporting nondiscrimination protections through local ordinances and executive orders. 

"The support of our cities and counties is further proof that this House of Delegates needs to catch up with our Senate, the business community and the rest of Virginia," Parrish said. 

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax counties), who co-patroned the measure with fellow Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond, Henrico, Charles City counties), said he was disappointed by today's news. 

"I'm very disappointed that the Republican members of the subcommittee would ignore the pleas of so many Virginians to allow workplace protections for LGBT people," Ebbin told Metro Weekly. "They just don't get it."

Ebbin said the measure always faced an uphill battle in the House of Delegates, which is typically much more conservative than the Senate. Republicans control the lower chamber 68-32. 

"There's a real either affiliation with the tea party or a fear of the tea party in the House," Ebbin said. "It's just a more conservative body. There's also not a lot of desire in Virginia to conform. By that I mean the members of the General Assembly don't seek to be like other states. That's not to excuse what went on today, but it's notable."

Ebbin said that he believes if Terry McAuliffe wins the governor's race later this year, he will issue an executive order circumventing the General Assembly by providing those protections for LGBT state employees, but such an executive order would only last for the length of his term. In the meantime, Ebbin said, supporters of the legislation must work with Equality Virginia to raise citizen awareness in targeted districts where Republican members might be more inclined to support the bill. Most House Democrats are in support of providing employment protctions. 

"I'm not going to give up," Ebbin said, vowing to bring the measure back in another session. "One day, this will become law. It's just a matter of how soon."

[Photo: Sen. Adam Ebbin / Photo by Todd Franson] 

The Senate approved an LGBT-inclusive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Tuesday afternoon, sending the bill to the House of Representatives where it faces an uncertain future.

Voting 78-22, the Senate approved the bill, which authorizes $659 million over five years for various programs that help prevent domestic violence. Among the bill's more contentious provisions is one that offers expanded protections to LGBT people. 

The House failed to reauthorize VAWA last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to Republican objections over the LGBT provision, as well as provisions regarding Native Americans and undocumented immigrants. Although the bill approved by the Senate today dropped the provision for immigrants, it is still expected to face a bitter battle in the Republican-controlled House.

"To be the target of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence or stalking is terrifying and traumatic. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are not immune from this violence and should not also fear being turned away from life-saving services because of who they are," Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said in a statement.

In a first-of-its-kind study released last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that gays and lesbians experience intimate partner violence and sexual violence at levels equal to straight people.

Added National Center for Transgender Equality Executive Director Mara Keisling, "While NCTE applauds the Senate for taking this important step, survivors of violence cannot wait any longer, including the almost 20 percent of transgender people who've reported facing domestic abuse."

Although 17 House Republicans signed a letter Monday night to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urging passage of VAWA, accordding to The Huffington Post, it remains to be seen if the House will attempt to remove the LGBT and Native American provisions, as was done last year. 

Advocates and the president, however, are demanding swift action.

"The bill passed by the Senate will help reduce homicides that occur from domestic violence, improve the criminal justice response to rape and sexual assault, address the high rates of dating violence experienced by young women, and provide justice to the most vulnerable among us,” President Barack Obama said in a statement released after the bill’s passage. "It's now time for the House to follow suit and send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law."

[Photo: U.S. Capitol (Credit: Justin Snow/Metro Weekly).]

The chairman of the Senate committee overseeing one of the last major pieces of LGBT-rights legislation today promised movement on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

During an event at the Center for American Progress, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who is chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said action will be taken on ENDA this year.

"I've been on ENDA for years — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — and as chairman of the HELP committee, I intend to move it this year," Harkin said. "We're going to move ENDA this year, so I just want you to know that." Harkin's comments come hours before President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.

Although Obama publicly supports ENDA, the president has faced renewed calls from advocates to sign an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

On Sunday, protestors organized outside the White House urging Obama to sign the executive order, which he promised to do as a candidate for president. Indeed, on Feb. 25, 2008, that Obama filled out a presidential-candidate questionnaire for the Houston GLBT Political Caucus. Answering a number of questions about his positions on LGBT equality, in question No. 6 Obama was asked if he would support a nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation and gender identity for federal contractors. Obama responded "Yes."

However, Obama backed off that position last April during the presidential campaign, disappointing many advocates who believe signing such an order would help build momentum for ENDA, which remains stalled in Congress after facing decades of Republican opposition. Instead, the White House has argued they would prefer to see passage of federal legislation that would protect all workers and not just federal contractors.

Nevertheless, Obama is reported to once again be considering signing the executive order. The Washington Post reported Sunday that "two people familiar with White House thinking said the president may reverse that decision and issue the order if Congress does not pass broader legislation offering protection for gays in the workplace."

Asked yesterday if that was the case, White House press secretary Jay Carney reaffirmed that Obama believes "we ought to move forward with congressional comprehensive action on this issue, and we will continue to press Congress to do that."

Representatives from various organizations have said they hope to see ENDA marked up in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority, and possibly make it to the floor of the chamber for a vote.

"We are joining with other LGBT advocates to urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to keep his promise from more than three years ago to bring ENDA to the Senate floor for a long overdue vote," Freedom to Work President Tico Almeida told Metro Weekly.

While Harkin's comments today indicate that may happen even without the president's signing of an executive order, a battle will remain in the Republican-controlled House where ENDA simply does not have the votes to pass.

"It would be wonderful if the President used the State of the Union or another high-profile speech to challenge both chambers of Congress to pass ENDA," Almedia added. "However, this morning’s great news that Chairman Harkin will move ENDA in the Senate this year does not fix the obstructionism by House Speaker John Boehner."

