Secretary of State John Kerry declared Wednesday that the United States has a "moral obligation" to promote LGBT rights abroad.

During Kerry's first speech on LGBT issues as secretary of state, at an event marking the department's Pride month celebration, Kerry said "American leadership requires promoting universal values" in areas of the world that have been slower to embrace LGBT equality. 

"I believe we are on an irreversible course and I believe, happily, that the United States of America is helping to set a global example for how people ought to be treated in life," Kerry said. 

"When we see the abuse of those values, that are directed at the LGBT community, we have a moral obligation to stand in pride with LGBT individuals and advocates. We have a moral obligation to decry the marginalization and persecution of LGBT persons. And we have a moral obligation to promote societies that are more just, more fair and tolerant," Kerry stated, adding that doing so is not only right, but in the strategic interests of the U.S. 

Despite the advancement of tolerance and equality abroad, Kerry noted the struggles that remain in many parts of the world for LGBT people.

"We still see anti-propaganda laws in Eastern Europe that are targeting LGBT demonstrators. We still hear reports of violence against transgender persons in Latin America and Asia. We still see the enforcement or archaic sodomy laws in the Caribbean and we see abuse and incarceration of LGBT activists in Africa," Kerry said. "But the winds of freedom are blowing in the right direction."

Kerry, who was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, also said the State Department is preparing for a post-DOMA landscape as the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the federal government's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. 

"We are planning for the expectation that DOMA will be struck down in some form and we’re laying the groundwork for all the things we need to adjust," Kerry said in response to a question regarding immigration laws for binational same-sex couples from a State Department employee stationed in Mexico. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases before the end of June.

The speech marked the first time Kerry has directly addressed LGBT policy issues since replacing Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in February. He was joined at the event, organized by Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), by veteran civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. 

Kerry's declaration that the U.S. must set a global example comes as President Barack Obama this month nominated three gay men to ambassador posts – in Denmark, Spain and to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Earlier Wednesday during a speech delivered to a crowd of thousands at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Obama called for tolerance of all people.

"I'd suggest that peace with justice begins with the example we set here at home, for we know from our own histories that intolerance breeds injustice," Obama said. "When we stand up for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and treat their love and their rights equally under the law, we defend our own liberty as well. We are more free when all people can pursue their own happiness."

[Photo: John Kerry (Courtesy of the State Department)]

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski announced her support for marriage equality today, becoming the third Senate Republican to support the right of same-sex couples to marry. 

"This is a hard issue. It is hard because it.... Marriage is such a deeply personal issue. Deeply personal. And there may be some that when they hear the position that I hold, that are deeply disappointed. There may be some who embrace the decision that I have made," Murkowski told the Anchorage affiliate of NBC, KTUU, in an interview to be aired later today. "I recognize that it is an area that, as a Republican, I will be criticized for."

According to KTUU, Murkowski said her reversal on the issue came after spending time with a same-sex couple raising four adopted children. 

Murkowski is the 54th current member of the Senate to endorse marriage equality and joins Republican Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio) and Mark Kirk (Ill.). 

"Senator Murkowski's courageous and principled announcement today sends a clear message that marriage equality must come to all 50 states in this country. As the Supreme Court prepares to rule in two landmark marriage cases this month, a growing bipartisan coalition is standing up for the right of all couples to marry—and there is no turning back that tide,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement. "We hope other fair-minded conservatives like Senator Murkowski stand up and join her. Alaska may be nicknamed 'the Last Frontier,' but we've got to make sure that LGBT Alaskans don't have to wait to find justice."

In March, as a wave of endorsements of same-sex marriage poured in from Democratic members of the Senate, Murkowski described her views as "evolving."

"The term 'evolving view' has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use," Murkowski said, according to the Alaska Star. Although Murkowski supported the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," she voted for a constitutional amendment in 2004 that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Murkowski elaborated further on her position in a statement posted on her website: 

Not too long ago, I had the honor of nominating an Alaskan family as “Angels in Adoption,” a celebration of the selflessness shown by foster care families and those who adopt children.  They arrived in Washington, DC, a military family who had opened their doors to not one child but four siblings to make sure that these sisters and brother had the simplest gift you can give a child: a home together.  We had lunch together, and they shared their stories with me.  All the while, the children politely ate lunch and giggled as content youngsters do.  Given my daily hectic Senate schedule, it’s not often that I get to sit down with such a happy family during a workday – and I think of them often, as everything our nation should encourage.

