It's easy to forget that it wasn't even 11 months ago President Barack Obama remained opposed to same-sex marriage.

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix," then-Sen. Obama said during a presidential campaign appearance at the Sanddleback Presidential Forum in April 2008. Although Obama repeatedly said gay couples should be entitled to rights and benefits through civil unions, he maintained marriage is between a man and a woman. 

But since Obama announced on May 9, 2012 that he believes "same-sex couples should be able to get married," the pace at which other politicians have followed has been staggering to even the most ardent supporters of marriage equality.

More than half the country now supports same-sex marriage, according to recent polling. Among those under the age of 30, support stands at more than 80 percent. In the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court's historic arguments in two landmarks cases regarding California's Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, the number of politicians — particularly moderate Democrats — who have endorsed same-sex marriage has increased to such a pace they have ceased to gain headlines. 

It began when Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) announced a "change of heart" earlier this month and became the first Senate Republican to support marriage equality after learning his son is gay. A few days after, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced what many had long suspected: she too supports marriage equality. 

And then, with the Supreme Court poised to consider whether same-sex couples in all 50 states have a constitutional right to marry, the flood began. 

In the past week alone, Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Tim Kaine (Va.),  Kay Hagan (N.C.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Mark Warner (Va.) all announced their support for same-sex marriage, primarily through statements on social media platforms. That leaves only nine Democratic senators who do not support same-sex marriage, including Sens. Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).

In essence, it is no longer news for a Democrat to support same-sex marriage. And for those who have yet to declare their support, they are to the right of Portman and former Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue.

While Portman remains the only Senate Republican to have endorsed same-sex marriage, others have signaled that may soon change. According to the Alaska Star, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) described her view on same-sex marriage much as Obama described his a year ago.

"The term 'evolving view' has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use," Murkowski said.

The Republican Party itself has signaled a renewed attempt to be more inclusive toward those with differing views on same-sex marriage. In an interview with USA Today, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said that while the GOP's platform opposes same-sex marriage, they don't "need to act like Old Testament heretics" and must "strike a balance between principle and grace and respect."

The scramble to be on the right side of history was not lost on the Supreme Court justices this week.

"As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday to the attorney for Edith Windsor, the 83-year-old lesbian widow at the center of the DOMA challenge.

Some have welcomed these new allies to the LGBT fold, while others have criticized what they call political opportunism. Portman in particular has faced criticism from some in the LGBT community for only supporting same-sex marriage after it directly impacted his family. But others have pointed to the enduring words of one of the movement's most iconic figures.

"Harvey Milk was right," Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), the chamber's only out member, told Metro Weekly. "Come out, come out wherever you are and that's how you're going to change the world."

But the rapid pace at which these leaders have evolved begs a question: where were they before?

"The Clintons have always been phonies and opportunists and for Bill Clinton to proclaim the sanctity of marriage and sign DOMA while cigar-fucking his intern tells you a lot about him," Andrew Sullivan — no fan of the Clintons — wrote today. "On no issue were they as shameless as on this one – portraying themselves as civil rights advocates while kicking those of us fighting for equality squarely in the groin."

Accompanying Sullivan's blog post was a montage of Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, discussing their opposition to same-sex marriage on the floor of the Senate in the mid-2000s.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party's decision to write support for marriage equality into their national party platform last summer and Obama's support has all but assured that no viable Democrat will be able to run for the party's presidential nomination again without supporting same-sex marriage. Indeed, the four most likely to seek the nomination in 2016 — Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — all support marriage equality. While less than a decade ago the most advocates could hope for were Democratic politicians to openly support civil unions, it now draws more attention when they don't support marriage rights.

No matter how the Supreme Court rules in June, one thing was clear after this week: however these leaders came to their current positions, it's no longer radical to believe gays and lesbians deserve full equality. And it's only a matter of time.

[Photo: Pro-marriage equality demonstrations outside the Supreme Court (Credit: Todd Franson/Metro Weekly).]

In one of the most memorable moments during today's Supreme Court arguments on DOMA, Justice Elena Kagan shut down one of the key arguments being made by the lawyer for House Republicans.

During questioning of Paul Clement, the lead attorney defending DOMA for the Republican-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), Kagan took issue with the argument that Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 in order to provide uniformity to the states.

"For the most part and historically, the only uniformity that the Federal Government has pursued is that it's uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the State. So, this was a real difference in the uniformity that the Federal Government was pursuing," Kagan said. "And it suggests that maybe something -- maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity." 

Kagan questioned, "do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress's judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth?"

According to Clement, there is nothing unusual about the federal government getting involved with marriage, as they did in prohibitions on polygamy and providing benefits to the spouses of freed slaves after the Civil War. In 1996, Clement said, the federal government had reason to act unusually as no state had ever recognized same-sex marriage before and Hawaiian courts were weighing the issue.

And that's when Kagan pounced. 

"Well, is what happened in 1996 -- and I'm going to quote from the House Report here -- is that 'Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.' Is that what happened in 1996?" Kagan asked to gasps and murmurs from the courtroom. 

"Does the House Report say that? Of course, the House Report says that," Clement responded. "And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute. But that has never been your approach, especially under rational basis or even rational basis-plus, if that is what you are suggesting."

Clement added that while the House Report from when DOMA passed provides reasoning BLAG is not invoking to defend DOMA, it made sense for Congress to act when "an unelected State judiciary in Hawaii is on the verge of deciding this highly contentious, highly divisive issue for everybody." 

It was one of several moments that elicited audible reaction from the otherwise hushed courtroom audience. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — another liberal justice likely to argue DOMA should be struck down — caused a stir of laughter when she said DOMA creates separate classes of marriage: "full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

[Photo: Elena Kagan (Courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court)]

Is DOMA dead? That was the question many were asking after the Supreme Court concluded two hours of oral arguments Wednesday in the case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The apparent skepticism of a majority of the justices regarding the 1996 ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage indicates its days may be numbered.

During questioning of Paul Clement, the lead attorney defending DOMA for the Republican-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked what kind of marriage Clement was talking about that would deny more than 1,000 federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples that are enjoyed by straight couples. 

"It's pervasive," Ginsburg said of DOMA, adding that it impacts every aspect of life. According to Ginsburg, DOMA creates two classes of marriage: full marriage and "skim milk marriage."

All eyes were also on swing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, while expressing skepticism to a sweeping ruling in the Proposition 8 case during oral arguments yesterday, appeared poised to argue DOMA should be struck down. Kennedy questioned whether the federal government could impose its own view of marriage when marriage laws have traditionally been decided at the state level. While Kennedy questioned the equal-protection argument put forward by Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer for 83-year-old plaintiff Edith Windsor, he appeared more inclined to agree with the federalism argument that DOMA is an overreach of federal power.

"Section 3 of DOMA is stopping the recognition by the Federal Government of couples who are already married, solely based on their sexual orientation, and what it's doing is undermining, as you can see in the briefs of the States of New York and others, it's undermining the policy decisions made by those States that have permitted gay couples to marry," Kaplan said.

Chief Justice John Roberts also questioned an argument put forward by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and Kaplan that the case should be treated with "heightened scrutiny." Due to the history of discrimination faced by gay people, DOMA opponents argued the law should be found unconstitutional. Heightened scrutiny is generally used to evaluate laws that classify people based on race, gender or religion. 

However, Roberts echoed an argument that has been made in briefs filed by DOMA supporters that the gay-rights lobby has immense political power, as demonstrated by the "sea change" in public opinion and the number of politicians "falling over themselves" to announce their support for same-sex marriage.

The liberal wing of the court, however, appeared to agree that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. "You're treating these married couples different," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during questioning of Clement.

Quoting from the the House Report from when DOMA was passed in 1996, Justice Elena Kagan questioned Clement's argument that DOMA was passed simply to provide uniformity to the law in order to prevent certain states from recognizing same-sex marriage while others do not.

"Do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress's judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth?" Kagan asked.

Although a majority of the justices appeared to agree that DOMA was too far-reaching, they had many questions on the jurisdiction issues surrounding the case, in particular what authority the Obama administration had in February 2010 when the Justice Department declared DOMA unconstitutional. 

"If he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice," Roberts said of Obama.

During 50 minutes of arguments, the justices weighed whether they have the authority to hear the case to begin with because of the unusual nature by which it finds itself before the high court. Although Windsor sued the government, the government is now testifying on her behalf as the House defends DOMA. Moreover, the government appealed the decision despite winning in the lower courts. Harvard law professor Vicki Jackson, who was recruited by the court to address these questions, argued the court should not hear the case.

"This is totally unprecedented. You're asking us to do something we have never done before to reach the issue in this case," Roberts said to Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan.

United States v. Windsor surrounds 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who is suing to recoup about $363,000, the federal estate tax she was forced to pay on her "inheritance" following the death of her wife, Thea 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 2007 Canadian marriage license. A district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have both found DOMA unconstitutional.

Speaking to reporters outside as a crowd of supporters chanted "Edie! Edie!" Windsor broke from a prepared statement to speak to what marriage means to her.

"It's a magic word," Windsor said of marriage. "For anybody who doesn’t understand why we want it and why we need it, it is magic."

Today's arguments conclude two historic days that for the first time saw the issue of same-sex marriage before the nation's highest court. The nine Supreme Court justices will meet later this week to decide how they will rule in the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases. A verdict in the two cases is not expected to be issued until June.

[Photo: Edie Windsor speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court building (Credit: Justin Snow/Metro Weekly)]

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Read Metro Weekly's report from inside the courtroom here.

Listen to and read the arguments here:

Supreme Court DOMA Oral Arguments

It's been a long time coming, but on Tuesday morning opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage finally got their day in the nation's highest court.

During 90 minutes of oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, both sides fielded a number of pointed questions from the nine Supreme Court justices that ranged from the societal purpose of marriage to whether there was reason for the court to consider the case at all. 

Tuesday's arguments were the pinnacle of what has been a long legal battle stretching back to California courts in 2009. For supporters of marriage equality, the Supreme Court is where the case has always belonged. 

"This was a more than four year journey that we started and it went from federal district court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to a yearlong detour to the California Supreme Court and now, finally today, before these nine justices and the United States Supreme Court, and this is where this issue should be and should be decided," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin told Metro Weekly on the steps of the Supreme Court building.

As the co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Griffin spearheaded the suit against Proposition 8 in 2009 and personally recruited the star legal duo of Ted Olson, the former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and David Boies. The conservative and liberal attorneys faced each other on opposing sides in 2000 when they argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court. Olson told reporters Tuesday that his teaming up with Boies was "intended to make the point to America that this is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, conservative or liberal, this is an issue of American constitutional rights."

Griffin was among dozens of key players who were inside the hushed courtroom for Tuesday's arguments as thousands of people on both sides rallied outside.

Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, has been one of the driving forces pushing marriage equality to the forefront of the broader LGBT-rights movement. 

Wolfson said Tuesday's arguments and those that will come on Wednesday in the Defense of Marriage Act case were a validation of years of work on the ground in multiple states. According to Wolfson, the momentum in the polls and the prospect of achieving marriage equality in more states this year is reason to keep working, no matter what the Supreme Court decides.

