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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The move appears to have evolved from a decision by Attorney General Eric Holder more than a year ago, when he intervened in a BIA case on May 5, 2011, vacating a decision by the BIA related to the application of Paul Wilson Dorman in which the BIA had applied Section 3 of DOMA to his case to deny his petition. Dornan was in a civil union with his partner, and Holder, among other questions, had asked the BIA to resolve whether Dorman and his partner's civil union was treated like a marriage and whether, if it was, the couple would be eligible for relief were it not for DOMA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WATCH:

The Republican-led House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group today mailed its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review the May 31 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. 

In a filing obtained by Metro Weekly, BLAG asks the Supreme Court, which must agree to consider the case, to take the appeal for three reasons: (1) the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 is "an issue of great national importance" and raises separation-of-powers questions; (2) the First Circuit decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson and other appellate decisions; and (3) the First Circuit "invented a new standard of equal protection review." 

In the course of the filing, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, BLAG states that "[t]he executive branch has ... abdicated its traditional role of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes."

BLAG, which voted 3-2 to defend DOMA in court challenges, is made up of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Pelosi and Hoyer have objected to the filings.

Paul Clement, of Bancroft PLLC, is the counsel of record in the filing. Clement argued on BLAG's behalf in front of the First Circuit's three-judge panel, which held unanimously that DOMA's definition of "marriage" and "spouse" as only including one man and one woman was unconstitutional.

Judge Michael Boudin, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, wrote for the court: "Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

Writing that "Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely," the appeals court stayed, or put on hold, the implementation of its decision pending any appeal.

BLAG is asking the Supreme Court to consider two questions: (1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (2) Whether the court below erred by inventing and applying to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act a previously unknown standard of equal protection review.

BLAG has intervened in several court challenges to DOMA following the Feb. 23, 2011, decision by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder not to continue defending Section 3 of the 1996 law after concluding that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation, like DOMA, should be subjected to a "heightened" form of court scrutiny.

As of 5 p.m. today, the filing was not on the Supreme Court's docket, but the House General Counsel's office confirmed to Metro Weekly that the filing had been "deposited" today. Metro Weekly reported earlier this month that BLAG's lawyers told a court in another DOMA case in Connecticut that it would be filing the Supreme Court petition by the end of June.

In a statement, Pelosi criticized the filing, saying, "Democrats have rejected the Republican assault on equal rights, in the courts and in Congress. We believe there is no federal interest in denying LGBT couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to all couples married under state law. And we are confident that the Supreme Court, if it considers the case, will declare DOMA unconstitutional and relegate it to the dustbin of history once and for all."

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

The GLAD plaintiffs, Massachusetts, the Department of Justice and other interested individuals and organizations will be able to give their input as to whether the court should take the case. The court then will consider whether it wants to take the case, a question most scholars expect it to answer in the affirmative as the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. It could, however, hold the case in order to await a decision on one of the further DOMA challenges.

ALSO: On June 18, Metro Weekly provided an extensive update on the status of several of the challenges to DOMA.

READ:

[NOTE: This article was updated and expanded, with the final update at 7:35 p.m.]

[Photo: Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson, fifth from right, poses for a photograph with servicemembers and veterans, including Ronnie Bryant, fourth from right, following the Pentagon's LGBT Pride Month Event on June 26, 2012. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Heading to the Pentagon today was "spectacular" for Ronnie Bryant.

The first-ever Pentagon LGBT Pride Month Event (transcript here), featuring a keynote address by Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson, took place at 1 p.m. today in the Pentagon auditorium. The auditorium, which seats 350, was packed, and the servicemembers, advocates and others in attendance also heard from a panel that included stories of past and present lesbian and gay service.

Talking with Metro Weekly after the event, Bryant, who retired from the armed forces after 20 years of service in the U.S. Army, said of today's event, "A few times I had to stop myself from crying. Just to have these young folks serve, openly -- be able to place a photo of a loved one. I had to lie."