[Photo: Barack Obama and Tom Harkin in the Oval Office (Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]

 Watch Harkin's remarks here:

The Virginia Senate today passed the House version of a bill to allow student groups and organizations at higher-educational institutions to discriminate with regard to whom they admit as members.

Three Democrats, including two from Northern Virginia, voted with 18 Republicans to approve HB1617 in a 21-18 vote, mirroring the Senate's Feb. 5 vote on the upper chamber's own version, SB1074, which passed 22-18.

The Democrats voting in favor of the bill were Sens. Phil Puckett (D-Norton, Radford, Bland, Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell, Tazewell, Smyth counties), Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax City, Fairfax Co.) and George Barker (D-Alexandria, Fairfax, Prince William counties). Sen. Chuck Colgan (D-Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William Co.) did not vote on HB1617, but did vote in favor of SB1074 last week.

Two of the chamber's five moderate Republicans - Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment (R-James City, York, New Kent, King and Queen, Surry, Isle of Wight counties) and John Watkins (R-Richmond, Powhatan, Chesterfield counties) – voted against both bills.

Under either bill, public institutions of higher education will not be permitted to deny funding or other resources to student organizations that reject potential members deemed to be not committed to "furtherance of the organization's religious or political mission." 

HB1617 passed the House of Delegates Jan. 31 on an 80-19 vote, with the support of nearly half the Democrats in the lower chamber. SB1074 has been referred to a House subcommittee, but is expected to receive a full vote by the House within the next week.

Both measures will then be combined into one bill and submitted to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) for his signature, according to Kevin Clay, a spokesman for LGBT-rights organization Equality Virginia, which opposed the bill as it could potentially allow student groups to deny membership to LGBT individuals by claiming religious, moral or philosophical opposition to homosexuality.

"The effects of this law will become evident in the next few years,” Clay said. "We'll keep monitoring it, and it's up to the General Assembly to repeal the law in future sessions."

In a Feb. 11 interview with Metro Weekly, Barker, as one of the Democrats supporting the measure, said he voted for both bills to allow student organizations flexibility in who they may admit as members. He cited possible examples where a person opposed to an organization's mission might try to join the organization in order to disrupt meetings or sabotage it from the inside, such as a president of the Young Republicans joining the Young Democrats with ill intent, or a Jewish organization being forced to admit a person who expresses anti-Semitic beliefs.

"We shouldn't force someone who is going to be antithetical to the group's mission to be allowed to join that group," Barker said of the reasoning behind his support for the bill.

When asked about the possibility that the legislation would permit organizations to discriminate against LGBT people, Barker said that there will be other groups that are more welcoming to those individuals that LGBT people can join. Furthermore, he said, groups that do openly discriminate will see a backlash, citing as an example, the community backlash following a Washington Post story on the Republican Women of Clifton where the organization offended Muslims by hosting a talk focusing on "how the hijab is a catalyst for Islamism because it leads to the mentality of passive terrorism and silent support for Sharia law in Western societies."

"Those groups that do that will damage themselves," Barker said. "It will be highly counter-productive. We’re seeing examples of that when organizations set up discriminatory policies."

[Photo: Sen. George Barker (Courtesy of the Virginia General Assembly)]

Same-sex military families will begin to receive a number of benefits previously denied to them as early as this summer, the Department of Defense announced Monday.

In one of his last acts as defense secretary, Leon Panetta ordered the extension of certain benefits still denied to gay servicemembers more than a year after the September 2011 repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." 

"Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation," Panetta said in a statement announcing the decision. "Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."

Advocates, who have long pressed the Pentagon to act in the wake of the repeal of DADT, applauded the decision, despite the exclusion of certain key benefits from Panetta's order.

"Secretary Panetta's decision today answers the call President Obama issued in his inaugural address to complete our nation's journey toward equality, acknowledging the equal service and equal sacrifice of our gay and lesbian service members and their families," said OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson in a statement. "We thank him for getting us a few steps closer to full equality – steps that will substantively improve the quality of life of gay and lesbian military families."

With Panetta calling for an implementation plan within 60 days, benefits should be extended by Aug. 31, though with a hard deadline of Oct. 1. According to a Pentagon official, the expanded benefits will affect an estimated 5,600 active-duty servicemembers, 3,400 National Guardsmen and reservists and 8,000 retirees. The Pentagon does not have estimates on how many children or other dependents will be impacted.

Panetta's order includes key benefits long called for by advocates, including military IDs for spouses of gay servicemembers, legal services and access to Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs. However, benefits such as health care and housing allowances were not included because of the definitions of "spouse" and "marriage" under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

According to Panetta, those benefits can only be provided to spouses as defined by federal law, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.

"While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation," Panetta said. "Until then, the department will continue to comply with current law while doing all we can to take care of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families."

Also not included are on-base housing and burial benefits due to the "complex legal and policy challenges" these benefits present because of scarce resources.

The announcement comes after the Pentagon faced increased pressure from advocates following President Barack Obama's call for full equality for "our gay brothers and sisters" during his second inaugural address. Since the repeal of DADT in September 2011, the Pentagon has said it has been reviewing the legality of extending benefits to same-sex military families.

In a statement provided to Metro Weekly, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said the president welcomed the announcement from Panetta based on the Defense Department's "thorough and deliberate review of this issue."

"This step will strengthen our military and help ensure that all our troops and their families are treated with fairness and equality," Inouye said.

The extension of certain benefits was a win for advocates, but also a reminder of the obstacles that remain as long as DOMA is law. Just yesterday, Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan of the New Hampshire National Guard, who became a public advocate against DADT and DOMA, died of breast cancer. Due to DOMA, Morgan's widow, now a single parent to the couple's 5-year-old daughter, is ineligible for survivor and other military benefits.