"This argument was obviously lively and choppy and engaged and I think rather than sitting around handwringing and speculating what we need to do is go out and continue creating that momentum that’s going to get us there," Wolfson said. "We have four states we can win if we do our work right over the next few months and others shimmering within reach and we have more people to persuade and bring on board."

Indeed, the fight for marriage equality has benefited greatly after four historic wins at the ballot box last November. That reality, along with polling that shows a shift in support for same-sex marriage — particularly among younger people — has led not only to support for marriage equality becoming the norm in the Democratic Party, but also an increased acceptance in the Republican Party for those who support marriage equality.

"One of the things these cases have demonstrated is that our society is evolving in a very positive way and that evolution occurs first and foremost not in the political process or the courts, quite frankly," said former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman. "It occurs around dinner tables when moms and dads realize that one of their kids might be gay or people realize that a colleague they work with might be gay."

Mehlman has worked tirelessly to bring gay people into the Republican fold since coming out in 2010. He helped organize the brief filed in the Proposition 8 case calling for marriage equality for all same-sex couples that was signed by more than 100 GOP leaders.

That shift in tone was present inside the courtroom as well. Although some wondered what language might be used by some of the more conservative members of the court – including Justice Antonin Scalia, who is well known for his off-the-cuff remarks – there was no mention of anti-gay terms like "homosexual marriage" or "sodomy" during Tuesday’s arguments. At most, conservative members of the court questioned if it was best for children to be raised by two parents of the same sex.

Dustin Lance Black, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of Milk who has been involved in the fight against Proposition 8 since the start, said that tone was likely connected to a shift in the country caused by more people coming out, just as Harvey Milk urged.

"If I had to guess I'd say everyone up there knows someone who is gay or lesbian now," Black said of the justices. "And so they’re learning about us and they don't want to be hurtful to people who are in their family or they work with, and so I think a lot of people are learning to be much more kind to their LGBT brothers and sisters and learning what is hurtful and not hurtful."

In fact, among those seated in the section reserved for guests of Chief Justice John Roberts during Tuesday's arguments was 48-year-old Jean Podrasky — a lesbian from San Francisco and Roberts's cousin. 

It likely won't be until late June when the high court issues a ruling in the landmark case — the first ever before the Supreme Court to address the issue of same-sex marriage. Few are willing to predict how the high court will rule, but the cautious nature of the questions asked Tuesday have led some to speculate there will be no sweeping ruling bringing marriage equality to all 50 states. Nevertheless, opponents of Proposition 8 remain confident that the court will at least rule to allow same-sex weddings to resume in California. But as both sides wait to see how exactly the court will rule, a focus remains on the work ahead.

"Whatever the court does in June, we'll be in a stronger place in July and we'll either have our victory or we'll get it soon thereafter if we keep the work going," Wolfson said. "Now, what the court is going to do, none of us knows."

[Photo: Attorneys for the plaintiffs, David Boies (left) and Ted Olson, outside the Supreme Court on March 26, 2013 (Credit: Justin Snow/Metro Weekly).]

The Supreme Court justices approached the Proposition 8 case with caution Tuesday morning, indicating apparent trepidation to a sweeping ruling that would bring marriage equality to all 50 states.

During 90 minutes of oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the justices, including the liberal wing of the court, appeared reluctant to embrace a ruling granting all same-sex couples the right to marry. Moreover, questions were raised as whether the case should have been granted in the first place. 

"I just wonder if the case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who many suspect will be the swing justice to decide the case. Nearly all of the members of the court questioned the case's "standing" because California officials under Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown have refused to defend Proposition 8 since the lawsuit was brought in 2009. Instead, supporters of California's ban on same-sex marriage have defended the law in the lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts immediately cut off opening statements from attorneys for both sides to have them address the issue of standing.

"If the issue is letting the States experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?" added Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Although Kennedy voiced concern for the children of same-sex couples in California who suffer as their parents are denied basic rights and benefits, he also voiced concern to moving too quickly.

"There is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children," Kennedy said. "There are some 40,000 children in California...that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status."

Nevertheless, Kennedy said that information regarding how children are impacted by being raised in a household with two parents of the same sex is too new to be definitive. 

"We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more," Kennedy said.

Arguing on behalf of the two same-sex couples who have been challenging California's same-sex marriage ban since 2009 was Theodore Olson, the conservative half of the star legal duo leading the charge against Proposition 8. Olson, who served as President George W. Bush's solicitor general, argued that California's Proposition 8 "walls-off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this Court, thus stigmatizing a class of Californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal, and not okay."

Olson was challenged at length by one of the court's conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, on when it become unconstitutional to exclude gay couples from marriage.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson responded to Scalia's questioning.

Scalia responded in 1868 when the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. "But don't give me a question to my question," Scalia quipped. 

"It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control," Olson said, adding that "marriage is a fundamental right and we are making a classification based upon a status of individuals, which this Court has repeatedly decided that gays and lesbians are defined by their status."

The justices had pointed questions for Charles Cooper, who argued on behalf of Proposition 8 supporters that marriage is meant to produce and raise offspring.

"The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples," Cooper said.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Cooper if it would be constitutional for a state to ban marriage licenses for any couples where both people are over the age of 55. Cooper said no, but that it was rare for both parties to be infertile.

"I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said to laughter from the courtroom.

In another exchange with Sotomayor, Cooper could not name any other rational basis outside of the marriage context for a state using sexual orientation as a factor to deny benefits or impose burdens.

Despite the pointed questions for both sides, the justices seemed to indicate a hesitation to embrace the sweeping argument put forward by Olson that all same-sex couples have a right to marry. They also questioned an argument put forward by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who argued on behalf of the Obama administration that a more narrow ruling should be applied in the states that permit civil unions but not marriage. 

According to Verilli, a state that extends same-sex couples rights through civil unions has no constitutional argument to exclude those couples from marrying.

"So a state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but the Government's position is, if it has has done absolutely nothing at all, then it can do as it will," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Defense of Marriage Act case tomorrow.

[Photo: The Supreme Court justices (Courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court).]

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case challenging California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. For more details, read Metro Weekly's report from inside the courtroom here.

Listen to and read the arguments here:

Supreme Court transcript, Proposition 8

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner (D) announced Monday afternoon on his Facebook page that he is now a supporter of marriage equality, joining several other senators who are expressing a change in attitude toward the recognition of same-sex nuptials.

"I support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do," Warner wrote on his Facebook page. "Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone."

Warner, who signed an amicus brief earlier this month urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law prohibiting the recognition of same-sex relationships, also touted his other pro-LGBT positions, such as support for ending the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy and his signing of an executive order that extended anti-discrimination protections in employment to LGBT state workers during his term as governor, from 2002 to 2006. Within an hour after posting, his statement had received more than 700 "likes" from fellow Facebook users.

Warner now joins Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as the most recent members of the upper chamber to announce support marriage equality. Counting those three, 44 members of the U.S. Senate are on record as supporting marriage equality.

[Editor's note: See Kaine-related correction below.]

Warner is also the only statewide elected official in the commonwealth to come out in support of marriage equality. Gov. Bob McDonnell, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, all Republicans, are opposed to same-sex marriage. Sen. Tim Kaine (D) has not come out in support of marriage, but said in a debate against George Allen, the former GOP senator and governor, in September that he supported "legal equality" for same-sex couples, but left open whether that could be achieved by allowing marriage, civil unions or some form of domestic partnership. 

[CORRECTION: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) on Thursday, March 21, stated support for marriage equality, as reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch March 25. Kaine's office released this statement from the senator to Metro Weekly March 26: "I believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the full rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the Constitution. I hope the Supreme Court will affirm that principle.”]

[Photo: Sen. Mark Warner (courtesy of Warner's official Senate website)]

After years of litigation that began in 2009, supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage will have what could be their conclusive day in court.

The nine Supreme Court justices will hear arguments in two landmark cases, considering the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday, March 26, and Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, March 27. Their rulings in those two cases, which are not expected until late June, could be two of the most significant in the history of the high court.

The two consecutive days of oral arguments will begin with an hour for arguments Tuesday morning in the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Arguing on behalf of the opponents of Proposition 8 will be Theodore Olson, the conservative half of the star legal duo that has been challenging the California same-sex marriage ban since 2009. Olson, who served as President George W. Bush’s solicitor general, has led the challenge with fellow attorney David Boies. Following the Obama administration's decision to file a brief in the case last month, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli will join Olson.

Because California officials under Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown have refused to defend Proposition 8, attorney Charles Cooper will argue on behalf of supporters of California’s Proposition 8, which was approved by California voters in 2008 to amend the state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage after that right was already granted to gay couples. If the justices decide supporters of the discriminatory law do not have legal standing to bring the case, the broader constitutional questions raised by the case will not be addressed and the ruling striking down Proposition 8 by the lower trial court will stand.

Advocates, however, are hoping the high court will hear the Proposition 8 case as Olson is expected to make a sweeping argument that not just California's ban, but all state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Indeed, he will argue that to deny same-sex couples the right to marry is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

Although Verrilli's argument will be less sweeping, Verrilli's argument that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection could be applied in other states.

On Wednesday, the high court will hear arguments in the case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. When passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, DOMA had little impact. But as more and more states have legalized same-sex marriage, DOMA has led to the denial of more than a thousand rights and benefits to married same-sex couples.

United States v. Windsor surrounds 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who is suing to recoup about $363,000, the federal estate tax she was forced to pay on her "inheritance" following the death of her wife, Thea 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 2007 Canadian marriage license. 

In an unusual occurrence, the federal government as represented by Verrilli will be arguing on behalf of Windsor along with her attorney, Roberta Kaplan. Since February 2010 the Obama administration has refused to defend DOMA as constitutional, leading the House Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the law in federal court. Paul Clement, who succeeded Olson as solicitor general for the Bush administration, will be arguing on behalf of BLAG.

In both cases, same-sex marriage supporters will call for heightened scrutiny, arguing that because of the history of discrimination faced by gay people both laws should be found unconstitutional. Heightened scrutiny is generally used to evaluate laws that classify people based on race, gender and religion.

There will be no cameras in the courtroom on either day and most will not know what is said until after the court adjourns and transcripts and audio recordings are released. Members of the press are permitted only pen and paper inside the courtroom.

Sometime Thursday, March 21, a line began to form outside the Supreme Court with members of the public vying for one of the 150 first-come, first-served seats in the courtroom. That line held even as the region's first significant snowfall began late Sunday night, signaling the scope of national attention on these two cases. The two days of arguments are the pinnacle of what has been a decades-long struggle for equality and symbolize the broader LGBT-rights movement.

A ruling is not expected until the final weeks of June, before the court's summer recess. Marriage-equality supporters have voiced optimism that the court will issue a ruling with a clear path toward same-sex marriage across the country, but while many believe the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA, few are predicting how the court will rule in the Propostion 8 case. In the days and weeks to follow, the questions and comments made this week by members of the court — particularly swing Justice Anthony Kennedy — will be analyzed and dissected.

