Despite his longstanding commitment to LGBT families, amid threats from Republicans to derail immigration reform if same-sex couples are included, Leahy has not publicly committed to holding a vote on his amendments during the committee markup process of the legislation.

The Vermont Democrat filed two amendments earlier this month to the 844-page Senate immigration bill drafted by the bipartisan group of senators known as the "gang of eight." Leahy's first amendment would add protections that mirror the language of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would recognize immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same sex and grant rights denied to immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same sex, including eligibility for green cards, due to the Defense of Marriage Act. His second amendment would provide equal protection to married binational same-sex couples.

For months, advocates have been pushing key senators to include protections for same-sex couples in immigration reform, but threats from Republicans have caused some of the LGBT community’s most strident allies to apparently waver in the face of dooming immigration reform entirely. 

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in particular has faced fierce criticism for his refusal to commit to voting for Leahy’s two amendments. Without his support, it remains unlikely the committee will adopt the amendments. Schumer would not speak to reporters Tuesday afternoon, telling Metro Weekly he had "no comment" when asked if he had decided if he would support Leahy's amendments.

"It is important to note that, when the Senate immigration framework (which Schumer and Durbin helped write) did not include LGBT couples, both Senators assured our families they would be in the base bill. When the base bill (which they also helped write) was not inclusive, they assured us we would receive a vote in Committee. Now, they may be on the verge of breaking a third promise to LGBT families," Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls said in an email to Metro Weekly. "While Senator Leahy has stuck his neck out for LGBT couples, Schumer has remained notably silent. Despite Leahy's leadership on the issue, if Schumer does not commit to casting the decisive 10th vote in favor of the amendments, they would not succeed."

The Associated Press reported today that the White House has suggested Leahy delay consideration of his amendments until the bill reaches the Senate floor. The bill is expected to move out of committee by the end of this week, setting the stage for a battle on the Senate floor in early June. Tuesday's hearing is expected to go late into the night. 

However, some stipulate that if the amendments are not offered, they stand little chance of being adopted when the bill is considered by the full Senate. 

"Without an amendment in Committee, there stands zero chance of such an amendment being added next month on the Senate floor," wrote immigration lawyer and co-founder of The DOMA Project, Lavi Soloway, in a piece published Tuesday on the project's website.

Although Republicans who have threatened immigration reform over possible inclusion of same-sex couples will no doubt be assigned a great deal of the blame if Leahy's amendments are not considered, Schumer in particular is expected to face a fierce backlash from LGBT advocates. According to Politico, Schumer called a meeting of LGBT elected officials and activists earlier this month to address concerns over the amendments, which grew heated at times.

Said Ralls, "If the amendments are not offered for a vote, there will be bipartisan blame: On Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Jeff Flake for making threats and bullying colleagues to abandon our families; and on Senator Schumer, for refusing to stand up, in the face of that bullying, for his own constituents who desperately need him to cast his vote in their favor."

[Photo: Patrick Leahy (Courtesy of the U.S. Senate)]

Yet despite the progress made since last year’s scorecard was issued, two-thirds of the members of the House of Delegates and nearly half the state senators are still considered to have anti-gay or, at best, mixed records on LGBT issues. The scorecard from Equality Virginia Advocates also reflects stark regional and partisan divides among members of the General Assembly, a pattern that was evident among the scores released two weeks ago by the anti-gay Family Foundation of Virginia on its annual legislative report card.

Equality Virginia Advocates graded legislators on four issues considered during this year’s legislative session: SB701, a nondiscrimination bill to extend workplace protections to LGBT state employees; HB1871, a bill establishing guidelines and model policies to aid in combating bullying in schools; a bill to allow student groups at public universities and colleges to discriminate in their membership based on religious or political beliefs; and the nomination of Tracy Thorne-Begland, Virginia’s first openly gay judge.

While SB701 was never considered by the full House, despite passing the Senate earlier, Equality Virginia Advocates rewarded those legislators who signed on as co-patrons of the measure. The organization recommended that legislators support Thorne-Begland's nomination, SB701 and HB1871; and oppose the student-groups bill.