"As encouraging as this step is for our military families, the passing yesterday of U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan and the needs of her family - needs in danger of going largely unmet because of the Defense of Marriage Act - reminds us of how far we still are from true equality," said Robinson. "I hope our Supreme Court Justices are watching as these events unfold, and that they see that striking down DOMA is the only way this unjust and untenable situation can be rectified."

According to Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, there will be no grandfathering of benefits.

"[E]ven today, the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act makes inequality for gay and lesbian military families a legal requirement," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement.

Leaders on Capitol Hill who had urged the Pentagon to act welcomed Panetta's announcement with similar subdued applause. Although hailing Panetta for granting nearly all of the benefits possible under his power, members of Congress insisted that DOMA must be repealed for full equality.

Describing the Pentagon's decision as "only one step on the longer journey toward equality," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it "is now up to the justices of the Supreme Court to adhere to the best traditions of our history and Constitution, and act to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act once and for all."

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who all wrote to Panetta urging him to act, reiterated that the fight to repeal DOMA continues. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), however, described the move as a "weak attempt to not violate the Defense of Marriage Act" that will increase costs. 

"Once again, the President is eroding our military's apolitical stance and forcing conformity onto the rest of society by pushing his liberal social agenda through the Department of Defense," said Inhofe, who opposed the repeal of DADT and has criticized its implementation. "The Department of Defense is essentially creating a new class of beneficiary that will increase costs and demand for limited resources that are currently available for military families, active and reserve forces, and retirees."

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the constitutionality of DOMA on March 27 and issue a ruling by June, two months before the military's August deadline. House Republicans have spent nearly $3 million defending DOMA in court since the Obama administration stopped doing so in February 2011. The high court's ruling on DOMA has the potential to alter the number of benefits extended to same-sex military families. 

Noting the possibility that DOMA might be struck down, Panetta writes in his memo that if that should happen "it will be the policy of the Department to construe the words 'spouse' and 'marriage' without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents, will be granted full military benefits."

[Photo: Leon Panetta (Courtesy of the Department of Defense)]

Read Panetta's memo here:

Panetta Same-Sex Benefits Memo

D.C. Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two out gay members of the D.C. Council, issued a statement Friday saying he will not resign, despite calls from critics, including the editorial board of The Washington Post, to do so following the finding of the District's board of ethics that Graham violated the city's code of employee conduct while intervening in a contract dispute.

"I am not resigning," Graham said in a statement. "There have been no allegations or suggestions that a crime has been committed, or that there was an illegal financial interest, or that laws have been broken."

Graham said he "categorically den[ies]" any connection between campaign donations and any action he has taken. He also added that he is in discussions with his lawyer, William Taylor, about his next course of action, referring any questions on the matter to Taylor. 

The District's Board of Ethics and Government Accountability issued a 27-page opinion Thursday saying it found "a substantial body of evidence" that Graham, who served as both councilmember and the city’s representative to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, violated the city’s code of employee conduct in 2008 when he "abandoned his impartiality and demonstrated inappropriate preferential treatment" in offering to support a bidder for the city’s lottery contract if that bidder would drop out of a separate Metro development project, according to The Washington Post.

That offer broke three provisions of the employee code of conduct: loss of independence or impartiality; giving preferential treatment; and adversely affecting public confidence in government, because Graham was possibly motivated to transfer the Metro development project to a firm that was among his campaign contributors.

But the Post also reports that the ethics committee found that they could not move forward with a formal investigation and sanctions ranging from fines to censure, due to the committee’s inability to police behavior that occurred prior to the committee’s creation in 2012. Sanctioning Graham now would violate constitutional prohibitions on retroactive lawmaking, the board’s chairman, Robert Spagnoletti said Thursday.

Following Thursday’s revelations, the Post's editorial board penned a piece in which they called for Graham's resignation, categorizing Graham's actions as having been found "indefensible."

[Photo: Councilmember Jim Graham (Courtesy of D.C. Council).]

President Barack Obama will award the Presidential Citizen Medal to the late Jeanne Manford, the White House announced today.

Manford, who died in January at the age of 92, founded Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and was one of the LGBT-rights movement's first straight allies. 

"It is my distinguished honor to award these individuals the 2012 Citizens Medal for their commitment to public service," Obama said in a statement announcing the 16 recipients. "Their selflessness and courage inspire us all to look for opportunities to better serve our communities and our country."

The White House received nearly 6,000 nominations for the medal, which was established in 1969 to recognize Americans who have "performed exemplary deeds of service for their country or their fellow citizens." The medals will be presented by the president on Feb. 15. Manford's daughter, Suzanne Manford Swan, will accept the medal on her behalf.

"I was able to share the news of this honor with my mom before she left us and I only wish the President could have seen the amazing smile that spread across her face," said Manford Swan in a statement. "My family is deeply touched by this honor and to represent the PFLAG family values of love and acceptance."

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.

Obama has been vocal in his admiration of Manford in the past, describing her story as "the story of America, of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change" during the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner in 2009.

The White House released a video of members of the Office of Public Engagement informing medal recipients of their selection. Gautam Raghavan, the White House associate director of public engagement and LGBT liaison in the Office of Public Engagement, can be seen informaring Suzanne Manford Swan of her mother's selection for the medal.

[Photo: Jeanne Manford (Courtesy of PFLAG).]

The Virginia Senate, in a 22-18 vote Tuesday, passed a bill that would allow student groups at higher-educational institutions more easily discriminate in who they admit as members. 