There will also be a focus on Chief Justice John Roberts, who, while appointed by President George W. Bush, has shown an independence from his conservative ideology when, last year, he saved health care reform by siding with the liberal members of the court. Indeed, as the chief justice, Roberts has an interest in how history judges his court.

Among those who will be seated in the section reserved for guests of the chief justice during Tuesday's arguments is 48-year-old Jean Podrasky — a lesbian from San Francisco and Roberts's cousin.

[Photo: The Supreme Court justices (Courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court).]

The son of Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) spoke out publicly for the first time since his father endorsed marriage equality earlier this month in a column published by his college newspaper.

Writing in the Yale Daily News, Will Portman says he came out to his parents in a letter that he overnighted to them in February of his freshman year. "They were surprised to learn I was gay, and full of questions, but absolutely rock-solid supportive," Portman writes. "That was the beginning of the end of feeling ashamed about who I was."

In discussing his journey of coming to terms with his sexual orientation, the college junior also defends his father against criticism he's faced from some in the LGBT community for waiting two years to openly endorse same-sex marriage after learning his son is gay, even as he was being considered as Mitt Romney's running mate in the 2012 presidential election.

"Some people have criticized my dad for waiting for two years after I came out to him before he endorsed marriage for gay couples. Part of the reason for that is that it took time for him to think through the issue more deeply after the impetus of my coming out. But another factor was my reluctance to make my personal life public," Portman writes.

During the vetting process, Rob Portman told the Romney campaign that he had a gay son and that they would be open about that fact on the campaign trail, but Will Portman says he was relived to have avoided the spotlight of a presidential campaign when Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his running mate instead.

"We had decided that my dad would talk about having a gay son if he were to change his position on marriage equality. It would be the only honest way to explain his change of heart. Besides, the fact that I was gay would probably become public anyway," Portman writes. "I had encouraged my dad all along to change his position, but it gave me pause to think that the one thing that nobody had known about me for so many years would suddenly become the one thing that everybody knew about me."

Although Portman says seeing his sexual orientation in the headlines has been a strange experience, it has also been a privilege.

"Now, my friends at Yale and the folks in my dad's political orbit in Ohio are all on the same page," Portman writes. "They know two things about me that I'm very proud of, not just one or the other: that I'm gay, and that I'm Rob and Jane Portman's son."

Read Will Portman's full essay here.

[Photo: Rob and Will Portman (Courtesy of Facebook)]

Sen. Claire McCaskill quietly announced her support for same-sex marriage in a post published on her Tumblr page Sunday evening.

Invoking the Bible, the Missouri Democrat announced she believes the government should not limit the right to marry in a post titled after a passage from Corinthians 13: "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

"My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality," McCaskill writes, adding that just as churches should never be required to conduct marriage ceremonies against their faith, neither should the government tell people who they have the right to marry.

"Good people disagree with me," McCaskill concludes. "On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children."

McCaskill is the latest in a series of politicians, following Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to announce their support for marriage equality before the Supreme Court hears arguments in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act cases later this week. She is also one of the last prominent Democrats to publicly endorse same-sex marriage in a party that has rapidly embraced marriage equality since President Barack Obama announced his evolution on the issue in May 2012.

During her reelection campaign, McCaskill said same-sex marriage should be left up to the states. McCaskill defeated former Rep. Todd Akin — who vehemently opposed marriage equality — to win reelection last November. She will not face Missouri voters in the traditionally red state again until 2018.

[Photo: Claire McCaskill (Courtesy of the U.S. Senate).]

Equality Virginia, the commonwealth’s primary LGBT-rights group, is asking Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) to veto a bill passed overwhelmingly by the Virginia Assembly in February that allows student groups to discriminate against potential members based on their religious, philosophical or political views and prohibits universities and educational institutions from denying such groups funding or other resources based on the content of their speech or views.

Equality Virginia sent an email to supporters Friday afternoon asking them to contact McDonnell and urge him to veto the bill, which passed the House 80-19, and the Senate 22-18.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch also ran an op-ed urging McDonnell to veto the bill. Several student representatives at Virginia Tech signed a letter asking McDonnell to oppose it, as has the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Virginia.

If McDonnell does sign the bill into law, campus organizations could claim religious, political or philosophical objections to admitting particular students, without fear of any reprisal from school administration. But Equality Virginia and other LGBT advocates fear that those so-called protections will be used to discriminate against LGBT students.

McDonnell is expected to sign the bill Monday, March 25. 

[Photo: Gov. Bob McDonnell]

Marriage-equality supporters gained another important ally yesterday when the 83-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics declared its support for same-sex marriage.

In a policy statement titled "Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian," the nonpartisan organization of pediatricians states that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in order to guarantee them all state and federal rights and benefits and ensure long-term security for their children. According to the AAP, "children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents." 

"Children need secure and enduring relationships with committed and nurturing adults to enhance their life experiences for optimal social-emotional and cognitive development," the statement reads. "Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders." 

Moreover, the academy states, "If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation." 

While adoption and foster parenting remain options, according to the academy those options should be available regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

The 2010 U.S. Census report counted 646,464 households that include two adults of the same gender, altoghether raising 115,000 children. When combined with single gay parents, nearly 2 million children are being raised by gay parents.

The announcement from the organization of more than 60,000 pediatricians comes less than a week before the Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearing arguments in cases challenging California's Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that children have a right to be raised by a mother and father, but the latest report from the AAP casts further doubts on if the sexual orientation of parents benefit children. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe same-sex couples can be just as good parents as straight couples, a 10 point increase from 2003.

According to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, "This announcement is the latest in a chain of evidence stretching back years that clearly states marriage equality is good for children. As today's announcement by the AAP underscores, marriage equality’s adversaries simply have no evidence to back up their absurd claims to the contrary."

[Photo courtesy of greenmelinda/Flickr]

Read the full report here:

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

The saga surrounding New Mexico's ambiguous marriage laws continued today as two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit after they were denied marriage licenses by the Bernalillo County clerk.

Because neither the New Mexico Constitution nor state marriage laws explicitly ban same-sex marriage, the lawsuit argues it is unlawful for county clerks to deny civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 

The lawsuit filed in Albuquerque's district court today comes after Santa Fe Mayor David Coss and City Councilor Patti Bushee announced Tuesday, March 19, that they are sponsoring a resolution calling on county clerks across the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The resolution introduced earlier this week mirrors the main arguments of today's lawsuit, stating that because New Mexico marriage laws are gender-neutral, that same-sex marriages performed in other states are already recognized in New Mexico, and that the New Mexico Constitution provides for equal protection, same-sex couples have a right to marry in the state.

According to the complaint, couples Miriam Rand, 63, and Ona Porter, 66, along with Rose Griego, 47, and Kim Kiel, 44, attempted to test that call for equality earlier today in the clerk's office for Bernalillo County but were denied marriage licenses.

"Ona and I have been together for over 25 years," Rand said in a statement. "Together, we raised children, we took care of our mothers when they were dying and are currently raising our granddaughter. We are family; we love and care for one another through good times and bad. We want our community to recognize our love and commitment for what it is: a marriage."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the couples by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); the ACLU of New Mexico; the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); the Albuquerque law firm Sutin, Thayer & Browne, APC; and local cooperating attorneys Maureen Sanders, Lynn Perls and Kate Girard.  

"The time has come for New Mexico to treat same-sex couples with the same dignity and respect we afford opposite-sex couples," Laura Schauer Ives, legal director of the ACLU of New Mexico, said in a statement today. "This means allowing loving, committed same-sex couples the freedom to marry. We believe that the New Mexico Constitution guarantees same-sex couples this freedom. Today we ask the courts to clarify and confirm that same-sex couples may seek happiness and protect their families within the institution of civil marriage in New Mexico."

New Mexico is the only state in the union that does not recognize nor prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages. Today's lawsuit is the latest in a history of challenges to New Mexico's ambiguous marriage laws and comes as the Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments in two landmark marriage-equality cases next week. On Feb. 20, 2004, the clerk in Sandoval County, N.M., issued marriage licenses to 64 same-sex couples before ordered to stop by the state attorney general. Since that decision, county clerks have not issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"I would love to be able to issue marriage licenses [to same-sex couples], but under the current law, I feel I’m not free and clear to do so," Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar told The New Mexican after city officials introduced their resolution earlier this week. "The Legislature creates the laws and the judges interpret the laws, and I, as a county clerk, do not create or interpret laws. And I feel that my oath of office does not allow me to act counter to the laws of New Mexico."

[Photo: The plaintiffs Kim Kiel (left), Rose Griego, Miriam Rand and Ona Porter (Courtesy of ACLU New Mexico).]

Read the lawsuit here:

New Mexico Marriage Complaint

Advocates of marriage equality in Rhode Island see their cause as gaining steam, while an alleged "compromise" bill calling for a statewide referendum is losing backers. This comes ahead of a Thursday hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider both bills.

The shift in momentum could lead to tight votes, both the committee and, if voted forward, on the Senate floor.

Despite a 51-19 vote by the House of Representatives in January in favor of a marriage-equality bill, the Senate, which skews much more conservative, is closely divided.

Last week, as Metro Weekly reported, a state senator opposed to marriage equality proposed S708, a so-called "compromise" bill that would allow Rhode Island voters to vote on adding a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as "a legally recognized union of two people," without reference to gender. But that bill would also go beyond providing guaranteeing exemptions for religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage – exemptions already included in the marriage-equality bill. Instead, S708 would extend those exemptions beyond regligious institution affliliated groups, as well as to small-business owners, allowing them to violate a 1995 law that prohibits discrimination in employment, credit and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.

The bill proposing the referendum took a hit, however, as Sens. James Doyle II (D-Pawtucket) and Leonidas "Lou" Raptakis (D-Coventry) announced Tuesday they were removing their names from the bill after hearing from constituents. Doyle also told The Providence Journal he would now support S38, the marriage-equality bill sponsored by his fellow Pawtucket Democrat, Sen. Donna Nesselbush, the chamber’s only out lesbian.

Raptakis, a member of the Judiciary Committee, which will hear both the marriage-equality and referendum bills, told the Journal that the list of exemptions in the referendum bill went “overboard.” A restaurant owner, Raptakis said he would never discriminate against someone coming into his business and said the proposed protections for small businesses goes too far.

Raptakis, who previously said he was opposed to marriage equality, also said that the calls he has been receiving have been running "seven-to-eight in favor, and probably two not supporting" the marriage-equality bill. But he did not say whether he would support the bill.

Following the announcement by Raptakis and Doyle, the pro-equality group Rhode Islanders United for Marriage issued a statement thanking the two senators for removing their names from the referendum bill.

"This is further demonstration that S708 is not an 'eminently reasonable' solution to the question of allowing all loving, committed couples the freedom to marry the person they love," Ray Sullivan, campaign director for Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, said in the statement. "Since the bill was filed last week, thousands of Rhode Islanders have reached out to their senators, and told them a divisive and harmful referendum was neither a solution nor a compromise. Senators Raptakis and Doyle heard the message and stood up for their constituents."