Explaining how directly the policy had impacted him, he said, "I had my partner with me ... at promotion ceremonies and other events, but each time, I had to say, 'This is my brother,' and not my lover."

Today, Johnson, the Defense Department's top in-house lawyer, acknowledged the change that the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" meant to the military.

"For those servicemembers who are gay and lesbian, we lifted a real and personal burden from their shoulders. They no longer have to live a lie in the military," he told the attendees. "They will no longer have to somehow teach a child to lie to protect her father's career. As one Army chief warrant officer reported, her commander told her, 'This policy kept me from knowing you.'"

The policy's end came about, however, only after Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham served as the co-chairs of the Pentagon's 2010 working group that examined the effects of repeal and best ways to implement a repeal if it happened. Johnson spoke today about that effort -- which at times drew criticism from LGBT advocates -- noting, "I do not consider myself an activist on the matter of gay men and women in America."

Nonetheless, Johnson said, "By the end of the 10-month study -- during which I think we actually saw attitudes shift as we stirred the pot on this issue -- we had the overwhelming sense that, with proper education and leadership, the military could be ready for this change."

Johnson then looked at the implementation of repeal following the Dec. 22, 2010 signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and Sept. 20, 2011, end of the law, asking, "How has the military accepted this change?"

Answering his question, he told the audience, "Better than we anticipated," adding, "I attribute this to the strength of our military and its Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine leadership."

One of those attending, Air Force Reserves Major Jim Hatt, told Metro Weekly that his day-to-day work life at the Pentagon hasn't changed. "No difference," he said. "Life hasn't changed."

But, he added, "It's changed inwardly for me."

Looking at the crowd in the auditorium, he said, "I never thought I would see this day. I never thought it would be something where I didn't continually hide and lie and cover and be very cautious about what I did and said. I guess the big change is that there's this huge elephant that is no longer on my back."

As for the purpose of today's event -- the Pentagon's recognition of LGBT Pride Month -- Hatt admitted a little surprise. "I was not even expecting this, after the end of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' for another two, three, maybe four, five years," he said. "So, this is a huge surprise."

Bryant was enjoying the changed atmosphere from when he served, being one of several servicemembers and veterans who took the opportunity after the event to thank Johnson for attending and for his work leading to and implementing DADT repeal.

"It is a little unfortunate for me because I served under both the ban and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" he said after talking with Johnson. "But it's good for the new generation, and I appreciated all the kind words he had to say."

As Johnson acknowledged, though, more work remains to be done to ensure that lesbian and gay servicemembers are treated equally: "The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' exposes certain inequalities between similarly situated couples in the military community. This troubles many of our leaders."

National Stonewall Democrats today announced the group's first 25 endorsements -- including six out LGBT candidates. The partisan LGBT organization has a rolling endorsement process, so more endorsements are expected as the election season moves forward.

One prominent race in which the group did not issue an endorsement is Democrat Elizabeth Warren's effort to unseat Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) -- a race in which several other LGBT organizations already have issued endorsements.

Senate:

• Tammy Baldwin – Wisconsin 
• Sherrod Brown – Ohio 
• Shelley Berkley – Nevada 
• Dianne Feinstein – California 
• Kirsten Gillibrand – New York 
• Bernie Sanders – Vermont 

House of Representatives:

• Ami Bera – CA-7 
• Tim Bishop – NY-1 
• André Carson – IN-7 
• David Cicilline – RI-1 
• Steve Cohen – TN-9 
• Keith Ellison – MN-5 
• Rush Holt – NJ-12 
• Sheila Jackson-Lee – TX-18 
• John Lewis – GA-5 
• Michelle Lujan-Grisham – NM-1 
• Jerrold Nadler – NY-8 
• Nancy Pelosi – CA-12 
• Mark Pocan – WI-2 
• Jared Polis – CO-2 
• Jan Schakowsky – IL-9 
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz – FL-23 
• Mark Takano – CA-41 
• Trevor Thomas – MI-3 
• Dina Titus – NV-1 

Six of the endorsed candidates are out LGBT individuals: Baldwin, Cicilline, Pocan, Polis, Takano and Thomas.