Four Democrats, including three from Northern Virginia, allied themselves with 18 of 20 Republicans in the upper chamber to pass SB1074, which would prohibit public institutions of higher education from restricting student organizations that discriminate against potential members based on their religious, philosophical or political views. Specifically, such institutions would be barred from denying funding, resources or access to resources based on the content of a student group's speech or views.

The four Democrats voting in favor of the bill were: Sens. Phil Puckett (D-Norton, Radford, Bland, Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell, Tazewell, Smyth counties), Chuck Colgan (D-Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William Co.), Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax City, Fairfax Co.) and George Barker (D-Alexandria, Fairfax, Prince William counties).

Two Republicans – Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment (R-James City, York, New Kent, King and Queeen, Surry, Isle of Wight counties) and John Watkins (R-Richmond, Powhatan, Chesterfield counties) – voted with the chamber’s remaining Democrats against the bill.

Under the proposed legislation, organizations could claim religious, political or philosophical objections to admitting LGBT members, without fear of reprisal from school administration, thus allowing them to discriminate against prospective members.

Since passing the Senate, SB1074 has been referred to the House Committee on Education. A similar bill, HB1617, passed the House of Delegates Jan. 31 by a vote of 80-19, with many Democrats, including several from Northern Virginia, voting in favor, despite opposition from the state's primary LGBT-rights group, Equality Virginia. 

HB1617, which employes the same language as SB1074, passed out of the Senate Committee on Education and Health by a 7-4 margin Thursday, with Barker and all the panel’s Republicans voting to move it to the full chamber, where it is expected to pass by a similar margin on its third reading next week.

After each respective chamber passes the other chamber's bill, one version will be submitted to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who is expected to sign the measure into law. 

[Photo 1: Sen. George Barker (Courtesy of the Virginia General Assembly website). Photo 2: Sen. Chuck Colgan (Courtesy of the Virginia General Assembly).]

Sean Eldridge, an activist, investor and husband of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, is expected to challenge Rep. Chris Gibson (R) in 2014 for New York's 19th District congressional seat. 

The 26-year-old Eldridge filed paperwork establishing "Sean Eldridge for Congress," which was processed by the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 1, according to Bloomberg. Gibson has held his seat in Congress for two terms and was re-elected by 53 percent last November. Eldridge, who is president and founder of Hudson River Ventures LLC and a senior advisor to Freedom to Marry, has been a vocal supporter of President Barack Obama and has donated to Democratic campaigns.

Although Eldridge is expected to face a tight race against the 48-year-old Gibson, he has several key factors in his corner, including very deep pockets. The district is politically divided with 52 percent of voters in the 19th District going for Obama in 2012. Eldridge and Hughes also have strong connections to Democratic leaders. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) both attended the couple's wedding last summer and they were guests at New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's birthday celebration in December.

Hughes, who bought The New Republic magazine last year and now serves as its publisher and editor-in-chief, was roommates with Mark Zuckerberg in college and helped found Facebook. Hughes coordinated Barack Obama's online campaign in 2008 and in the relaunch issue of the redesigned New Republic released earlier this month, Hughes and New Republic Editor Franklin Foer interviewed Obama in the Oval Office. 

Hughes is also worth an estimated $935 million, according to Business Insider. 

Yesterday, Politico reported Eldridge hired the media consulting firm SKDKnickerbocker to work on his campaign. The firm helped Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), who is gay, win his congressional race in New York's 18th District last year and assisted with The New Republic's relaunch.

If Eldridge's congressional bid is successful, he has the potential to further increase the number of out LGB members of Congress to new historic levels. Currently, six LGB people serve in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate.

[Photo: Chris Hughes (left) and Sean Eldridge (via Facebook).]

Indiana lawmakers postponed a vote today on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the state until next year, The Indianapolis Star reports. 

Senate President Pro Tem David Long and House Speaker Brian Bosma, both Republicans, said they would delay a vote on a proposed ban that would amend the state's constituion to ban the right of same-sex couples to marry until after the Supreme Court rules on two cases regarding the issue.

"I think it's inadvisable to move forward with the United States Supreme Court having the question before it," Bosma said last week, according to The Indianapolis Star.

According to the newspaper, "The General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the proposed amendment, which also bans civil unions or anything similar to marriage, in 2011. They must vote on it again this year or next year to send it to the voters in the 2014 general election for final approval."

With the Supreme Court expected to address the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 by June, the decision by Indiana lawmakers is reflective of how momentous the Supreme Court's ruling could be. In the Proposition 8 case in particular, the Supreme Court justices could address whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.

With those questions before the high court, politicians, many whom wish not to be on the wrong side of history, are treading carefully on the issue of marriage equality.

The announcement was applauded by advocates working in the state, who said it was not necessarily a win but has provided them with more time to lobby lawmakers and voters.

"We continue to believe the spirit of this amendment runs counter to our shared Hoosier values of kindness and equality," said Indiana Equality Action Executive Director Rick Sutton in a statement. "A delay is by no means a win, but we believe we are headed in a better direction, and Indiana is stronger when we all move forward together."

"This announcement gives the people of Indiana some much-needed time to have important conversations about marriage and freedom,” added Marc Solomon, national campaign director at Freedom to Marry. "As they do, we are confident that lawmakers of both parties will recognize that permanently eliminating the freedom to marry in the state constitution is wrong for Indiana's families." 

Arguments on the two cases before the Supreme Court are scheduled to begin next month.

[Photo: Indiana State House (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).]

President Barack Obama nominated two justices to the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today, including one who could become the country's first out gay appeals court judge.