Calls for President Barack Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from LGBT discrimination continued today.

In a letter sent to Obama today, 110 Democratic members of the House of Representatives urged the president to sign the executive order long called for by advocates, which would ban federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Such protections already prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Led by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), the letter sent today included an additional 38 members of Congress who did not sign their names to a similar letter sent last year. 

"It is unacceptable that it remains legal to fire or refuse to hire someone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Federal law continues to allow this and discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal in 29 states and discrimination because of gender identity is legal in 34 states," the letter reads. "Action at the federal level can put a stop to these unfair and discriminatory workplace practices in every state."

Although Obama publicly supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (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. 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.

While the signees state that they remain committed to passage of ENDA, which would ban LGBT workplace discrimination across the country, they argue that Obama could "take action today to help prevent these types of unfair labor practices and to lay the groundwork for passage of ENDA."

"Our laws must match our values as Americans, which is why it is so critical to provide equal protections to all workers," Polis, who is gay and the sponsor of ENDA in the House, said in a statement. 

Added Pallone, "An executive order by the President is a necessary step forward in our efforts for LGBT equality, one that must be accompanied by passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination (ENDA) by Congress."

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates such an executive order would protect up to 16.5 million workers. Although workplace protections for LGBT people exist in some states, it remains legal in 29 states to fire an employee based on sexual orientation, and legal in 34 states to fire someone based on gender identity.

Today's letter was one of several that have been sent to the president in recent weeks. Last month, 37 senators and 54 progressive groups sent letters to Obama urging him to act. 

The Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Work and the American Civil Liberties Union have led efforts to pressure the president to act and praised the more than 100 representatives who lent their names to the fight for workplace protections. 

"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," said HRC President Chad Griffin in a statement. 

According to Freedom to Work President Tico Almeida, "It's now time for President Obama to build on his impressive record and sign this executive order giving millions of Americans a fair shot to build a career based on their talent and hard work."

UPDATE @4:15PM: The names of House Democratic leadership, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) were missing from the letter sent today. According to spokesman Drew Hammill, Pelosi generally does not sign group letters as custom. 

"President Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he is committed to ending discrimination wherever it exists," Hammill told Metro Weekly. "Leader Pelosi supports this effort, but it does not diminish the need for a fully-inclusive ENDA law and a Majority in the House to approve such legislation."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fl.), who has served as a vice chair of the LGBT Equality Caucus, also did not sign the letter.

In response to the letter, White House spokesman Shin Inouye reiterated today that the president has long supported an inclusive ENDA and his administration will continue to build support for it.

"Regarding a hypothetical Executive Order on LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors, I have no updates for you on that issue," Inouye said.

[Photo: Barack Obama in the Oval Office (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)]

Read the full letter here:

House Letter to Obama on Executive Order for LGBT Contractor Employees

With one week to go before scheduled Supreme Court arguments in two landmark marriage-equality cases, the next generation of conservatives are letting it be known that they are not members of their grandfathers' Republican Party.

"Being a Republican who supports gay marriage is a bitch," said Meghan McCain, the outspoken daughter of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, at a Monday reception for Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry. But, she says of her support of marriage equality, "It has been the greatest thing I’ve ever done in my life. I'm so proud to support my LGBTQ friends."

McCain was one of several young conservatives who attended the event at the Lincoln restaurant in D.C. to mark the relaunch of the organization and welcome the addition of a new campaign manager and 20 new members of the group's leadership committee. 

For those in attendance, it was just part of what has been a whirlwind of positive news in the fight for marriage equality over the past week. Earlier that day, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the latest high-profile politician to voice support for same-sex marriage, and a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday found support for same-sex marriage at new record highs.

According to the poll, 58 percent of Americans believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry, compared to 36 percent who oppose. The numbers were a near reversal compared to a decade ago, in 2003, when 37 percent supported same-sex marriage and 55 percent opposed.

But for the organization of young conservatives who support marriage equality, no number was more telling than the record level of support for same-sex marriage among millennials: 81 percent of those aged 18 to 29 now support marriage equality.

That number was the latest in a series of key events over the past four days that began last week with an overwhelming turnout for a pro-gay panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference and the endorsement of marriage equality by Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman after he learned his son is gay. For the next generation of Republican voters, this is not a debate that has ever been needed, say advocates. On the question of whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry, there is no question.

"Everybody I talk to my age out of college, this is just an issue we strongly believe in," Liddy Huntsman, the 24-year-old daughter of former Republican presidential candidate and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, told Metro Weekly. Last month, Jon Huntsman endorsed same-sex marriage in a column published by The American Conservative. 

"I don't think we'll have a Republican president until they sign onto gay marriage," added Liddy's sister, 28-year-old Mary Anne Huntsman.

Although young Americans overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage, that number is notably lower for young Republicans. According to the poll, which sampled 1,001 adults earlier this month, 52 percent of Republicans 18 to 49 years old support same-sex marriage.

While that divide is reflective in the leadership of the GOP (as recently as Sunday House Speaker John Boehner [R-Ohio] said he "can't imagine" ever supporting same-sex marriage), there is some awareness of the party's image problem. An "autopsy" report of the party released by the Republican National Committee yesterday recommended outreach to the gay community as more and more young voters are turned off by the GOP's message. 

"What one U.S. senator can do...," conservative commentator Margaret Hoover told Metro Weekly at Monday's reception, emphasizing the influence of a politician like Portman. "This feels like the Republican Party I want to be part of."

What's more, marriage-equality supporters have momentum. Although marriage-equality opponents like the National Organization for Marriage have sought to rally supporters, young conservatives have been visibly absent from their efforts. "There's no steam or enthusiasm or momentum on their side," Hoover said, adding that the relatively muted negative reaction from Republicans to Portman's announcement is a sign that there's "room at the table for conservatives who support the freedom to marry."

What other national Republican leaders will lend their voices to the fight for marriage equality before Supreme Court arguments next week remains to be seen. For Meghan McCain, she hopes her father will join their cause one day. 

"I wish he would come around," McCain told Metro Weekly. "I think it would be really significant just in that he's such an older statesmen in the Senate — he's older as well. He's just from a different generation, but I'm an eternal optimist and I still think he'll come around."

[Photo: The new members of the leadership committee for Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry (Credit: Justin Snow/Metro Weekly)]

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed same-sex marriage today in a video released by the Human Rights Campaign.

"LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. And they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship — that includes marriage," Clinton said. "That's why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law."

The video comes 10 days after Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, penned a column for The Washington Post in which he called for the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which bears his signature. Moreover, last week, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) endorsed marriage equality after learning that his son is gay.

Today's statement from Clinton comes more than a month after she left the State Department. Clinton was serving as secretary of state — a post in which domestic policy is traditionally not discussed — when the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in court and top administration members, including President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, announced their support for marriage equality.

"To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters and sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God given potential," Clinton said.

Watch the full video here:

In an expansive "autopsy" of the GOP, the Republican National Committee released a report today providing a path forward for the party, one that includes gay inclusion, following a series of defeats last November.

Titled the "Growth and Opportunity Project," the 97-page report specifically singles out the GOP's stance on gay-rights issues as being a key contributor to alienation among younger voters and one that must be addressed if national Republican candidates wish to win at the ballot box.

"For the GOP to appeal to younger voters, we do not have to agree on every issue, but we do need to make sure young people do not see the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view," the report states. "Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be."

"If our Party is not welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out," the report continues, adding that disagreement over 20 percent of the issues should not mean the party cannot come together on the other issues. Polling has consistently shown nearly half of conservatives younger than 30 support marriage equality.

The report comes after RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced the creation of the project to examine the GOP's electoral woes in December 2012. Tasked with putting forward recommendations in a number of key areas necessary for winning elections, the co-chairs of the project made contact with more than 52,000 people through a series of polls and focus groups.

"The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue," the report states. 

Although the report makes no mention of marriage equality nor does it specifically argue for the adoption of a national position on LGBT rights, it does recommend campaigning within the gay community and "communities where Republicans do not normally go to listen and make our case."

"We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too. We must recruit more candidates who come from minority communities," the report states. "But it is not just tone that counts. Policy always matters."

The release of the report comes the same day Priebus spoke at the National Press Club in D.C. In a striking statement, Priebus volunteered the name of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who endorsed same-sex marriage last week after learning that his son is gay, when asked what "rising stars" in the party could help "rein in the anti-gay and anti-women sentiments."

"I think Sen. Portman made some pretty big inroads last week," Priebus said. "I think it's about being decent. I think it's about dignity and respect, that nobody deserves to have their dignity diminished, or people don't deserve to be disrespected."

Although Priebus would not say if the RNC supported Portman's position on marriage equality, he said it would not impact the committee's financial support of the Ohio senator.

"It's not a matter of whether I support his decision," Priebus said. "I support him doing what he wants to do as an elected person and as an American. If that's his opinion, then I support him having that opinion."

Priebus's comments and the report itself were yet more signs that the marriage fight within the GOP is rapidly changing. During the Conservative Political Action Conference held last week, the conservative movement's struggle to attract gay and young voters was clearly visible during a number of panel discussions.

According to Gregory Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, Priebus's remarks show the party is serious about attracting gay voters.

"Of all the underrepresented populations with which the GOP needs to make inroads, acknowledging the party's deficiencies in addressing LGBT voters would not only broaden support among gay voters, but increase appeal among the youth vote that is critical to the longevity of the Republican Party,"Angelo said in a statement. "With more and more Republicans coming to support civil marriage for all and standing on the right side of history, the party needs to understand the reality that growth and opportunity in the Republican Party will only happen by including gay Americans in the equation."

[Image: Reince Priebus during his appearance at the National Press Club (Screenshot courtesy of C-SPAN)]

Read the full RNC report here:

RNC Growth Opportunity Book 2013

The conservative movement's attempt to grapple with gay rights was on full display during the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference as leaders from the old guard and the new pitted exclusion against inclusion. 

"We have tolerated something in our movement for far too long – anti-gay bigotry," Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, told a room packed with CPAC attendees and journalists on the first night of the conference, March 14.

"Let me be perfectly clear. I don't believe that just because someone opposes same-sex marriage, that that automatically makes them a homophobe," LaSalvia continued. "There are, however, a few in our movement who just don't like gay people, and in 2013 that's just not okay in America anymore."

LaSalvia's presence on Thursday's panel, "A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet," was another chapter in a long history of tensions between GOProud and the American Conservative Union (ACU), which organizes CPAC.

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

"America's Future: The Next Generation of Conservatives," was what the ACU titled this year's conference held at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center at National Harbor, Md. Despite the forward-looking slogan, CPAC has come under fire in recent weeks for decisions to exclude GOProud and not invite Gov. Chris Christie, claiming that the New Jersey Republican is too moderate. In many ways, GOProud's exclusion has elevated the organization's profile further as LaSalvia has been quoted in news reports across the country. 