Of the four out members of the current Congress, all are in the House. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is not running for re-election, however, and Baldwin is seeking a Senate seat -- leaving Polis and Cicilline as the only out incumbents seeking re-election. There are no out LGBT Republicans in the 112th Congress.

Log Cabin Republicans, meanwhile, have endorsed in two races thus far. LCR endorsed Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) on the day that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ended, Sept. 20, 2011, for his 2012 re-election. This March, the group also endorsed out LGBT candidate Richard Tisei in his run to unseat Rep. John Tierney (D) in the sixth district of Massachusetts. 

The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race earlier this year.

An official with Stonewall Democrats did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the group's apparent decision not to endorse Warren at this time.

UPDATE at 12:05A TUESDAY: Regarding the lack of a position taken in the Brown-Warren race, Stonewall Democrats executive director Jerame Davis tells Metro Weekly, "Our process requires that all non-incumbent candidates complete our endorsement questionnaire in order to be considered. We didn't get the questionnaire to her campaign in time to be completed for this round of endorsements. We will be announcing more endorsements throughout the summer, so there's plenty of time."

[NOTE (added at 7:30P TUESDAY): After this story was published, it was edited within the hour to include more information about the race between Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Elizabeth Warren (D) -- including the addition to the headline referencing the race. This was an addition to the initial story, but did not change any of the initially reported facts, so was not referenced as an update. Twenty minutes after those additions were made, Davis responded with his comment, which was posted immediately as an update.]

Today, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070, holding that three of the four provisions at issue were preempted by federal law and that the final provision -- the "show your papers" provision -- was not preempted by federal law but would need to be carefully implemented by the state in order to avoid being found unconstitutional in the future. 

Today's ruling sparked a strong statement from more than 30 LGBT and HIV/AIDS organizations noting specific challenges faced by LGBT immigrants, calling the remaining provision "clearly discriminatory" and calling for Congress to pass "a path to legalization for the nation's undocumented immigrants."

For his part, President Obama said that he is "pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law." Of the remaining provision, he said, "I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like."

Obama's presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, said in a statement, "Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy," adding that he viewed Obama as having failed to do so. Romney did not address whether he agreed or disagreed with any parts of the decision.

The joint statement by dozens of organizations that work on LGBT and HIV/AIDS issues, led by the Center for American Progress and Lambda Legal, and including the Human Rights Campaign and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, drew on the organizations' specific focus while also advocating for wholesale immigration reform.

"The 'show-me-your-papers' provision in SB 1070 is clearly discriminatory but unfortunately was not struck down. LGBT immigrants and LGBT people of color remain particularly vulnerable because this provision in SB 1070 requires police to stop and question people based on their appearance. The LGBT community knows all too well how easily people who are perceived to 'look different' or 'act different' can be singled out for harassment and persecution," they state. "The law particularly threatens LGBT people of color and LGBT immigrants, many of whom already experience heightened hostility, harassment, and even violence based on their appearance, behavior, dress, and other characteristics. This wrongful treatment often occurs at the hands of local officials who lack a basic understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression diversity."

Of the broader picture of America's immigration policy, they note, "SB 1070, and the copycat laws it has spawned in other states, exacerbate the fear and distrust that dissuade many LGBT immigrants and LGBT people of color from seeking protection from -- or offering to assist -- law-enforcement officials.

"While leaving the 'show me your papers' provision in effect is a setback for the cause of civil rights in America, the court left the door open for advocates to challenge this bad part of the law by showing that it discriminates and harms people.  Along with other advocates devoted to immigrant rights and racial justice, we will fight to protect basic civil rights and we won't stop until we win respect, dignity and equal treatment under the law for everyone."