Obama announced his nomination of Todd M. Hughes, who currently serves as deputy director of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division at the United States Department of Justice and is a graduate of Harvard College and Duke University. According to the White House, Hughes’s career with the Justice Department has focused on federal personnel law, veterans’ benefits, international trade, government contracts and jurisdictional issues regarding the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  

"Raymond T. Chen and Todd M. Hughes have displayed exceptional dedication to public service throughout their careers," Obama said in a statement announcing today's two nominations. "I am honored to nominate them today to serve the American people on the United States Court of Appeals. I am confident that they will be judicious and esteemed additions to the Federal Circuit." 

Obama has nominated a number of gay judges, but Hughes, if confirmed, would mark a historic first.

"If confirmed, Todd Hughes would become the first openly gay federal appeals court judge in U.S. history," said Victory Fund President Chuck Wolfe in a statement. The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund has helped secure a number of nominations through the Presidential Appointment Project.

"His nomination is a testament to the expanding opportunities for openly LGBT Americans who want to serve their country, and to the president's respect for the depth of talent and experience within the LGBT community," Wolfe added. "We look forward to his confirmation by the U.S. Senate."

Hughes is Obama's second nomination of an out gay person to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2010, Obama nominated Edward DuMont, who eventually withdrew his nomination after waiting more than 18 months for a committee hearing. Democrats and Republicans pointed fingers at each other for the delay, with Democrats blaming Republicans for holding up the hearings and Republicans countering that Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could have called for a hearing at any time.

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

Barack Obama continued the presidential tradition of speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning, marking the president's fifth appearance at the annual event and his first since declaring his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012.

Held at the Washington Hilton, the Fellowship Foundation, commonly known as "The Family," hosted the event. The organization is well known for its conservative evangelical views and powerful connections to Republican leaders. It has also been linked to anti-gay legislation in Uganda that would punish homosexual behavior with death.

At the 61st breakfast since the event was first held in 1953, Obama made no mention of his support of marriage equality in his 19-minute speech, according to a press pool report. 

"Love your neighbor as yourself," Obama told the audience of more than 3,000, which included Vice President Joe Biden and members of Congress. "See in everyone, even in those with whom you disagree most vehemently, the face of God. For we are all His children."

Although the breakfast is not sponsored by the White House, Obama's participation in the event has been criticized in the past, and was again this year. In a strongly worded statement released by the liberal LGBT-rights group, GetEqual, Managing Director Heather Cronk called on Obama to demonstrate his faith "without simultaneously putting the lives of LGBT people in jeopardy." 

"For another year, President Obama has chosen to set aside his stated values of inclusion in order to attend the National Prayer Breakfast — an event rooted in hatred of LGBT people and covered up by pastries and coffee," Cronk said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney defended Obama's participation, stating that the president is not responsible for the views of everyone who attends the breakfast.

"I confess that I haven't focused on this," Carney said of the Fellowship Foundation's anti-gay views during a gaggle with reporters after the breakfast. "The president, as his predecessors have, participates in this. He's not responsible for the views of every organization or person who participates. His views on these issues, as you just noted in your question, are quite clear."

According to Carney, Obama continues to attend the annual breakfast to speak "about the importance that faith plays in his life, that faith plays in the lives of so many millions of Americans."

[Image: Obama speaks at the National Prayer Breakfast (Screenshot courtesy of C-SPAN).]

The Boy Scouts of America will not consider lifting the organization's long-standing ban on gay members and leaders until May, the group announced today.

In a statement released the same day the organization's board of directors were scheduled to consider ending the national discriminatory ban, the BSA announced they would not consider the ban until the BSA's National Annual Meeting in May due to the "complexity of this issue." 

For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, providing its youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. In the past two weeks, Scouting has received an outpouring of feedback from the American public. It reinforces how deeply people care about Scouting and how passionate they are about the organization. 

After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy.  

To that end, the National Executive Board directed its committees to further engage representatives of Scouting’s membership and listen to their perspectives and concerns. This will assist the officers’ work on a resolution on membership standards. The approximately 1,400 voting members of the National Council will take action on the resolution at the National Annual Meeting in May 2013

The BSA has faced intense pressure since news broke last week that the organization would consider lifting the ban. Both opponents and supporters have lobbied the BSA, placing newspaper ads and urging supporters to call the organization’s headquarters in Texas.

For opponents of the ban, today's delay does nothing more than prolong discrimination against gay youth.

"This is an abdication of responsibility," said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality, in a statement. "By postponing this decision, the BSA has caved to those who argue that their ideas about being gay trump basic Scouting values of kindness, courtesy and bravery. Scouting was built on a foundation of respect and dignity. Today, the BSA cracked that foundation.”

According to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, "Every day that the Boy Scouts of America delay action is another day that discrimination prevails." 

While some advocates have heralded the news that the BSA might end their national gay ban, HRC has argued the end of the national ban does not go far enough in that local units would still be allowed to discriminate.

"Now is the time for action," Griffin added in a statement. "Young Americans, gay and straight, are hurt by the inaction associated with today's news. The BSA leadership should end this awful policy once and for all, and open the proud tradition of Scouting to all."

White House press secretary Jay Carney did not give reaction to the BSA's decision to delay Wednesday, reiterating President Barack Obama's opposition to the BSA's gay ban. As recently as Sunday, Obama told CBS News that no one should be barred from participating in the Boy Scouts.

For anti-gay groups, who argued lifting the ban would open the door to sexual abuse, today's announcement was viewed as a delay.

"The leaders of the Boy Scouts were wise not to abandon their longstanding national membership standards, as they were reportedly on the brink of doing," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in a statement. "However, it is not enough that they postpone a decision. Instead, the BSA board should publicly re-affirm their current standards, as they did just last July."

With immigration reform once again taking center stage on Capitol Hill, advocates are cautiously optimistic that protections for same-sex families articulated by President Barack Obama will be included in comprehensive reform. 