At Thursday's panel, which was not organized by the ACU but a CPAC sponsor, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free market and limited-government nonprofit focused on economic and environmental policy, LaSalvia said that those who “demonize gay people and oppose homosexuality” are increasingly out of the mainstream.

"I believe that this issue contributes more to conservatives' image problem than any other, because it's an issue that cuts across all demographic groups," said LaSalvia. "And it has to be addressed. It's time."

CEI organized the panel because they "wanted to send a message of inclusion, not just to Jimmy LaSalvia and GOProud, but a broad message that we very much value the diversity of voices," CEI's communications director, Christine Hall, told Metro Weekly. "I think, like a lot of people, there are many within this organization who were distressed by the decision by some on the ACU board not to have GOProud sponsor the event last year."

LaSalvia was joined by a number of allies on the panel, including Republican consultant Liz Mair, who also serves on GOProud's advisory board; Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin; CEI founder and Chairman Fred Smith; National Review's Jonah Goldberg; and CNN contributor Margaret Hoover. All made the conservative case for marriage equality, arguing that marriage — whether between a straight couple or gay couple — strengthens society. 

"We cannot be at war with America on issues of fairness, on issues of equality," Rubin said, adding that respect and tolerance of gay Americans is a "gateway issue" for potential Republican voters. "In 10 years or so, no one is going to be talking about this. In 10 years, I don't know if there will be a Republican Party. There's nothing that says political parties have to last forever."

A three-day event running March 14 to 16, CPAC is the highest profile, most anticipated conservative event of the year. Prospective presidential candidates flock to the conference, as Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did this year. But it is also a time for discussion among conservative leaders, and a period of reflection on the direction of the movement. After a series of devastating defeats last November, this year in particular there is a mood at CPAC that attendees long for a solution to their electoral woes.

The divisions that continue to exist within the movement, particularly between young and old conservatives on marriage equality, were in plain view during CPAC.

"Just because I believe that states should have the rights to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot," Rubio said during his Thursday speech. While the line drew applause, it was tepid compared to the reaction to his statements on abortion that followed.

In a series of emails republished by the blogs Brietbart Unmasked and Right Wing Watch, Ali Akbar, president of the National Bloggers Club, wrote that Al Cardenas, the chairman of the ACU, should be protected when he attends the invitation-only "Blog Bash" event organized by Akbar.

"No one, no one is to talk to him or be allowed to talk to him about GOProud or anything like that," Akbar wrote in one email. "When he's making his way through the room – if you hear anyone say GOProud or other bullshit – put your body between their mouths and the Chairman's body," Akbar wrote, adding that Cardenas "knows most of that room disagrees with the ACU Board on a variety of issues." 

While young conservatives discussed the political reality of marriage equality winning at the ballot box in four states last November, during a panel moderated by Cleta Mitchell, titled "Stop THIS: Threats, Harassment, Intimidation, Slander & Bullying from the Obama Administration," Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), said there was nothing conservative about "redefining" marriage.

"Those who are claiming the legacy of the civil rights movement are fundamentally wrong when they say that the civil rights movement or conservatism supports redefining something as true and simple as it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage," Brown said to a ballroom largely filled with empty seats.

Opposition to marriage equality remains strong among the older base of the Republican Party, but it is rapidly becoming a nonissue for the next generation of conservatives — a fact conservative leaders are seemingly aware of as gay marriage went largely unmentioned on the main stage at CPAC. Indeed, nearly half of Republican Millennials aged 18 to 29 believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry compared 19 percent of Republicans 65 or older.

"If you believe that conservative ideas are better for governing this country, we are failing miserably to make our case to an entire set of Americans who are the largest generation of Americans in United States history," Margaret Hoover said Thursday. "There will be 100 million Millennials voting by 2020."

Speaking at Thursday's panel hours before news broke that Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman now supports same-sex marriage after learning that his son is gay, LaSalvia expressed hope for a more inclusive future. "Look around the room," a visibly moved LaSalvia said to the relatively young audience. "You are looking at the new conservative coalition. It's starting right now, here in this room. When history is written, you can say you were there."

[Photos: The pro-gay CEI panel including Fred Smith (left) Jonah Goldberg, Liz Mair, Jimmy LaSalvia, Jennifer Rubin and Margaret Hoover. The crowd at Thursday's panel (Screenshot courtesy of CEI. Photo by Justin Snow/Metro Weekly).]

The Rhode Island State Senate's Judiciary Committee announced yesterday that it will hear two bills March 21: one that would grant marriage equality in the Ocean State, and another calling for a statewide referendum on the issue.

At the beginning of the 2013 session, legislators in both the state House of Representatives and state Senate introduced measures to allow gay and lesbian couples access to Rhode Island marriage licenses. Both bills, H5015 and S38, also provide protections for religious officiants and institutions by asserting that no local governmental or quasi-governmental body will be allowed to prevent them from determining who is eligible to marry in their faith, and that officiants who refuse to solemnize a marriage based on their religious views may not be penalized in any way.

The House of Representatives voted 51-19 Jan. 24 to approve H5015, its version of the marriage-equality bill. That version was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee but has not received a hearing. Instead, the committee will hear testimony and vote on S38, the Senate version, which contains all the same major elements as H5015 but differ in technical language and the legal recognition of out-of-state civil unions. The senate vesion was introduced by out lesbian Sen. Donna Nesselbush (D-Pawtucket), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee. 

The committee will also consider a so-called "compromise" measure by Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence), S708, which proposes a 2014 ballot measure to amend the constitution to define marriage as "a legally recognized union of two people," albeit with extensive exceptions.

To begin, Ciccone's legislation goes further than H5015 and S38 by allowing associations, societies or fraternal orders operated by a religious organization, or affiliated entities, to discriminate against gay couples in providing services, accommodations, facilities or privileges. This would apply to organizations such as Catholic Charities.

Ciccone's proposed amendment also includes safeguards for "fraternal benefit societies" – such as the Knights of Columbus, which are not directly operated by a religious organization, though they may be closely aligned with a religious mission – allowing them to discriminate in membership or in providing services or facilities related to the solemnization of a marriage that violate the members' religious beliefs. 

Lastly, Ciccone's bill extends those religious exemptions to small businesses, allowing them to refuse to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods related to same-sex couples based solely on a business’s owner disposition, such as a baker declining to fill an order for a same-sex wedding reception. 

That third section would effectively gut a 1995 state law that prohibits discrimination in employment, credit, housing and public accommodations against people based on sexual orientation.

Ciccone's bill has 11 cosponsors, several of whom partnered with Ciccone in sponsoring a referendum bill in January aimed at banning same-sex marriages outright by altering the state constitution to define marriage as the "lawful union between one man and one woman." That bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee but never received a hearing after the House passed its version of the marriage equality bill, effectively creating a standstill between the House, where supporters dominate the ranks of legislators, and the senate, which is more closely divided but where opponents are part of senate leadership, allowing them to set the chamber's agenda. Ciccone proposed his current bill as a way to break the gridlock between the two chambers.

Political observers expect tight Judiciary Committee votes on both bills March 21. Of the committee's 10 members, four support marriage equality, four oppose, and two are considered swing votes.

Supporters of marriage equality blasted the Ciccone bill as both offensive and unnecessary, noting that their own bills legalizing marriage equality provide ample religious protections and have been endorse by several religious clergy, including the Episcopal Bishop of Providence, the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, the Board of Rabbis of Greater Rhode Island and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry.

"Fundamental human rights, including the freedom to marry the person we love, don't belong on the ballot and should not be subjected to a vote of the majority," Ray Sullivan, campaign director for Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, said in a statement. "We agree with Speaker Gordon Fox – there are some issues on which you just don't 'punt.' Members of the General Assembly are elected to lead, and to make important decisions. Calling for a divisive and harmful referendum fight is an abdication of the most basic responsibility of our legislators."

"In addition," Sullivan continued, "the bill overwhelmingly passed by the House contains appropriate and commonsense protections for the religious liberty of those faith traditions who choose not to allow same-sex couples to marry under the terms of their own dogma. Allowing businesses and institutions to discriminate – by reversing current state anti-discrimination law – against their fellow Rhode Islanders under the guise of religious freedom is both disingenuous and offensive."

Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-R.I.) also came out in opposition to a referendum, issuing a statement saying, "Since my time as a state delegate to the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention of 1986, I have been consistent in my view that in a representative democracy lawmakers have the responsibility to make decisions on matters both monumental and routine."

Chafee, a marriage equality supporter, has indicated he will sign a marriage equality bill into law and will veto any bill that attempts to set up a referendum on the issue. But even if Ciccone's bill were to pass the senate, the measure would likely fail or be killed in the House of Representatives, where Speaker Gordon Fox (D-Providence), an out gay man, is opposed to it. 

[Photo: Sen. Frank Ciccone, sponsor of the referendum bill (courtesy of R.I. General Assembly).]

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman announced his support for marriage equality shortly after midnight Friday, saying that his reversal on the issue came after his son came out to him as gay.

"I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry," Portman told CNN in an interview recorded in his Senate office on Thursday.

The carefully orchestrated and groundbreaking announcement marks the first time a current Republican member of the Senate has openly endorsed same-sex marriage and comes a little more than a week before the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in two landmark cases regarding the right of same-sex couples to marry. CNN along with four newspapers — The Columbus Dispatch, the Dayton Daily News, The Plain Dealer and the Cincinnati Enquirer — all reported the embargoed news after Portman's staff invited them to hold interviews with the Buckeye State senator on Thursday.

Portman, who was on the shortlist to become Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's running mate, said his evolution on the issue came after his son, Will, came to him two years ago as a freshman at Yale University and "announced that he was gay, that it was not a choice."

"It was who he is and he had been that way since he could remember," Portman told CNN. "Jane and I were both surprised, very surprised, but also very supportive of him. Our reaction was not about policy or positions. It was about him as a son and letting him know we were 110 percent supportive of him."

Portman marks the first Republican senator and third Republican member of Congress to openly endorse same-sex marriage. In the House of Representatives, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York have both come out in favor of marriage equality.

"I thought it was the right time to let folks know where I stand so there's no confusion, so I would be clear about it," said Portman, who added that he wanted to make his views known as the Supreme Court considers the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases.

Serving in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 2005, Portman voted for the Defense of Marriage Act currently before the Supreme Court. He also supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and voted against same-sex couples’ right to adopt children in D.C.

Despite those previous positions, it was the act of coming out by his son that led to a period of introspection for the junior senator from Ohio.

"It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," Portman said, according to The Plain Dealer. According to Portman, he looked to his faith and the "the overriding message of love and compassion" in the Bible, and consulted with many since his son's coming out, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a gay daughter and supports marriage equality.

"Do the right thing. Follow your heart," Cheney told Portman.

"If there was any doubt that the conservative logjam on the issue of civil marriage for committed gay and lesbian couples has broken, Senator Portman's support for the freedom to marry has erased it," said Gregory Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, in a statement. "Senator Portman's evolution on this issue highlights how personal it is for Americans — whether they're the Junior Senator from Ohio or your next-door neighbor, all Americans have a gay friend, colleague or family member, and understand them to be as deserving as their straight counterparts of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are the promise of the United States."