In conclusion, the group of organizations look forward to future efforts at reform: "Today's mixed ruling strikes down key parts of a bad law. But the fact remains that our nation's immigration system is broken, and we need comprehensive immigration reform that is fair to everyone, and is inclusive of LGBT immigrants and their families. We will work with our allies in the immigrant rights community to make this reform a reality, and call on Congress to move swiftly to correct the flaws riddling the present immigration system and provide a path to legalization for the nation's undocumented immigrants."

The full list of signatories includes Lambda Legal; LGBT Progress at the Center for American Progress; AFL-CIO - Pride at Work; Atticus Circle; Center Link: The Community of LGBT Centers; COLAGE; Consortium of Higher Education Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Professionals; Equality Federation; Family Equality Council; Freedom to Marry; GLAAD; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD); Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA); Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN); HIV Law Project; Human Rights Campaign; Immigration Equality; International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.; Latino Commission on AIDS; PFLAG National (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays); Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE); The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD); National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC); National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE); National Coalition for LGBT Health; National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance; Out & Equal Workplace Advocates; and Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF).

Although Immigration Equality was a signatory to the joint statement, which noted that the court "left the door open" for civil-rights lawsuits regarding the remaining provision, the group's executive director, Rachel Tiven, said in a statement on behalf of Immigration Equality alone that the Supreme Court "has condoned targeting immigrant families for prosecution, and potential separation based on what they look like."

The Task Force's executive director, Rea Carey, added in a statement on behalf of the Task Force alone, "SB 1070 and laws like it only serve to divide us by opening the door to racial profiling, infringement of civil rights, and harassment and violence against those seen as 'different.'"

READ the whole joint statement below the jump.

As ABC's Jake Tapper reported earlier this afternoon, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Mary Cheney, married her longtime partner, Heather Poe, today.

The couple are raising two children and live in Virginia, where the constitution was amended in 2006 to limit marriages to one man and one woman, but married today in DC, where marriage equality has been legal for more than two years.

In a statement provided to The Daily Caller, the former vice president and his wife, Lynne, said, "Mary and Heather have been in a committed relationship for many years, and we are delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognized. Mary and Heather and their children are very important and much loved members of our family and we wish them every happiness."

When the newlyweds return to Virginia, however, that relationship will not be recognized.

The Virginia Constitution states: "That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

In addition to the fact that the Cheney-Poe relationship is not recognized in Virginia, the status of their children's relationship with their parents in Virginia, which Lambda Legal states does not allow second-parent adoptions, is unclear. According to The Daily Caller, "Cheney gave birth to a son in 2007, and a daughter in 2009."

Equality Virginia's executive director, James Parrish, tells Metro Weekly, "Equality Virginia is happy that Mary Cheney and her long-time partner Heather Poe were able to marry in Washington DC. Unfortunately none of those relationships are legally recognized in Virginia because of the so-called marriage amendment. We will continue to work on the state and national level to achieve marriage equality for all."

Equality Virginia details the complexities of family recognition for same-sex parents here.

Over the past day, much has been made of the GOProud board's decision to endorse Mitt Romney for president. The gay conservative group is known for being more conservative than Log Cabin Republicans and has often attracted attention with brash moves.

What wasn't clear from the group's release was how close the endorsement came to not happening at all. Or how little gay support it had from the board.

GOProud board member and executive director Jimmy LaSalvia noted in the press release the group's disagreement with Romney's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment but added, "The truth is that this election is too important to wait or to sit on the sidelines. We plan on spending every day between now and November working to make Obama a one term President."

From Dan Savage to Pam Spaulding to Stonewall Democrats, voices on the left have ranged from apoplectic to dismissive about the gay conservative group's decision. Savage went so far as to refer to the group as the "GOP's house faggots" -- which led to its own fallout.

In GOProud's initial statement announcing the endorsement, it noted, "GOProud is the first and only organization representing gay Americans to endorse Governor Romney's Presidential bid."