In a meeting with progressive leaders at the White House Feb. 5, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a four-part plan for reform unveiled during a speech in Las Vegas late last month. Those who participated in the meeting described the president as upbeat and confident – and optimistic that this time will be different.

"We talked about the best possible strategy for moving this initiative forward and we're moving quickly," Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, told reporters outside the West Wing of the White House. "We feel very strongly that there is a shared sense of urgency to move as quickly as possible and we believe the president has laid out the best possible framework to move forward."

Previous attempts to reform the country's immigration system have failed in recent years, with Democrats and Republicans failing to agree on key principles. Some of those differences remain today, but perhaps nowhere more visibly than on a provision supported by Obama that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their permanent partners for legal residency.

Obama's proposal "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," according to an outline provided by the White House. 

Although long sought by LGBT-rights advocates who have derided an immigration system that denies immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same-sex various protections, including eligibility for green cards, because the federal government does not recognize such relationships, the provision has already rankled some Republicans on Capitol Hill.

"Why don't we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters last week.

According to the 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. Without recognition of same-sex relationships in deportation proceedings, many of these families risk being torn apart.

The provision for same-sex families was missing from the outline of a plan unveiled last month by a bipartisan working group of senators on immigration reform, dubbed the "gang of eight." Republican senators part of that group, including Graham and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who recently described inclusion of such rights as "not of paramount importance" and a "red flag," have indicated any inclusion of rights for same-sex families threatens to sink the entire initiative. 

"I think if that issue becomes the central issue in the debate it's just going to make it harder to get it done because there's going to be a lot of strong feelings about it on both sides," said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), another member of the Senate's "gang of eight," during an interview with BuzzFeed's Ben Smith Feb. 5. "I hope that doesn't become the central issue of this debate, because the immigration issue has some significant land mines and pitfalls. This is going to be a pretty heavy lift to begin with."

The White House and advocates, however, are digging in.

"If that is the excuse on which people are going to limit their support for immigration reform, they should be ashamed of themselves," Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, told Metro Weekly.

Tiven participated in the Feb. 5 meeting with Obama and said the White House is "unequivocally supportive and clearly committed to LGBT inclusion in immigration reform."

"The president wouldn't be wasting his time on a package that's LGBT-inclusive if he didn't think he could pass it," Tiven added.

Although Obama has said he will introduce his own legislation if Congress does not act, the White House has not indicated how much he is willing to give on protecting binational same-sex couples. 

White House press secretary Jay Carney has declined to say if Obama is willing to compromise on that particular provision of his plan, simply reiterating that Obama 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."

Speaking to reporters on a conference call Feb. 5, White House Domestic Policy Council Cecilia Muñoz did not say if Obama would introduce his own legislation if rights for same-sex couples are not included in Congress's plan. 

"Those of us who follow these issues, I think, can probably expect there's going to be a vigorous debate if this legislation gets to the Hill, but the president's position on this is very clear and is articulated in his principles," Muñoz said.

While rights for same-sex couples may prove to be one of the most divisive aspects of immigration reform, supporters are keeping all options on the table.

On Feb. 5, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) reintroduced the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) with bipartisan support, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is expected to introduce the same legislation in the Senate. Obama's plan for immigration reform for same-sex couples mirrors UAFA, which would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and extend immigration rights currently enjoyed by straight couples.

According to a statement from Nadler, "[A]ny serious legislative proposal for comprehensive immigration reform absolutely must include gay and lesbian couples and their families."

[Photo: Immigration reform advocates speak to reporters outside the West Wing of the White House after a Feb. 5 meeting with Obama (Credit: Justin Snow/Metro Weekly).]

The Virginia House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed a bill Monday that would define the term "bullying" and instructs individual school boards to adopt policies and procedures to prevent its occurrence.  

The House of Delegates approved HB1871, sponsored by Del. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond, Henrico Co.), by a vote of 93-6, with all 32 of the lower chamber's Democrats and 61 Republicans voting in favor. Six Republicans, mostly from the southern or western regions of the commonwealth, voted no, and a seventh, Del. Charles Poindexter (R-Franklin, Henry, Patrick counties), was recorded as voting yes but indicated after the vote that he had intended to vote against the bill, according to a roll call on the Virginia General Assembly website.  

HB1871 defines "bullying" as "any aggressive and unwanted behavior that is intended to harm, intimidate, or humiliate the victim; involves a real or perceived power imbalance between the aggressor or aggressors and victim; and is repeated over time or causes severe emotional trauma." HB1871 specifically states that bullying includes cyber-bullying, but does not include ordinary teasing, horseplay, argument or conflict between students.

The bill also requires each school board adopt a "character education" program aimed at promoting certain values and personal character traits that are aimed at reducing the incidence of bullying and improving school environments to make them more conducive to learning. Examples of values that could be taught in a character-education program listed in the bill include respect, accountability, self-control, kindness, nondiscrimination and "citizenship, including the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the American flag, concern for the common good, respect for authority and law, and community-mindedness."

Under the legislation, each board of education is tasked with establishing criteria for the character education program, and will award grants to school boards that implement innovative character education programs.

Boards of education are also expected to establish guidelines and model policies for student codes of conduct that will provide guidance to local school boards about how best to implement such policies, which will include criteria for punishment by offenders and standards for the in-service training of school personnel.

Under the proposed law, each school board must include a prohibition on bullying as part of its code of conduct, but the policies in such a code "shall not be interpreted to infringe on the First Amendment rights of students and are not intended to prohibit expression of religious, philosophical or political views, provided that such expression does not cause an actual, material disruption of the work of the school." The law also requires school boards to adopt appropriate procedures to educate employees about the importance of fostering a bully-free environment.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where it will likely receive a hearing before the Committee on Education and Health. A hearing date has not been set yet, according to the General Assembly website.