Although Portman said he would support overturning Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage should voters bring the issue to referendum, he said he believes this remains an issue best dealt with at the state level. In a column published in today's Columbus Dispatch, Portman writes that the Supreme Court should not rule sweepingly. 

"Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it’s moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples," wrote Portman. "An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them."

[Photo: Rob Portman official portrait (Courtesy of the U.S. Senate)] 

President Barack Obama elaborated further on his administration's decision to file a brief in the Proposition 8 case, telling George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in an interview set to air tonight that he believes the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.

"What I believe is that if the states don't have a good justification for it, then it probably doesn't stand up to constitutional muster," Obama said of state marriage bans. According to Obama, he cannot imagine a constitutional justification for the high court upholding state bans on same-sex marriage. 

Obama's latest comments stood in contrast to remarks he made to ABC's Robin Roberts in May 2012 when he announced his support for marriage equality. At the time, Obama said same-sex marriage was "an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level, because historically this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage."

The Obama administration filed a "friend of the court" brief in the Proposition 8 case late last month, calling on the Supreme Court to declare California's marriage ban as unconstitutional. Although the brief did not call for the high court to strike down marriage bans in all states, it left open the door for the justices to do so. Speaking to reporters the day after the brief was filed, Obama said if he were a Supreme Court justice he would argue that state marriage bans are unconstitutional. 

"If I were on the court, that'd probably be the view I'd put forward," Obama said. "But I'm not a judge, I'm the president."

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case on March 26. 

[Photo: Barack Obama endorses marriage equality in a May 9, 2012, interview with Robin Roberts (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)]

Read the exchange via ABC News here:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you a question about gay marriage. When Robin was here last spring, you came out in favor of gay marriage. But you also said at the time that you wanted it to be a state-by-state–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. Yeah.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –issue, it would be a mistake to nationalize it. Do you still believe that, or do you now believe that gay marriage is a right guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, I’ve gotta tell you that– in terms of practical politics, what I’ve seen is a healthy debate taking place state by state, and not every state has the exact same attitudes and cultural mores. And I– you know, my thinking was that this is traditionally a state issue and– that it will work itself out.

On the other hand– what I also believe is that the core principle that people don’t get discriminated against– that’s one of our core values. And it’s in our constitution. It’s in– the– you know, 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. And– from a legal perspective, the– the– the bottom line is, is that gays have historically been discriminated against and I do think that courts have to apply what’s called heightened scrutiny, where they take a careful look. If there’s any reason for– gays and lesbians to be treated differently, boy, the government better–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So banning gay marriage–

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: –have a really good–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –is discrimination?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, what I– what I believe is that– if– if the states don’t have a good justification for it, then it probably doesn’t stand up to constitutional muster

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you imagine one?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So– well, I can’t, personally. I cannot. That’s part of the conc– reason I said, ultimately, I think that– you know, same-sex couples should be able to marry. That’s my personal position. And, frankly, that’s the position that’s reflected– in the briefs that we filed– in the Supreme Court.

My hope is that– the Court looks at the evidence and– and in the California case, for example, the only reason presented for treating gays and lesbians differently was, “Well, they’re gay and lesbian.” There wasn’t– a real rationale beyond that. In fact– you know, all the other– rights and– and– responsibilities of– a civil union were identical to marriage.

It’s just you couldn’t call it marriage. Well, at that point, what you’re really sayin’ is– “We’re just gonna treat these folks differently because of who they are.” And– and I do not think– that’s– that’s who are as Americans. And– and frankly, I think– American attitudes have evolved, just like mine have– pretty substantially and fairly quickly, and I think that’s a good thing.

The field has narrowed in Virginia’s 2013 gubernatorial election after Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican, announced Tuesday he would not pursue a third-party candidacy, setting up a showdown between gay-marriage supporter and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a fierce opponent of LGBT rights.

Bolling, who in his capacity as lieutenant governor serves as acting president of the evenly divided state Senate, announced via email that he would not run for governor as an independent, despite weighing a potential bid after being forced to drop out of contention for the Republican nomination late last year, according to The Washington Post.

Bolling announced in November he was suspending his campaign for the Republican nomination following the decision of the State Central Committee of the Republican Party, under pressure from Cuccinelli allies, to reverse course and hold a closed party convention in lieu of a statewide primary, where Bolling could have appealed to a wider voter base, including independents and conservative Democrats. 

In the email statement, Bolling cited three reasons why he would not pursue an independent candidacy: concerns about fundraising without institutional support from a major political party, his unwillingness to sever ties with the Republican Party, and the increasingly rigid ideological nature of state politics, in which the "Virginia way" of doing things is being replaced by the "Washington way." 

"I look forward to continuing my work with Governor McDonnell and the rest of our great team in the months to come," Bolling said. "We have accomplished a lot over the past three years, but we still have a lot of important work to do before our term of office is over. After that, I will return to the private sector and look for other ways to serve Virginia."

Bolling did not endorse either Cuccinelli or McAuliffe in his announcement, which some political observers have interpreted as a slight directed at Cuccinelli.

"I wish Mr. McAuliffe and Mr. Cuccinelli well as they begin their campaigns," Bolling said in his statement. "I encourage them to run campaigns that are worthy of Virginia; campaigns that focus on the big issues facing our state and offer a positive vision for the future of Virginia. ... And I encourage the people of Virginia to carefully consider the decision they will make this November. Our priority should be on electing a governor who has the ability to effectively and responsibly govern our state and provide the mainstream leadership we need to solve problems, get things done and make Virginia a better place to live. Nothing less should be acceptable."

The Colorado House of Representatives voted 39-26 today to approve legislation that would permit civil unions for same-sex couples, all but assuring gay couples in Colorado will be able to enjoy key benefits as early as this spring.

Sponsored by out Speaker Mark Ferrandino (D) and Rep. Sue Schafer (D) in the House, the bill was approved by a 21-14 vote in the Colorado Senate last month. Although advocates have criticized civil unions as separate and unequal to full marriage equality, the legislative win was still a major victory for advocates. 

Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has vowed to sign the bill into law as soon as it reaches his desk, allowing same-sex couples to begin applying for civil-union licenses on May 1. Two House Republicans joined in voting for the legislation. 

"This bill is about three simple things," Ferrandino said during a more than four-hour debate of the bill yesterday, according to The Denver Post. "It's about love, it's about family, and it's about equality under the law."

Ferrandino, the state's first out House speaker, added, "I fully support full equality, which means marriage for gay and lesbian couples. But until the voters say otherwise, civil unions is the closest we can do as a General Assembly to make sure that all families are provided protections under the law."

In 2006, Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

According to Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, the increase in gay and lesbian lawmakers from four to eight this year contributed to today's victory. "We are proud that this debate was led by Colorado's openly LGBT lawmakers and their allies," Wolfe said in a statement. "Having a place at the table really matters."

Yesterday's debate of the bill in the House was a historic first and comes after the former speaker, a Republican, refused to bring the bill to the House floor last year. According to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin today's vote was a "definitive step forward in the march toward equality."

"From now on LGBT couples in Colorado will no longer be legal strangers in the eyes of their state, but rather recognized and supported by the law," Griffin said in a statement.

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis (D), one of only seven out LGB members of Congress, applauded today's passage of the bill as key to bringing full equality to the Centennial State.

"This is an important victory for Colorado and for the gay and lesbian community," Polis said in a statement. "This is a monumental step on the road to equality in Colorado."

[Photo: Colorado House vote on civil unions bill (Courtesy of @MarkFerrandino/Twitter)]

President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats met behind closed doors on Capitol Hill today to discuss a list of legislative priorities ranging from the budget to immigration reform and gun control. Missing from the discussion, however, was one of the last major pieces of federal LGBT-rights legislation.

According to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), neither the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) nor an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from LGBT discrimination were discussed during the nearly 90-minute meeting.

Harkin, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that oversees ENDA, promised last month that action would be taken on ENDA this year. But at today's meeting, ENDA did not come up.

Asked by Metro Weekly if he believes Obama thinks ENDA is a priority, Harkin said he hasn't asked, but reaffirmed his commitment to see action taken on ENDA this year.

"Well, I don't know, I haven't asked him about it," Harkin said. "It's my priority, I think it's the No. 1 on my committee priority and we're going to move it. I just haven't asked him about it, that's all."

Harkin was one of 37 senators to sign a letter to Obama last month calling on him to sign an executive order long called for by advocates that would prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Advocates have argued Obama could protect at least some workers now and build momentum for ENDA, which has faced decades of Republican opposition, by signing such an executive order.

Yesterday, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters he was unsure if Obama would discuss ENDA with Senate Democrats today, but reaffirmed the president's support for ENDA over an executive order.

"The president has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and his administration will continue to work to build support for it," Carney said. "We welcome Chairman Harkin's announcement that he will hold a vote on ENDA this year."

Signaling continued pressure, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) issued an action alert yesterday in conjunction with the Human Rights Campaign calling on supporters to sign their names to a letter calling on Obama to sign the executive order.

Today's meeting with Senate Democrats was Obama's first of several on Capitol Hill this week. Tomorrow, the president will meet with House Republicans and Thursday he will meet separately with Senate Republicans and House Democrats.

[Photo: Tom Harkin official portrait (Courtesy of the U.S. Senate)]

The leader of the nation's largest LGBT military organization set her sights on complacency Saturday night, telling an audience of nearly a thousand that the fight for equality in the American armed services is far from over.

"We need to be stronger because at its heart, our movement isn't just a fight to pass laws or enact policies; it's a campaign to change hearts, minds and, ultimately, a nation," OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson told the audience. "It's not enough to check off the items on our policy agenda one by one and say one day, 'We're done.' We're working to create a military that truly embodies the values of fairness and equality it protects, one that leads the nation in inclusion rather than lagging behind it."

Robinson's highly personal speech, which chronicled her struggle to come out as transgender, was her first "State of LGBT Military Service Address" since being named the head of the newly combined LGBT military organization in October.

Already, the Army veteran and 1994 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point has made historic advances for equality in the military, using her position to increase pressure on the Pentagon to extend benefits to same-sex military families. Those efforts, which began after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" more than a year ago, came to fruition last month when Leon Panetta extended a number of benefits to gay servicemembers in one of his last acts as defense secretary.

Panetta's February order included 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 due to the restricted definitions of "spouse" and "marriage" under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The added benefits should be extended by Aug. 31, though with a hard deadline of Oct. 1, and will affect an estimated 5,600 active-duty servicemembers, 3,400 National Guardsmen and reservists and 8,000 retirees.

"In the four months since our merger, we've broken through years of Pentagon intransigence to win much-needed benefits for our families, … shaped the national debate about what it takes to be secretary of defense and lead today’s armed forced, … prevailed upon now-Secretary Chuck Hagel to make the strongest, most unequivocal commitment to LGBT equality ever expressed by a nominee for the position, … looked blatant, entrenched discrimination dead in the eye at Fort Bragg – and won," Robinson said to cheers from the packed audience at Washington's National Building Museum.