Eighteen delegates and 18 senators received perfect "100" scores for the 2013 legislative session, with all returning members either retaining their perfect scores from 2012 or improving substantially on their LGBT records, including two Senate Republicans: Majority Leader Thomas Norment (R-Hampton, Poquoson, New Kent, Gloucester, King and Queen, King William, Isle of Wight, James City, York, Surry and Suffolk counties) and Sen. John Watkins (R-Richmond, Powhatan and Chesterfield counties).

The remaining 16 senators with perfect scores comprise 80 percent of the Democratic caucus in the upper chamber, with almost half from Northern Virginia. Among the 18 House members with perfect scores, all Democrats, all but one – House Minority Leader David Toscano (D-Charlottesville, Albemarle Co.) – hailed from Northern Virginia, the greater Richmond metropolitan area, and the Norfolk/Hampton Roads metropolitan area, three liberal-leaning areas that often provide the bulk of support for Democrats in statewide races.

Six additional senators, mostly from Northern Virginia, and 15 House members, including three Republicans, received scores of 75. Among the senators, all six were docked points for voting in favor of the student-groups bill, including George Barker (D-Alexandria, Fairfax and Prince William counties), the only senator of either party whose rating dropped from 2012 to 2013; Democrats Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax City, Fairfax Co.), Chuck Colgan (D-Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William Co.), and Phil Puckett (D-Radford, Norton, Tazewell, Bland, Buchanan, Dickenson, Smyth, Wise, Pulaski and Montgomery counties); and moderate Republicans Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Loudoun, Fauquier, Stafford, Culpeper, Clarke, Frederick counties, and Winchester) and Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach, Norfolk).

Among the House members receiving scores of 75 were six Democrats – five from Northern Virginia – who were the only delegates to receive lower ratings from Equality Virginia advocates. Dels. David Bulova (D-Fairfax City, Fairfax Co.), Eileen Filler-Corn (D-Fairfax Co.), Mark Keam (D-Fairfax Co.), Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax Co.) and Charniele Herring (D-Alexandria) were docked points for supporting the student-groups bill, while Del. Jeion Ward (D-Hampton) was penalized for failing to vote on the nomination of Thorne-Begland. The six other Democrats and Republicans Tom Rust (R-Fairfax, Loudoun counties), R. Lee Ware (R-Chesterfield, Powhatan, Goochland and Fluvanna counties) and Joseph Yost (R-Radford, Giles, Montgomery and Pulaski counties) were also penalized for voting for the student-groups bill.

Four other senators and 31 delegates, all Republicans, received a rating of 50 – indicating a mixed record – for opposing or failing to sponsor SB701 and for voting for the student-groups bill. But nearly all of them saw increases over their 2012 ratings largely due to their support of the non-LGBT-specific bullying bill.

A similar increase was seen among legislators earning a score of 25, including nine Republican senators, 26 Republican delegates and Democratic Delegates Johnny Joannou (D-Norfolk, Portsmouth) and Joseph Johnson (D-Dickenson, Russell, Washington, and Wise counties), for their support of the bullying bill. Three other members earning 25 voted against the bullying bill, but voted for Thorne-Begland's nomination.

Twelve of the 14 Northern Virginia Republican House delegates, including McLean's Barbara Comstock (R-Fairfax, Loudoun counties), Springfield's David Albo (R-Fairfax Co.), Potomac Falls resident Thomas “Tag” Greason (R-Loudoun Co.), Chantilly's James LeMunyon (D-Fairfax, Loudoun counties) and vocal anti-gay opponent Bob Marshall (R-Manassas Park, Prince William Co.) earned scores of either 50 or 25.

The three remaining senators – including Marshall’s Senate counterpart and a vehement opponent of LGBT rights Dick Black (D-Loudoun, Prince William counties), who was the only Northern Virginia senator with a score below 75 – and five delegates, including Centreville's Tim Hugo (D-Fairfax, Prince William counties), earned zero ratings for opposing every one of Equality Virginia’s policy recommendations. 

Equality Virginia Advocates is hoping that the release of ratings will help better inform voters of where the members of the legislature stand on LGBT-related issues, particularly members of the House, all 100 of whom will be up for re-election in November. 

[Photo 1: Del. Barbara Comstock, a McLean Republican, earned a 50 from Equality Virginia Advocates, indicating a mixed record on LGBT issues.