Kevin Clay, a spokesman for the commonwealth's major LGBT rights organization Equality Virginia, told Metro Weekly recently that the organization has been closely tracking the bullying bill and is hoping it will succeed. 

"It is absolutely important that the commonwealth protect all children from bullying," Clay said.

Although the bill does not make any specific references to LGBT youth, Clay said that Equality Virginia is focused on working on a district-by-district basis to convince individual school boards to adopt fully enumerated rights for students based on characteristics such as race, religion or sexual orientation and gender identity. 

[Photo: Del. Jennifer McClellan, chief sponsor of HB1871 (Courtesty of Virginia General Assembly).]

A Maryland legislative ethics committee has found that Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore Co.) committed a "particularly egregious abuse of public resources" by writing a letter on official General Assembly letterhead to Steve Bisciotti, owner of the Baltimore Ravens football team, asking him to "take the necessary action" and order Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo to "cease and desist" from expressing his support for marriage equality, according to The Washington Post.

Burns, a longtime foe of LGBT rights, was attempting to stop Ayanbadejo’s advocacy for marriage equality during last year’s fight over Question 6, a referendum on marriage equality, which Maryland voters approved in November by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Maryland marriage license have been available to same-sex couples since the start of 2013.

The Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics on Monday found that Burns violated ethics rules, stating that delegates should not use their General Assembly letterhead to advocate for or against ballot measures. But the committee also found that, since Burns has already apologized for the incident, there is no need for disciplinary action, the Post reports.  

"Your use of official General Assembly letterhead to pressure the employer of a citizen of Maryland to suppress the citizen’s right of free speech was a particularly egregious abuse of public resources," the committee told Burns in a letter dated Jan. 30.

Ayanbadejo, who received support from fans and fellow football player Chris Kluwe after Burns tried to hinder his free-speech rights, has long been an ally in the fight for marriage equality, even though it put him at odds with some of his fellow teammates such as Matt Birk, who had written an opinion piece in his home-state paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, asking voters in Minnesota to approve a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage, though same-sex marriages are already banned under state statute. Voters in Minnesota rejected the amendment.  

After the Ravens won the AFC Championship and were headed to the Super Bowl, Ayanbadejo used his platform as a member of a Super Bowl team to advocate for marriage equality, emailing some proponents to ask how he could best get the message out.

Ayanbadejo’s actions also stood in contrast to a back-and-forth in the national media concerning anti-gay remarks made by San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver in an interview with provocative talk-show host Artie Lange about how he would not want to be in the locker room with an openly gay teammate. 

After receiving some national backlash, Culliver apologized for the remarks, but the situation was exacerbated after two of his teammates who had appeared in an "It Gets Better" video targeted at LGBT teens were asked about their involvement and denied taking part in the video. They were later shown the video and insisted they thought the project was an anti-bullying video, not targeted at the LGBT community. The project's founder, Dan Savage, later pulled the video after the 49ers comments. 

Meanwhile, Ayanbadejo’s teammate Terrell Suggs said that he would "absolutely not" have a problem with a gay teammate. After the Ravens defeated the 49ers 34-31 in the Super Bowl Feb. 3, Ayanbadejo did an interview with hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons where he reiterated his support for LGBT rights and marriage equality. 

[Photo 1: Del. Emmett Burns (Courtesy of Maryland General Assembly). Photo 2: Brendon Ayanbadejo (Courtesy of Baltimore Ravens).]

The Pentagon will announce later this week its decision to grant the spouses of gay servicemembers "certain benefits" still denied to them more than a year after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Although Pentagon officials did not indicate what specific benefits will be extended without violating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, according to a U.S. official and a congressional aide briefed on the decision, departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will make the announcement this week.

While some benefits are contingent on the successful repeal of the DOMA, 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. 

Since assuming office as defense secretary in July 2011, Panetta has overseen the repeal of DADT and the lifting of the ban on women in combat positions, which the Pentagon announced just last month. In what the newspaper describes as Panetta's "final imprint on the armed forces," the decision to extend benefits to same-sex military families has been long sought by advocates who have been puzzled by the delay.

"Secretary Panetta established a strong civil rights record long before taking office at the Pentagon, so his unwillingness to extend support and recognition to gay and lesbian service members and their families where it is clearly within his authority to do so has baffled many of us," said OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson in a statement released shortly after today’s news broke. "We are hopeful that he will not take half-measures here; for him to grant anything less than the full extent of benefits available under current law would be an anticlimactic end to an otherwise exemplary record on civil rights." 

Late last month, former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who is expected to succeed Panetta as defense secretary, said at his Senate confirmation hearing that he is "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 servicemembers."

Noting Hagel's remarks, Robinson said for Panetta to do anything less "would be to leave the job half done, leaving in place a self-imposed two-tier system that willingly denies to some service members benefits they have earned and treats them, their families, and their sacrifice as less than worthy."

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin called on Panetta to extend every benefit possible under the law as the "logical next step in ensuring all our military families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve."

"The military leadership have dragged their feet long enough," Griffin added in a statement released Tuesday. "Two years after 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was relegated to the dustbin of history, it's time for our heroes in arms to finally receive the justice they deserve."

Panetta has faced increased pressure from outside groups as well as members of Congress to act before retiring. Speaking to reporters Jan. 25, White House press secretary Jay Carney said President Barack Obama is "absolutely focused on and aware of the need to further implement DADT and to ensure that proper benefits are provided," but would not say if Obama would pressure Panetta to act.