"We're definitely stronger together. But to get to where we need to go, we will need to be stronger still." 

With a litany of victories over the past few years, Robinson is aiming for new heights for LGBT equality in the military and the scope of OutServe-SLDN's reach. In her speech Saturday, Robinson announced a new membership goal to grow the organization from 6,000 to 14,000 active-duty servicemembers by the end of 2014. According to Robinson, the number is equivalent to one for every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and coast guardsman kicked out under DADT. 

"LGBT troops still lack even the most basic nondiscrimination protections – protections that have been the standard with other American employers for years. The Defense of Marriage Act still denies LGBT military families the most important support services – things like health insurance and survivor benefits," said Robinson. "Qualified Americans who are transgender and who want to serve in uniform are still forbidden from doing so by medical regulations that have become ridiculously obsolete. And despite the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' thousands of our troops are still in the closet, afraid of what coming out might mean for their careers, their families."

After becoming the first transgender person ever to lead a major organization that advocates on behalf of LGBT people, Robinson's selection as executive director of OutServe-SLDN last year signaled the newly combined organization's focus on bringing transgender equality to the American military. Due to a medical regulatory ban, not only is evidence of transition therapy grounds for disqualification for potential recruits, so is openly identifying as transgender, which the Pentagon considers a psychiatric condition.

Transgender veterans who transition after leaving the armed forces face other obstacles as well. Upon discharge from the military, some transgender veterans who seek to change the name on the form used to secure veteran benefits are not always able to do so. Although the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a directive in June 2011 providing health care for some transgender medical needs, such as hormone treatments, the VA does not provide sex-reassignment surgery. 

With an ambitious end goal less than two years off, Robinson says she is aware that the next leg in OutServe-SLDN’s fight for equality will not be easy. Since the successful repeal of DADT, the focus among many in the community has largely shifted away from the military and the inequalities that still remain, to the marriage-equality campaigns that have come to define the movement. But Robinson’s message to supporters on Saturday was clear.

"Now, that historic victory is just that — history," Robinson said of the repeal of DADT. "But the fight for full LGBT equality in our armed forces is far from over. In fact, it's just getting started."

[Photo: Allyson Robinson delivers her State of LGBT Military Service Address (Credit: Ward Morrison/Metro Weekly).]

Former President Bill Clinton took his biggest step yet in distancing himself from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that bears his signature, writing in today's Washington Post that the Supreme Court should strike down DOMA. 

"On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional," Clinton writes. "As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution."

Clinton's 623-word column is his most direct admonishment of DOMA since he signed the discriminatory ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage into law shortly after midnight, Sept. 21, 1996.

As Clinton writes in his column today, those were "very different times." It was not popular to oppose DOMA in 1996. Congress approved the bill overwhelmingly with only 14 Democrats voting against the bill in the Senate. Although the act was largely meaningless at first, that changed as the fight for marriage equality expanded. When Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, those couples were denied more than 1,000 benefits enjoyed by married straight couples because of DOMA.

In a statement released one day before signing DOMA into law, Clinton hinted at his qualms with the bill and avowed his opposition to discrimination. 

"I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation," Clinton said. 

Noting that statement in his column today, Clinton writes, "Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned."

"He knew it then of course too," responded Andrew Sullivan in a blog post last night. "But it's churlish to cavil. If we can forgive Ken Mehlman, we can surely forgive Bill Clinton. And welcome him to the civil rights cause of our time."

While Clinton's column has already been praised by advocates, including Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin and Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson, the question remains as to whether it is too little too late. Indeed, Clinton's brief explanation as to why he signed DOMA — "Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time." — will no doubt continue to irk some who believe the former president has never fully taken responsibility for his role in DOMA's history.

Although Clinton has disavowed DOMA before and expressed his support for marriage equality, some have questioned why the former president and pillar of the modern Democratic Party has been "seemingly in the wings." Clinton made no mention of DOMA in his thousand-page memoir, My Life, as Frank Rich noted in New York magazine in February 2012.

"Where's your apology for signing the Defense of Marriage Act?" asked New York Times columnist Frank Bruni in an open letter to Clinton published in December. 

In a piece published today by The New Yorker, Richard Socarides, who advised Clinton on gay and lesbian civil rights issues when DOMA was signed, cites a Clinton associate who says Clinton's decision to write the column was his own and he did so longhand on a legal pad.

Although the column is not an apology, according to Socarides, it is still a remarkable step by a former president to urge the nation's highest court to strike down a law that bears his signature.

"It's all a matter of perspective," Socarides wrote in an email to Metro Weekly. "Some will focus on the positive impact his efforts now will have; others will focus on the damage done."

Today's column also places a focus on Hillary Clinton, who remains silent from the discussion of marriage equality. Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state — a post in which domestic policy is traditionally not discussed — when the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in court and top administration members, including President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, announced their support for marriage equality. Clinton's last day as secretary of state was Feb. 1.

Read Bill Clinton's Washington Post column here.

[Photo: Barack Obama and Bill Clinton (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]

While GOProud remains banned from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference organized by the American Conservative Union (ACU), that won't stop one sponsor of CPAC from holding a pro-gay-rights panel during the conference next week. 

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free market and limited-government nonprofit focused on economic and environmental policy, will host a panel titled "A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet."

First reported by Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin earlier today, the panel will include GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia and Republican consultant Liz Mair, who also serves on GOProud's advisory board. Rubin, along with CEI founder and chairman Fred Smith, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg and CNN's Margaret Hoover — a GOProud supporter — will also participate.

According to CEI's communications director, Christine Hall, as a sponsor of CPAC the organization will utilize the option of reserving a room at the hotel where CPAC will be held in order to host the panel.

"I think, like a lot of people, there are many within this organization who were distressed by the decision by some on the ACU board not to have GOProud sponsor the event last year," Hall told Metro Weekly. "We wanted to send a message of inclusion, not just to Jimmy LaSalvia and GOProud, but a broad message that we very much value the diversity of voices."

CEI's decision to host a discussion of gay inclusion in the conservative movement comes after the ACU has faced criticism for not fostering a discussion of inclusion and refusing to invite GOProud, as well as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). 

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.

"I'm grateful to CEI for putting together this important discussion," LaSalvia told Metro Weekly, adding that despite his invitation to participate in CEI's panel, this does not mean GOProud as an organization is back at CPAC. 

With the panel scheduled for March 14 at 6 p.m., Hall says reaction from CPAC organizers has been limited. "In terms of their reaction, they haven't said no. They haven't objected," Hall said. "Our event is very much in the spirit of offering our friendship and wanting to include groups like GOProud."

The relationship between CEI and GOProud extends back to 2011, when CEI teamed up with GOProud to throw a party with Andrew Breitbart.

According to LaSalvia, the panel will be an opportunity to discuss a conservative coalition for the future.

"I want to talk about how we can build a new conservative coalition that can win. And that coalition has to include gay conservatives, and it has to recogize that more and more conservatives are coming to support civil marriage for gay couples because of their conservative values," LaSalvia said.

"We need to talk about how conservative principles are good for everybody, including gay people."

CPAC will be held March 14 to 16 at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center at National Harbor.

[Photo: Chris Barron (left) and Jimmy LaSalvia (Credit: Todd Franson/Metro Weekly)]

President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act back into law Thursday, which for the first time includes explicit protections for LGBT victims of domestic violence.

At a ceremony held at the Interior Department, Obama welcomed an overflowing room of supporters for the signing more than a year after Congress failed to reauthorize VAWA in October 2011 due to Republican opposition. 

"This is a country where everybody should be able to pursue their own measure of happiness and live their lives free from fear no matter who you are, no matter who you love," Obama said. "That's got to be our priority. That's what today's about."

Obama added that "today is about all the Americans who face discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity when they seek help."

The bill signed today strengthens existing protections and victims services by authorizing $659 million over five years for various programs that help prevent domestic violence, including national hotlines, shelters and housing assistance. For the first time, the bill includes expanded protections for Native Americans and immigrants and provisions for LGBT victims of domestic violence. Moreover, the bill includes provisions to address sexual violence on college campuses. 

"This is your day. This is the day of the advocates, the day of the survivors. This is your victory," Obama said. "This victory shows that when the American people make their voices heard, Washington listens."

Among others, Obama was joined by Sharon Stapel, executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, the country’s largest organization dedicated to eliminating hate violence, sexual violence and domestic violence affecting LGBT people. "Sharon and all the other advocates who are focused on this community, they can't do it alone," Obama said. "And now they won"t have to."

Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved the Senate's version VAWA despite the House GOP's previous objections to the provision for LGBT people and Native American women. Although House Republicans attempted to pass their own version of VAWA Feb. 28 without those contested provisions, the House rejected that bill 257-166 and passed the Senate version of the bill 286-138.

Obama was joined by Vice President Joe Biden, who was the original author of VAWA when it first passed in 1994, along with several Democratic and Republican members of Congress. According to Biden, the bill signed into law today strengthens the commitment first made 19 years ago.

The version of VAWA signed by Obama today has been praised by advocates. Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the federal law will ensure "the distress experienced by survivors of sexual violence is not compounded by a lack of proper response from service providers or law enforcement."

"Thousands of survivors of domestic and sexual violence will get the care they need because so many stood firm for what is right," Carey said in a statement. "This is a great day for America."

[Image: Barack Obama signs the Violence Against Women Act (Screenshot courtesy of C-SPAN)]

The U.S. Senate confirmed the nation's first out gay Asian-American federal judge Monday evening.

Pamela Ki Mai Chen was swiftly confirmed with little opposition by the Senate Monday evening to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, becoming the second Chinese-American woman and one of only a few out lesbians to hold one of the country’s 900 lifetime federal judgeship appointments.

The daughter of Chinese immigrants, Chen is a graduate of the University of Michigan and Georgetown Law School. Since 1998, Chen has served as assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York. In 2008, she served four months as deputy commissioner for enforcement for the New York State Division of Human Rights, having worked as a civil rights attorney earlier in her career.

Chen was nominated by President Barack Obama in August, who said at the time that he felt confident Chen would "serve on the federal bench with distinction."

Chen's confirmation last night was praised by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who originally recommended Chen to Obama and described her as a "trailblazer in every sense of the word."

"Ms. Chen's wealth of experience and devotion to public service make it clear that she will be an excellent judge," Schumer said in a statement. "Ms. Chen has proven time and again that she is a leader and a pioneer in the legal field. I have every confidence that she will serve her jurisdiction well."

Chen's confirmation was one of a number of "firsts" in the Obama administration's attempt to diversify the judges who preside over the federal courts. Chen is the fourth out gay judicial nominee confirmed during the Obama administration, with four additional out gay judicial nominees still awaiting confirmation by the Senate.

[Image: Pamela Chen appears at her Senate confirmation hearing (Screenshot courtesy of the Senate Judiciary Committee)]

A handful of Republicans on Capitol Hill are again attempting to write discrimination into U.S. military code with a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last week.