What has not been noted thus far -- because the vote was not public beyond a mention that two people voted no -- is that only a bare majority of the board's seven members at the time voted for the endorsement. What's more, half of the board's gay or lesbian members voted against endorsing Romney.

Of the seven GOProud board members, only four supported the endorsement. Only two gay or lesbian board members voted in favor: LaSalvia and Bruce Carroll.

The other two gay or lesbian board members voted against the endorsement, and two straight board members voted yes. One straight board member did not vote, LaSalvia tells Metro Weekly.

Chris Barron, the former board president and co-founder of GOProud, told Metro Weekly, "I voted no and one other board member voted no." LaSalvia tells Metro Weekly that Jessica Lee, who is a lesbian, was the other vote against the endorsement.

In addition to LaSalvia, Bruce Carroll tells Metro Weekly that he voted yes; Board Chair Lisa De Pasquale, who is straight, tells Metro Weekly that she voted yes; and Bob Carlstrom, another board member who is straight, was described as a Romney supporter in The Wall Street Journal in the midst of the primaries. The final board member, Kathryn Serkes, is straight and the head of the Doctor Patient Medical Association and did not vote, LaSalvia confirms.

GOProud did add an eighth person to its board on the night of the vote, Dennis Duquette, who is gay, but he did not participate in the endorsement vote.

In the news release, Barron is quoted as saying, "While I voted to endorse Governor Gary Johnson, and will continue to personally support his campaign, I understand and respect the decision of the GOProud Board. I appreciate the thoughtfulness the Board of Directors of GOProud put into this decision."

The news release's opening description of the group states that it is "an organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights." Releases issued by the group before DePasquale came on as board chair had described the group as "the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies."

LaSalvia echoed the more recent sentiment when asked about the lack of a majority of LGBT support for an endorsement, telling Metro Weekly this evening, "GOProud represents gay and straight conservatives. Every member of our board's vote counts the same regardless of their sexual orientation. That's the definition of equality."

Despite the vote count, however, LaSalvia added, "At the end of the day, our board is united in our effort to defeat Barack Obama."

[Photo: GOProud co-founders Christopher Barron, left, and Jimmy LaSalvia. (Photo by Todd Franson.)]

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), running to take retiring Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)'s seat, has launched her first ad, Roll Call reports, and it focuses on Wisconsin paper industry jobs, sanctions on China and bipartisanship.

Baldwin has no primary challenger, whereas Republicans -- including former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-Wis.), who has fared the best against Baldwin in early polling -- will have a primary fight.

Other Republicans running include Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann, and businessman Eric Hovde, and the primary election is Aug. 14.

If elected, Baldwin would be the first out LGBT senator.

[Photo: Adm. Mike Mullen testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Dec. 2, 2010. (Photo by Ward Morrison.)]

On Sept. 18, retired Admiral Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will join Servicemembers Legal Defense Network aboard the USS Intrepid in New York City to mark the one-year anniversary of the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the group is telling supporters today.

In an email being sent to supporters today, SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis wrote of the fundraising event, "This historic and emotional event presents a unique -- indeed, a once in a lifetime -- opportunity to reinforce the meaningful part that Admiral Mullen played in the DADT repeal process."

Mullen took the lead on making the case to Congress to repeal DADT, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 2, 2010, that he supported repeal -- and made a moral case for doing so.

"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," he told the committee. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity: Theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

Of the troops, Mullen added: "I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to adapt."

The strong, personal statement by Mullen set the tone for the debate, standing in stark contrast to statements by previous military commanders, including then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell during the 1993 debate that led to the passage of DADT.

When President Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act into law on Dec. 22, 2010, it was Mullen who received some of the loudest applause at the event. Of his leadership, Obama thanked him, saying Mullen "spoke from the heart and said what he believed was right."