Photo 2: Del. Alfonso Lopez, an Arlington Democrat, was one of 36 legislators in the General Assembly with a perfect score of 100 from Equality Virginia Advocates.

Photo 3: Del. Tim Hugo, a Centreville Republican, earned a zero rating from Equality Virginia Advocates.]

When Bradley Manning appeared before a military judge at Fort Meade in Maryland on a chilly day in late February, he admitted to being solely responsible for the largest leak of secret documents in American history.

"No one associated with [WikiLeaks] pressured me into sending any more information," Manning said. "I take full responsibility." 

Before reading from a 35-page prepared statement, the 5-foot-2, 25-year-old Army private, who has spent more than a thousand days imprisoned at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, pleaded guilty to 10 criminal counts associated with the massive document dump to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks in early 2010. Although Manning could face up to 20 years in prison for those charges, when his trial begins next month prosecutors will move forward with their attempt to have him convicted on charges that could carry a life sentence, including aiding the enemy and violating the Espionage Act, to which Manning has pleaded not guilty.

Manning was arrested in May 2010 while serving in Iraq after ex-hacker Adrian Lamo reported Manning to the FBI following a conversation the two had over an instant-messenger service in which Manning confided that he was a source for WikiLeaks. 

During Manning's court appearance, he admitted to first trying to give the documents to The Washington Post and The New York Times, but eventually chose Julian Assange of WikiLeaks after neither paper expressed interest in the information. 

Manning's passage of classified information to WikiLeaks led to the publication of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and Army reports that Manning, at times, was able to smuggle by copying them to a digital storage card for his camera. Manning also leaked videos of a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan that killed around 100 civilians and a 2007 airstrike in Iraq that killed several civilians and two war correspondents for Reuters. 

"Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public," Manning wrote in a conversation with Lamo that began on May 21, 2010, and which has been published in full by Wired.

Manning is not a whistleblower in the traditional sense of the word. Unlike Daniel Ellsberg, a Manning supporter who, as an analyst for the U.S. military in 1971, leaked a top-secret study on the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and other publications, the hundreds of thousands of documents Manning released would not have come to his attention had he not sought them out. Trained as an intelligence analyst with top security clearance, he went looking for the information he sought nearly as soon as he arrived in Iraq in October 2009. And while supporters insist there is no evidence any American lives were harmed by Manning's actions, prosecutors insist there is no way Manning could have been able to properly assess the impact each of the leaked documents could have had on security and diplomatic and military operations. 

Nevertheless, since Manning's arrest he has become a martyr for open government advocates and anti-war activists, a role that has been amplified by what many believe to be his mistreatment while in custody. (For nearly a year Manning was essentially on suicide watch, kept alone in a cell for 23 hours a day with guards checking on him every few minutes.) 

Notably, Manning, who identified as gay when he joined the military and has indicated he may be transgender, has witnessed elements of the LGBT community rally around him and his cause. For a movement that sprouted from the social injustice of the 1960s, the treatment of Manning and his effort to expose war atrocities have lent him hero status. 

But Manning has also divided the LGBT community, particularly among servicemembers, in ways rarely seen. Nowhere has that been more apparent than with a recent fiasco that has engulfed organizers of San Francisco Pride.

Following reports in late April that Manning would serve as one of the honorary grand marshals for San Francisco’s annual Pride Parade in June, with Ellsberg attending in his stead, a firestorm broke out on social media. Criticism immediately came from a number of gay servicemembers outraged that Manning, who remains on trial for violating his duties as a soldier, would be honored in such a high-profile way. 

Air Force 1st Lt. Josh Seefried, co-chairman of the board of directors of OutServe-SLDN, tweeted that San Francisco Pride's move was a "complete insult" to those currently serving and said he was "[a]bsolutely ashamed."

"@SFPride's decision to choose Bradley Manning as Grand Marshall is a direct insult to the thousands of LGBT servicemembers and vets. #nohero," Seefried added.

A petition was quickly launched and Sean Sala, a Navy veteran and activist, vowed to call for a national boycott of the Pride celebration. Coming less than a year after activists successfully won a battle to permit active-duty servicemembers to march in the San Diego Pride Parade in full uniform, critics also argued the Manning pick could rankle a Pentagon still implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Within hours San Francisco Pride had backpedalled, announcing Manning would not be a grand marshal, that his nomination by the organization's electoral college was a mistake and that a staffer prematurely made the announcement without authorization. 