The "Military Religious Freedom Protection Act" introduced by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) would amend military code in order to protect the "rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains." In the bill's attempt to protect those religious freedoms, same-sex weddings would be banned from taking place on any military installation.

The proposed legislation comes more than a year after the implementation of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which assessments by the Defense Department and others indicate has not negatively impacted the military in any way.

However, for advocates who fought the ban on out gay servicemembers, Huelskamp's bill is a desperate attempt to open the door to discrimination in the military.

"This is just more of the same from a dwindling number of folks on Capitol Hill who wish to cling to the discrimination of the past, rather than embrace the journey toward full equality and fairness that we have embarked upon as a nation," OutServe-SLDN spokesman Zeke Stokes told Metro Weekly. "This bill seeks to address a problem that doesn't exist."

In many ways, the bill resembles what was a final attempt by former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) last year to include a similar "conscience clause" in the $633 billion Pentagon budget. Advocates believed the provision was an attempt to permit harassment as well as ban same-sex weddings from occurring on military bases, despite a Defense Department policy that already ensures no chaplain can be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. 

While Akin's anti-gay provision was ultimately watered down considerably, unnecessary protections for servicemembers' and chaplains' religious beliefs that already exist were still included in the 680-page defense authorization bill signed by President Barack Obama in January. 

At the time, Obama said Section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act was "an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members." Although military chaplains are not required to perform any ceremonies contrary to their "conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs," same-sex military couples — much like their straight counterparts — may marry on military installations. 

"This proposal needs to be seen for what it is – a naked attempt to undermine DADT repeal and open service by green lighting discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual service members," ACLU Legislative Representative Ian Thompson said of Huelskamp's bill. "Given the acknowledged success of the transition to open service, including from the uniformed military leadership, this legislation could not be more ill-timed or ill-advised."

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has tried to ban same-sex weddings on military bases before, is a co-sponsor of the bill, as are Republican Reps. Tim Walberg (Mich.), Vicky Hartzler (Mo.), Doug LaMalfa (Calif.), Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Louie Gohmert (Texas). Huelskamp's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

[Photo: Tim Huelskamp (Courtesy of the U.S. House of Representatives)]

Read the bill here:

Military Religious Freedom Protection Act

The results of a poll of Rhode Islanders released Thursday shows that a strong majority of voters support extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The survey, conducted by the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University, found that 60.4 percent of respondents favored allowing same-sex couples to legally wed, a number that is nearly identical to the findings of a May 2009 poll by Brown. The poll found 26.1 percent of respondents were opposed to same-sex marriage.

The poll surveyed 593 Rhode Island voters from Feb. 21 to 23, and has a 4 point margin of error.  

Among those who said they favor same-sex marriage, 62.1 percent are strongly in favor and 32.5 percent say they somewhat favor it. Among those who oppose it, 59.5 percent say they strongly oppose it, while 32.0 only somewhat oppose it.

When the poll asked people why they supported or opposed same-sex marriage, half of all supporters said they felt marriage equality was an issue of equal rights, while another quarter said they support it because it is a personal choice issue unrelated to sexual orientation. Among opponents, 40.8 percent cited religious reasons as the cause of their opposition, while 22.4 percent simply said marriage is between a man and a woman. Another 10.5 percent of opponents said their opposition stemmed from believing Rhode Island’s existing civil-unions law was sufficient.

The poll found majorities of people among several age groups supported marriage equality, with 88.9 percent of those 30 to 39, and three-quarters of those ages 18 to 29 and 40 to 49, supporting the idea. Even three in five of people in the 50 to 59 and 60 to 69 age groups supported marriage equality. But support dropped significantly for voters over 70, almost half of whom oppose same-sex marriage while a third support.

The poll comes amid a push in the Ocean State to legalize civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. The Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a marriage equality bill in January by a 51-19 margin, sending the measure to the Senate, which is a tougher obstacle for supporters to overcome.

Although Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed (D-Newport) opposes marriage equality, she has committed to allowing a committee vote on the bill. However, Senate Judiciary Chairman Michael McCaffrey (D-Warwick), while promising not to block a vote on the bill, told a local news station last month that he has "no timeline" as to when he will allow a hearing on the marriage-equality bill, or a bill proposed by Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence) that seeks to force a referendum aimed at amending the state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. The committee is expected to take up both bills later this spring.

Despite the legislative obstacles facing them, marriage-equality supporters hailed the Brown poll as good news.

"Today’s announcement from the Taubman Center is another demonstration of the strong and growing support our grassroots campaign to win marriage is building across Rhode Island," Ray Sullivan, campaign director for the Rhode Islanders United for Marriage campaign, said in a Feb. 28 statement. "This poll affirms what we are hearing on the phones and at people’s doors – a growing majority of Rhode Islanders strongly support marriage equality. This independent poll shows three out of five Rhode Islanders believe all loving, committed couples should have access to the unique protection and recognition of marriage. We are going to keep organizing and advocating for all Rhode Island families, and continue to capture this energy and enthusiasm across the state."

[Photo: Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed (courtesy of Rhode Island General Assembly)]

President Barack Obama elaborated on the Supreme Court brief filed by his administration yesterday in the Proposition 8 case, telling reporters today that same-sex couples must be treated equally and that if he were a Supreme Court justice he would argue broadly that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

"What we've done is put forward a basic principle, which applies to all equal protection cases whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the court asks the question, what's the rationale for this and it better be a good reason. And if you don't have a good reason we're going to strike it down," Obama said. 

Obama added that while the brief from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli does not call for same-sex marriage bans in all states to be struck down as a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, that does not necessarily mean he personally believes the Supreme Court should not rule broadly against all same-sex marriage bans.

"Now, the court may decide that if it doesn't apply in this case it probably can't apply in any case. There's no good reason for it," Obama said of that basic principle. "If I were on the court, that'd probably be the view I'd put forward. But I'm not a judge, I'm the president."

Asked by Christi Parsons of the Chicago Tribune the reasoning for his decision to weigh in, the president said when the Supreme Court called the question by taking up the case he thought it was important to articulate what he and his administration stand for. 

Noting progress being made on the state level, Obama said "when the Supreme Court asks, do you think that the California law, which doesn't provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they're same-sex couples, if the Supreme Court asks me or my attorney general or solicitor general, do we think that meets constitutional muster, I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly — and the answer is no."

Although Obama's remarks were some of the strongest legal arguments articulated by the former law professor to date since he announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012, he did not go so far as to say the Supreme Court should rule that marriage for same-sex couples is a constitutional right.

Read the full exchange here:

Q: Mr. President, your administration weighed in yesterday on the Proposition 8 case. A few months ago it looked like you might be averse to doing that, and I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about your deliberations and how your thinking evolved on that. Were there conversations that were important to you? Were there things that you read that influenced your thinking?

OBAMA: As everybody here knows, last year, upon a long period of reflection, I concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage; that the basic principle that America is founded on -- the idea that we're all created equal -- applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, as well as race or gender or religion or ethnicity.

And I think that the same evolution that I've gone through is an evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. And I think it is a profoundly positive thing. So that when the Supreme Court essentially called the question by taking this case about California's law, I didn’t feel like that was something that this administration could avoid. I felt it was important for us to articulate what I believe and what this administration stands for.

And although I do think that we're seeing, on a state-by-state basis, progress being made -- more and more states recognizing same-sex couples and giving them the opportunity to marry and maintain all the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do -- when the Supreme Court asks, do you think that the California law, which doesn't provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they're same-sex couples, if the Supreme Court asks me or my Attorney General or Solicitor General, do we think that meets constitutional muster, I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly -- and the answer is no. 

Q: And given the fact that you do hold that position about gay marriage, I wonder if you thought about just -- once you made the decision to weigh in, why not just argue that marriage is a right that should be available to all people of this country?

OBAMA: Well, that's an argument that I’ve made personally. The Solicitor General in his institutional role going before the Supreme Court is obliged to answer the specific question before them. And the specific question presented before the Court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional. 

And what we’ve done is we’ve put forward a basic principle, which is -- which applies to all equal protection cases. Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the Court asks the question, what’s the rationale for this -- and it better be a good reason. And if you don't have a good reason, we’re going to strike it down.

And what we’ve said is, is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, that the Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it. And if the state doesn't have a good reason, it should be struck down. That's the core principle as applied to this case.

Now, the Court may decide that if it doesn't apply in this case, it probably can't apply in any case. There’s no good reason for it. If I were on the Court, that would probably be the view that I’d put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the President. So the basic principle, though, is let’s treat everybody fairly and let’s treat everybody equally. And I think that the brief that's been presented accurately reflects our views.

More than 200 members of Congress filed a brief today urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. 

For the first time, 40 Democratic members of the Senate joined 172 Democratic members of the House of Representatives in calling for the high court to declare Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, unconstitutional.

"Having repeatedly urged Congress (including the Speaker of the House) to revisit DOMA legislatively, we believe it important to dispel the notion that BLAG speaks for the entire Congress on the merits. It does not," the brief reads. "In fact, many Members believe that Section 3 of DOMA is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee and should be struck down."

While House Democrats have been vocal in their criticism of DOMA as well as the actions of House Republicans to defend the 1996 law in court after the Obama administration stopped doing so in February 2011, today’s filing marked the first time Senate Democrats have filed a brief in any of the DOMA challenges that have moved through the lower courts.

The brief was signed by Democratic leadership in both chambers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Every LGB member of Congress, including Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Mark Takano (D-Calif.) signed the brief.

Agreeing with many of the arguments made by the Obama administration in a brief filed last week, the 212 members of Congress urge the high court to apply heightened scrutiny in laws that target groups based on sexual orientation. Moreover, they argue that even if heightened scrutiny is not applied, DOMA should still be struck down.

We also believe that DOMA must fail even if it does not trigger heightened review. Virtually every aspect of DOMA and its legislative history—the lack of objective, rational fact-finding to connect the exclusion of married same-sex couples to a legitimate federal interest; the sweeping exclusion of gay men and lesbians based on a single identifiable trait; and the open desire of some to express disapproval of that minority group—distinguishes it from routine Acts of Congress. None of the arguments advanced in its defense is sufficient. DOMA lacks the required rational connection to a legitimate federal interest: “It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [the Court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [federal] interests."

Today is the deadline for briefs in the DOMA case, with arguments scheduled to begin before the court on March 27. After yesterday's deadline for briefs in the Proposition 8 case, it does not appear congressional Democrats have filed a brief in that case.

UPDATE: Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesman, provided this statement to Metro Weekly on the lack of a brief from congressional Democrats in the Proposition 8 case: "From the outset, Leader Pelosi has strongly opposed Proposition 8, and believes that the legal advocacy by opponents of Proposition 8 has been outstanding. The Leader looks forward to the day when all Californians – and indeed, all Americans everywhere - have the right to marry who they love. She appreciates the President’s strong leadership in favor of overturning Proposition 8 and of striking down DOMA."

Read the full brief here:

DOMA Congressional Brief