Vice President Joe Biden, who introduced Obama, had made the first comments at the signing about Mullen, saying, "I want to pay particular respect, just as a personal note -- as we used to say, I used to be allowed to say in the Senate, a point of personal privilege -- Admiral Mullen, you're a stand-up guy." When he did so, the applause was such that Biden first told Mullen, "I think they like you," and then, when the applause continued, affectionately told the attendees of the signing, "He already has enough power. Don't."

Mullen continued to lead on the issue during the implementation period, signing the certification on July 22, 2011, that the military was ready for repeal, which then took place on Sept. 20, 2011.

The event, which SLDN spokesman Zeke Stokes says will be a fundraiser for SLDN, will be the lead event of a week of events by the group to mark the anniversary.

Lawyers for the House Republican leadership today told a federal court that the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group plans to ask the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling from May 31 striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Although the Supreme Court request had been expected, it was unclear when such a request, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, would be made since the deadline for the filing is not until Aug. 29.

The news came today in another challenge to DOMA's federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" contained in Section of the 1996 law. That case, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, was brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and BLAG's counsel today asked the court to put that case on hold.

One of the reasons for doing so, BLAG's lawyers said, is because a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA would answer the questions raised in the Pedersen challenge.

That potential Supreme Court case, BLAG details, is Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the appellate case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision on May 31.

Referring to that decision, BLAG's lawyers wrote today in the Pedersen filing:

The House now is preparing a petition for certiorari in the Massachusetts case, a petition which it intends to file by the end of this month. Massachusetts is a good candidate for Supreme Court review, as the First Circuit itself recognized: "Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely." If  the Supreme Court grants certiorari in Massachusetts, which we think is likely,  the Court likely will docket the case for briefing, argument and decision during  the October 2012 Term.

Most legal experts have suggested that timeline in discussions about the Massachusetts case, which was brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, and was heard and decided alongside another case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, which was brought by GLAD. That timeline would result in a decision likely by no later than this month in 2013.

Of course, the Supreme Court first would have to decide to take the case.

After BLAG files its petition, other parties have 30 days to file their view. The GLAD plaintiffs, Massachusetts, the Department of Justice and other interested individuals and organizations will be able to give their input as to whether the court should take the case. The court then will consider whether it wants to take the case, a question most scholars expect it to answer in the affirmative as the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. It could, however, hold the case in order to await a decision on one of the further DOMA challenges.

BLAG is defending DOMA in court challenges because President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder announced a decision in February 2011 that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and, therefore, stopped defending it in court challenges. 

BLAG appointed outside counsel, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, to defend the law. Since that appointment, the three-judge panel of the First Circuit and three federal trial-court judges have struck down the law as unconstitutional despite his defense of it.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) referred questions about the litigation strategy to their attorneys.

Recent decisions from the Obama administration suggest that the government is taking tentative first steps to gear up for the day when an American with a same-sex spouse who wants to immigrate to the U.S. will be able to get a green card for that foreign spouse.

Over the past month, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is a part of the Department of Justice, has taken action in several cases involving same-sex binational couples that has the result of delaying the cases for now and potentially setting up the foreign partner of the couples to be granted a marriage-based green card should the Supreme Court declare Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, Metro Weekly has learned.

Lavi Soloway, an attorney arguing several of the cases, tells Metro Weekly the move, which sends the cases back for further fact-based investigations to determine whether the couples would be eligible for relief were it not for DOMA, is "historic" and reflects DOJ's apparent view that "there may very well be, a year from now, a post-DOMA world."

The decisions by the BIA in four cases reviewed by Metro Weekly, three of which involve visa requests and one of which involves a request to reopen an immigration case in removal proceedings, require similar follow-up action and use almost identical language despite appearing to have been signed by three different BIA members on behalf of the board.

More than a year ago, on May 5, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder intervened in a BIA case, vacating a decision by the BIA related to the application of Paul Wilson Dorman in which the BIA had applied Section 3 of DOMA to his case to deny his petition. Dornan was in a civil union with his partner, and Holder, among other questions, had asked the BIA to resolve "whether [Dorman]'s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a 'spouse' under New Jersey law" and "whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent's same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a 'spouse' under the Immigration and Nationality Act."