I bring them up because the partners were two women who had first made the decision to open their home to provide foster care to the eldest child in 2007.  Years later – and after a deployment abroad with the Alaska National Guard for one of them – they embraced the joy and sacrifice of four adopted children living under the same roof, with smiles, laughter, movie nights, parent-teacher conferences and runny noses.

Yet despite signing up and volunteering to give themselves fully to these four adorable children, our government does not meet this family halfway and allow them to be legally recognized as spouses. After their years of sleepless nights, after-school pickups and birthday cakes, if one of them gets sick or injured and needs critical care, the other would not be allowed to visit them in the emergency room – and the children could possibly be taken away from the healthy partner.  They do not get considered for household health care benefit coverage like spouses nationwide.  This first-class Alaskan family still lives a second-class existence.

The Supreme Court is set to make a pair of decisions on the topic of marriage equality shortly, and the national conversation on this issue is picking back up. This is a significant moment for our nation when it comes to rethinking our society’s priorities and the role of government in Americans’ private lives and decisions, so I want to be absolutely clear with Alaskans. I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government.  When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values.  I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values:  it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another.  While my support for same sex civil marriage is something I believe in, I am equally committed to guaranteeing that religious freedoms remain inviolate, so that churches and other religious institutions can continue to determine and practice their own definition of marriage.

With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay?   I believe when there are so many forces pulling our society apart, we need more commitment to marriage, not less.

This thinking is consistent with what I hear from more and more Alaskans especially our younger generations.  Like the majority of Alaskans, I supported a constitutional amendment in 1998 defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but my thinking has evolved as America has witnessed a clear cultural shift.  Fifteen years after that vote, I find that when one looks closer at the issue, you quickly realize that same sex unions or civil marriages are consistent with the independent mindset of our state – and they deserve a hands-off approach from our federal policies.

First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes.  I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission?    If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans – our true north – it is less government and more freedom.  We don’t want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don’t need it in our families.

Secondly, civil marriage also touches the foundation of our national culture: safe, healthy families and robust community life. In so many ways, sound families are the foundation of our society.  Any efforts or opportunity to expand the civil bonds and rights to anyone that wants to build a stable, happy household should be promoted.

Thirdly, by focusing on civil marriage -- but also reserving to religious institutions the right to define marriage as they see fit -- this approach respects religious liberty by stopping at the church door.   As a Catholic, I see marriage as a valued sacrament that exists exclusively between a man and a woman.  Other faiths and belief systems feel differently about this issue – and they have every right to.  Churches must be allowed to define marriage and conduct ceremonies according to their rules, but the government should not tell people who they have a right to marry through a civil ceremony.

I recently read an interview where Ronald Reagan’s daughter said that she believes he would have supported same-sex marriage, that he would think “What difference does it make to anybody else’s life? I also think because he wanted government out of peoples’ lives, he would not understand the intrusion of government banning such a thing. This is not what he would have thought government should be doing.”

Like Reagan, Alaskans believe that government works best when it gets out of the way. Countless Alaskans and Americans want to give themselves to one another and create a home together. I support marriage equality and support the government getting out of the way to let that happen.

[Photo: Lisa Murkowski (Courtesy of the U.S. Senate)]

[Editor's Note: This story as been corrected to reflect that there are 54 senators who support marriage equality.]

Same-sex couples face discrimination in the online rental-housing market at rates higher than opposite-sex couples, according to a first-of-its kind national study released today by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The study found that the "primary form of adverse treatment is that same-sex couples receive significantly fewer responses to e-mail inquiries about advertised units than heterosexual couples." Indeed, straight couples were favored over gay couples in 15.9 percent of tests and over lesbian couples in 15.6 percent of tests. 

According to HUD, "At this preliminary stage of the rental housing transaction, barriers indicate a rejection of the tester based solely on the sexual orientation information provided in the e-mail rather than on any characteristics related to qualification for the housing, thus preventing basic access to rental units."