"In his last days before leaving office, Secretary Panetta can add to his already long list of accomplishments, take up this cause and make sure that the administration acts," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of those who have writen to Panetta in recent weeks urging him to act, in a statement.

A Pentagon spokesperson would not confirm the Post's report, simply reiterating to Metro Weekly that the Defense Department continues to conduct "a deliberative and comprehensive review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to same-sex domestic partners."

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

[Editor's note: This post has been updated to include statements from Chad Griffin and Rep. Adam Schiff.]

One day after announcing he would explore a run for Secretary of State John Kerry's old Senate seat, out gay Republican Richard Tisei announced he will not run in the special election.

"Unfortunately, the timing is simply not right for me to do so – deeply as I feel about the need to strongly compete in this election," Tisei said in a statement released Saturday. "It was also my desire to make this decision as quickly as possible so that other potential candidates would be able to consider whether they should run."

One day earlier, Feb. 1, Tisei said he was exploring a run for Kerry's Senate seat after former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) announced he would not run for the seat. Brown was defeated in his bid for re-election to the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in November.

"[T]his was a wrenching decision for me to make, but the timing simply isn't right for me to run for the Senate," Tisei added in a post to supporters on Facebook. "I look forward to joining each of you in doing everything I can to support a well-qualified, principled man or women to be our candidate for the Senate on June 25."

Tisei's decision not to run in June's special election ends the possibility of another LGB member joining Congress and the Senate gaining its second out member. Nevertheless, he has not ruled out running for Congress in the future.

In November, Tisei lost narrowly to Rep. John Tierney (D) for the 6th District seat in Congress that Tierney has held since 1997. Tisei, who supports marriage equality and is pro-choice, served in the Massachusetts State Legislature for 26 years.

[Photo: Richard Tisei (Courtesy of Facebook).]

President Barack Obama reiterated his oppositions to the Boy Scouts' longstanding ban on gay members and leaders during an interview with CBS News.

In an interview that aired shortly before the Super Bowl on Sunday, Obama was asked if the Boy Scouts of America should be open to gays. "Yes," the president responded.

"My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life," Obama said. "The Scouts are a great institution that are promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred for that."

When the BSA decided in August to uphold the 102-year-old organization's discriminatory ban, Obama expressed through a spokesman his opposition to the BSA's decision.

"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.

Obama's remarks come days before the more than 70 members of the BSA's board of directors are set to consider ending the national ban on out gay members and leaders on Wednesday, adding further pressure to the organization.

On Monday, a number of Boy Scouts who have battled the organization's gay ban are set to deliver 1.4 million signatures collected by various Change.org petitions to the BSA's national headquarters in Dallas calling for an end to the ban.

The Human Rights Campaign is also pressuring the BSA, running a full-page ad in the Dallas Morning News today urging readers to call on the BSA to end "anti-gay bigotry." While some advocates have heralded the news that the BSA would end their national gay ban, HRC has argued the end of the national ban does not go far enough.

"While the proposed change is a step in the right direction, we can't pretend that passing the buck to the local level will eliminate anti-gay discrimination because it won't," HRC communications vice president Fred Sainz said in a statement.

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

"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 last week. "BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families."  

Supporters of the gay ban are also lobbying the BSA, arguing that ending the discriminatory ban would open the door to pedophilia and upend Scouting values.

In an "Alert" sent to supporters of the Family Research Council, FRC President Tony Perkins distributed the phone numbers of several members of the BSA's board and a sample phone script for supporters of the gay ban to use.

"Please do not jeopardize the safety and moral integrity of Scouting in the interest of social activism," the script reads in part. "The proposal to relegate the decision on homosexual leaders to local chartered organizations sends the wrong signal from the national body: that political correctness ultimately triumphs over character."

The Mormon church, United Methodist Church and Catholic Church have the most Boy Scout members of the faith-based groups involved in the BSA. All three churches have stood by the BSA's gay ban.

HRC Boy Scout Ad

Former Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) annoumcement today that he will not seek election to the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry, a Democrat, may open a door for gay Republican Richard Tisei.

In a statement released today, Tisei said he was exploring the possibility of running for the Senate after Brown's announcement.

"The news that Scott won't be running again came as a surprise to me, as to many others," Tisei said. "Scott's exit from the race was obviously unexpected. That said, in the coming days I will be talking with family, friends, and supporters to consider the best role that I can play in helping to bring new, alternative leadership to Washington."

Tisei, who supports marriage equality and is pro-choice, served in the Massachusetts State Legislature for 26 years. He lost his election against Rep. John Tierney (D) in November for the 6th District seat in Congress that Tierney has held since 1997, despite receiving endorsements from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and local media outlets such as The Boston Globe.

Many believed Brown to be the most viable Republican to run in the special election Massachusetts will hold in June for Kerry's replacement. Kerry was sworn in as secretary of state earlier today. Brown's bid for re-election to the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy fell short in November when he was defeated by Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Earlier this week, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) announced Mo Cowan, his former chief of staff, would fill the seat held by Kerry until a special election is held in June. Patrick passed over former Rep. Barney Frank for the job, despite Frank’s declaration that he wanted the temporary appointment. Frank was open in his criticism of Tisei and Victory Fund’s endorsement of him, arguing Tisei would only strengthen the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. In September, Frank told the Associated Press, "The fact that Richard Tisei is openly gay is a good thing. The problem is that it is of no use to us."

If Tisei is selected as the Republican nominee, he has the potential to further increase the number of LGB members of Congress and become the Senate’s second out member. On Jan. 4, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) was sworn in as the Senate's first out member.

[Photo: Richard Tisei]