In the four cases reviewed by Metro Weekly, all of which are being litigated by Masliah & Soloway, PC, the BIA appears to have taken Holder's questions, begun applying them to all cases appealed to the board that involve DOMA-based denials and gone a step further to confirm whether the marriages themselves are valid.

In one of the BIA decisions, for example, the BIA states:

Although the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider the constitutional arguments raised by the petitioner, we do find it appropriate, in light of the Attorney General's decision in Matter of Dorman, 25 I&N Dec. 485 (A.G. 2011), to remand this matter to the Director to address in the first instance the following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner and the beneficiary have a valid marriage under the laws of California; and

2) Whether, absent the requirements of section 3 of DOMA, the marriage of the petitioner and the beneficiary would qualify the beneficiary to be considered a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Similar language appears in all four decisions, which are appeals from cases that originated in California, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania. The New York-based visa case and Florida-based request-to-reopen-removal-proceedings case involve marriages entered into in Connecticut, the California-based visa case involves a marriage entered into in Canada (and that is where the couple resides currently), and the Pennsylvania-based case involves a California marriage.

Talking with Lavi Soloway, who founded Stop the Deportations to address this issue and says he is the attorney in the involved cases, he tells Metro Weekly, "They are unusual remands. They are an effort by the Board of Immigration Appeals to have the immigration service answer additional questions which, strictly speaking, should not be necessary since the denials were based solely on the fact that the couples were of the same sex and therefore barred by Section 3 of DOMA.

"The BIA is essentially forcing the immigration service to undertake full adjudication and to produce a complete fact-finding for each couple to determine the bona fides of the marriage, rather than simply deny them perfunctorily because they're gay or lesbian couples," he continued. "Once U.S. [Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is within the Department of Homeland Security] has done all that fact-finding, they're essentially setting the stage for being able to approve the petitions in a post-DOMA universe. They're providing everything that one would need to know to approve those petitions if the Defense of Marriage Act did not exist ... and that's not typically the role of the Board of Immigration Appeals."

Neither DOJ nor BIA spokespersons responded to a request for comment on whether the remand procedure constituted a policy that would be applied to all similar cases.

Soloway describes the unusual nature of the move by noting that that "additional fact-finding" requested in the remand decisions "cannot, under current law, alter the outcome" because of DOMA.

He says that the move is "extremely important for those of us who have been advocating that these cases be fully adjudicated, that all the fact-finding be done, that interviews be conducted for the purposes of determining that the marriages are bona fide and that these cases are approvable, and then held in abeyance."

Whether the cases will be held in abeyance remains to be seen, but Soloway notes that "the denials are essentially vacated" because of the remand. Two of the couples had applications for adjustment of status to permanent residence, or I-485 applications, that were concurrently filed. Those applications are now also pending ... because the alien relative petition [(I-130)] is pending." The pending I-485 allows for work authorization, Soloway notes.

"This is a choice by the Department of Justice," he said. "It's a surprising development. It's a welcome development. ... It's also historical. This has never happened before."

Although President Obama's Rose Garden announcement on June 15 related only to the Department of Homeland Security's immigration treatment of people younger than 30 who would have been helped by the DREAM Act, it appears that action in another area of discretion -- in the court-like function of the BIA -- is resulting in temporary relief for some same-sex couples facing immigration challenges.

[Photo: Mark Himes, left, and Frédéric Deloizy of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Photo courtesy Stop the Deportations.)]

[NOTE: The lead of this story was updated at 8:45 p.m.]

The Defense of Marriage Act has taken several hits in recent weeks. The federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" has been found to be unconstitutional in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, a trial-court case striking it down is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit, and federal trial-court judges in California and New York struck down Section 3 as well.

So, on the afternoon of Monday, June 18, where do these -- and three other pending federal trial-court cases -- stand?