"Bradley Manning is facing the military justice system of this country. We all await the decision of that system. However, until that time, even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform -- and countless others, military and civilian alike -- will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride," said Lisa Williams, San Francisco Pride Board president, in a statement. "It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country. There are many, gay and straight, military and non-military, who believe Bradley Manning to be innocent. There are many who feel differently. Under the US Constitution, they have a first amendment right to show up, participate and voice their opinions at Pride this year."

While San Francisco Pride was able to quell outrage from Manning detractors, the move immediately outraged Manning supporters who vowed to protest at the parade in June. 

"LGBTQ activists fought hard for years to win the right to live free from the fear that we could be targeted with violence deemed acceptable to society at large, simply for being who we are," wrote more than 60 members of the LGBT community, including activist and former Army Lt. Dan Choi, in a letter posted on the Bradley Manning Support Network's website. "We members of the LGBTQ community would like to stand in solidarity with others around the world who still must live in fear of violence and oppression, simply for being born into a particular group."

Since Williams announced that Manning would not be honored as a grand marshal at this year's Pride Parade, the backlash from Manning supporters has been feverish. San Francisco Pride's Facebook and Twitter accounts have been inundated with calls for him to be reinstated. Last week, Manning supporters filed a complaint against San Francisco Pride with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, alleging the board illegally invalidated a democratic vote. A meeting scheduled for May 14 to address the controversy has been postponed until a larger venue can be found. Organizers stipulated, however, "SF Pride's decision concerning the election process of Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal being consistent with SF Pride's long standing Grand Marshal election policy is firm. Thus, the discussion of that matter is closed for this year."

Despite Manning's support among individuals in the LGBT-rights movement, Manning is a topic few national LGBT organizations want to touch. Both the Human Rights Campaign and the nation's largest LGBT military organization, OutServe-SLDN, declined to comment for this article, nor have they commented on Manning in the past. 

During a December 2011 hearing, Manning's lawyers outraged transgender advocates when they implied his judgment had been clouded because he was suffering from "gender identity disorder." Supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," such as the Family Research Council, immediately picked up on the defense as evidence of why LGBT people should not be allowed to serve in the military. 

Manning was not unfamiliar to the political scene in D.C. Having spent 15 months living with his aunt in Potomac, Md., before joining the military, he was involved with local Stonewall Democrats and in protests against DADT. In his chats with Lamo, he claimed to have sources at HRC, the Pentagon and the White House, naming White House spokesman Shin Inouye. He also claimed to be a source for reporter Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade. But few seem to have known him very well, and his chats with Lamo also reveal a troubled 22-year-old desperate to get out of the military.

"im very isolated [at the moment]… lost all of my emotional support channels… family, boyfriend, trusting colleagues… im a mess," Manning wrote in his chat with Lamo. "im in the desert, with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors… and the only safe place i seem to have is this satellite internet connection." 

Observers point to Manning and the controversy in San Francisco as epitomizing a movement born from civil disobedience that has entered the mainstream in recent years. With the embrace of open military service and marriage equality, the movement's radical roots have faded as the community has diversified and expanded to people of all walks of life.

"A movement that once overlapped with the labor, sexual, and anti-war movements now won't even question – won't even let anyone question, for fear of being associated with their questioning – anything as controversial as military occupation or corporate greed," wrote gay journalist Steven Thrasher for Gawker. "This past weekend confirmed for me what older gay and lesbian activists have been telling me, correctly, for years: that the modern gay pride celebration is not a political march about free expression, but a corporate trough."

The controversy is expected to only gather steam with Manning's court-martial scheduled to begin in early June. Despite San Francisco Pride's decision not to honor Manning, when the parade makes its way down Market Street June 30, Manning supporters have vowed to take part.

"At the Gay Pride parade, I guarantee to you that I will be marching in that parade, for the first time for me, with a banner honoring Bradley Manning," the 82-year-old Ellsberg said at an April 29 rally protesting San Francisco Pride's decision. "If that will not be tolerated by the leadership, I guess I'm in for a little intolerance in the course of this."

[Photo: Bradley Manning via Wikimedia Commons. Images courtesy of the Bradley Manning Defense Network.]