It is illegal under the Fair Housing Act to discriminate in rental, sales and lending on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and familial status. However, there is no federal law prohibiting such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes. 

The study found "unexpectedly" that jurisdictions with state-level LGBT housing protections showed slightly more discrimination against same-sex couples than those jurisdictions without such protections. Twenty states and D.C., and more than 150 cities, towns and counties have laws that specifically prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals.

Samantha Friedman, an associate professor of Sociology at the University at Albany who helped compile the study, said discrimination could be even more widespread than reported.

"The findings here are alarming but likely provide conservative estimates of such discrimination," Friedman said in a statement. "It is likely that in-person audits will reveal more significant disparities because landlords will have visual cues to confirm the sexual orientation of testers that might not have been as easily detected in the emails."

The study is based on nearly 7,000 email tests conducted in 50 metropolitan markets across the country between June and October of 2011. According to HUD, two emails were sent to the housing provider regarding the unit advertised online for each test with the only difference being the sexual orientation of the two couples. Unfavorable treatment was measured by "whether the tester was told the unit was available, asked to contact the landlord, invited to the see the apartment, or received any response at all." 

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said the agency remains committed to ensuring LGBT people have equal access to housing. 

"President Obama and this administration have been unmatched in our efforts to ensure equal and fair treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons and communities," Donovan said in a statement. "Following the president's lead, HUD has taken historic steps in the area of fair housing to ensure that we fulfill our nation's commitment to equality. As this study shows, we need to continue our efforts to ensure that everyone is treated the same when it comes to finding a home to call their own, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Nevertheless, advocates argue the study is evidence of the need for federal housing protections for LGBT people.

"Conducting this study is yet another example of HUD demonstrating its commitment to the LGBT community," said Ian Thompson, a legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. "But we desperately need congressional action so that the Fair Housing Act is amended to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

[Photo: Shaun Donovan (Courtesy of the Department of Housing and Urban Development)]

[Editor's Note: This story has been updated to include statements from Samantha Friedman and Ian Thompson.]

Read the full study here:

An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples

With momentum building for what is considered one of the last major pieces of LGBT-rights legislation — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — the organization dedicated solely to its passage is ramping up efforts to see ENDA finally become law this year.

"In 2011, we saw a need in the LGBT movement," Freedom to Work founder and President Tico Almeida recently told Metro Weekly. "We saw how effective Freedom to Marry had been in pushing marriage to the forefront of the LGBT agenda. We saw how effective [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network] and Servicemembers United had been pushing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal. ENDA was the only issue within the LGBT movement that did not have a single issue specialist organization dedicated to it exclusively." 

Nearly two years after its founding, Freedom to Work has seen an increase in donations from small and large contributors and is staffing up as ENDA begins to see movement in the Senate and as the White House faces increasing pressure for President Barack Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from anti-LGBT workplace discrimination. 

Almeida, who was lead counsel on ENDA for the House Committee on Education and Labor from 2007 to 2010, says Freedom to Work has raised several hundred thousand dollars in the past year and will now be joined by a new staff dedicated to shoring up the support needed to see ENDA become law 

Gender Rights Maryland Executive Director Dana Beyer will assume the role of chair of Freedom to Work's national advisory board and Scott Wooledge, a writer for the Daily Kos progressive blog, is spearheading the group's aggressive social-media strategy that hopes to, in part, combat a faulty impression by a majority of Americans that ENDA is already law.

Perhaps most notably, Christian Berle, who has served on several Republican campaigns and as deputy executive director of Log Cabin Republicans before leaving in 2012 to work for out congressional candidate Richard Tisei's campaign in Massachusetts, will serve as Freedom to Work’s legislative director.

With only a handful of Democratic holdouts remaining on ENDA, Almeida says Berle's Republican connections are not a coincidence. "It is our goal to visit every Republican office," Almeida said. "We will meet with the most conservative Republicans if they give us the meeting." 

In a statement, Republican Rep. Richard Hanna (N.Y.) praised Berle and said he looks "forward to his work to help build broad bipartisan support for this critical legislation."

"With ENDA, no Republican, Democrat, or Independent’s door should go unvisited and every avenue should be explored to keep the pressure on the leadership in the Senate and the House to bring this important bill up for a vote," Berle said in a statement.