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services: These two cases, decided by the First Circuit on May 31, are waiting on a filing by the Department of Justice and/or the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to the Supreme Court asking the high court to hear the case.

Because the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue and because Attorney General Eric Holder has told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that the federal government will continue to enforce DOMA until a final court ruling as to its constitutionality, DOJ likely will file the formal request that the court hear the case, a petition for a writ of certiorari, and, in so doing, assert its view that the First Circuit decision striking down the law as unconstitutional was correct (although perhaps for different reasons than given by the First Circuit). BLAG could attempt to do so as well, although some might challenge its legal authority to do so.

The cert petition must be filed within 90 days of the May 31 appellate decision, which gives DOJ and BLAG an August 29 deadline for the Supreme Court filing.

After the cert petition is filed, a cross-petition for certiorari -- by BLAG, for example, in order to assert its rationale that the case should be taken so that the Supreme Court can reverse the First Circuit's decision -- could be filed by any party within 30 days of the petition's filing. Parties opposing the cert petition likewise have 30 days to file their opposition. The plaintiffs, Massachusetts and other interested individuals and organizations will be able to give their input as to whether the court should take the case.

The court then will consider whether it wants to take the case, a question it is expected to answer in the affirmative as the constitutionality of a federal statute is at issue. It could, however, hold the case in order to await a decision on one of the further DOMA challenges.

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management: This case, an appeal from U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White's Feb. 22 trial-court opinion striking down the law, is being briefed before the Ninth Circuit -- with views by former U.S. attorneys general and others already submitted to the appeals court.

Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit have been scheduled for the week of September 10. 

Windsor v. United States: DOJ filed a notice of appeal in the case in which U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional on June 6. The DOJ's initial notice, which will send the case to the Second Circuit, was incorrectly filed and was resubmitted on June 14. DOJ, despite the filing, had argued in favor of Edith Windsor's lawsuit challenging an estate tax bill of more than $350,000 that Windsor would not have had to pay if her deceased wife had been a man. BLAG is defending DOMA in the case.

Dragovich v. Department of Treasury: No notice of appeal has been filed from this May 24 decision, which involves both state and federal defendants due to the specific DOMA-impacted law -- affecting tax treatment for a California-offered long-term care plan -- being challenged. The plaintiffs, who plan to seek to recover attorneys fees, have sought and been granted an extension until August 22 to file the attorneys fees request, but an attorney for the plaintiffs told Metro Weekly that does not impact the time to file a notice that the case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Neither DOJ nor BLAG representatives responded this afternoon to Metro Weekly's request for information regarding why the Windsor decision already has been appealed despite the Dragovich decision having been released more than two weeks earlier. The notice of appeal, because the United States is a defendant, must be filed within 60 days of the May 24 decision, which would be July 23.

McLaughlin v. Panetta and Cooper-Harris v. United States: These two cases are addressing the constitutionality of different military and veterans' benefits given to married, same-sex couples. Although additional laws regarding veterans' benefits are challenged in these cases in addition to DOMA Section 3, DOJ has informed Congress that it views these statutes as similarly unconstitutional. 

On June 6, DOJ was granted a request in McLaughlin to stay the case, or put it on hold, until the final mandate is issued by the First Circuit in the Massachusetts case. BLAG is seeking a similar delay in Cooper-Harris, asking the court to stay the proceedings until a decision in Golinski, but the Southern Poverty Law Center, representing Cooper-Harris, is opposing the request. A hearing is set on the motion for July 2. [SPLC's Christine Sun tells Metro Weekly the hearing has been moved to July 23.]

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management: This case is pending in federal trial court in Connecticut. It has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

NOTE: Additional DOMA and DOMA-related challenges are noted in this chart (pdf) produced by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which has brought the Gill and Pedersen cases.

[Photo: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), right, speaks with reporters about the constitutionality of DOMA on April 4, 2012. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]