ENDA received its 50th cosponsor in the Senate last week after Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signed on to the bill. It was Sept. 10, 1996, that ENDA came one vote shy of passage in the U.S. Senate, just hours after the same body overwhelmingly approved the Defense of Marriage Act, forbidding federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Nearly 17 years later, as marriage equality has entered the mainstream and the Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of DOMA, there has yet to be another vote on ENDA. That is expected to change this year, at least in the Senate, with a committee markup of the bill anticipated in July.

"LGBT Americans deserve employment protections they've too long been denied. It's that simple. No delays. No excuses," Beyer said in a statement. "As Freedom to Marry exclusively promotes marriage equality, Freedom to Work is the national organization focusing solely on employment protections."

While Almeida credits Evan Wolfson's Freedom to Marry as being a key model to Freedom to Work’s development, he adds that ENDA holds disadvantages to marriage-equality advocacy. "Marriage is aspirational," Almeida said. "If you are a gay teenager you grow up dreaming of being one half of a gay marriage. You do not grow up dreaming about getting fired from your job because you are gay and then using a federal statute to file a claim in federal court to maybe get redress for what happened to you. That is not aspirational."

Despite those disadvantages, the group is undertaking what they call a first for the LGBT-rights movement, conducting a "testing strategy" to catch companies engaged in anti-LGBT discrimination. 

According to the complaint filed last month by Freedom to Work and the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, which focuses on civil rights and employment law, Freedom to Work conducted a "test" in December 2012 that allegedly showed ExxonMobil in violation the Illinois Human Rights Act after the company appeared to give preference to a non-LGBT applicant who was less qualified than an LGBT applicant. The complaint states that both résumés showed the two female applicants involved in activist organizations, but the more qualified applicant was involved with the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and the less qualified applicant was involved with a local feminist organization. 

ExxonMobil is one of the federal government’s top contractors – receiving $505 million taxpayer dollars in contracts in 2012 – with no LGBT-nondiscrimination policy. On May 29 during the company's annual meeting in Dallas, ExxonMobil shareholders voted overwhelmingly, for the 14th consecutive year, to reject a resolution to adopt such a policy.

"We are in the process of uncovering significant evidence that discrimination against gay and transgender people exists. We are in the process of uncovering evidence that will allow us to bring additional lawsuits to highlight companies that are in the minority of the Fortune 500 by refusing to adopt LGBT nondiscrimination," said Almeida.

The testing strategy, which began in December 2012 and will continue as a new batch of résumés are sent out this week, has garnered the attention of the national media and enticed some of Freedom to Work's biggest donors, including the Gill Foundation, the David Bohnett Foundation and donor Jonathan Lewis. 

"For years our organizations have wrung their hands trying to figure out how to put a face on LGBT workplace discrimination and have ignored this historically proven strategy," Lewis said in a statement, "I am proud to have given the seed money last year and operating funds this year to Freedom To Work for their testing initiative and would encourage other donors who want a return on their investment to consider a donation since it must continue until we have succeeded in getting the President to make good on his promise to sign the executive order and Congress passes an inclusive ENDA."

At the same time ENDA's optimistic prospects in the Senate have moved the issue to the front burner for many LGBT groups, the push for Obama to end discrimination today with the flick of his pen has also seen increased momentum in recent weeks following the heckling of first lady Michelle Obama over the issue at a private fundraiser. Although Almeida largely blames senior staff at the White House and the president's spokespeople for their passive support for ENDA over an executive order, he also says Obama has been "missing in action" on building support for ENDA. 

"I think there is a tiny, tiny, tiny chance that ENDA is signed into law in the next year," Almeida said. "I think there is a more significant chance the president will sign the executive order covering a quarter of the American workforce this year. I do think the staff has made a horrible blunder that they have dragged their feet on for over a year, but the president is the decider. The president made the campaign promise in writing, it's his record and his word that will be judged by history if he breaks this promise." 

[Image 1: Tico Almeida (top left), Christian Berle, Dana Beyer, Scott Wooledge (Photos courtesy of Scott Henrichsen and Todd Beeton. Graphic by Todd Franson/Metro Weekly.)
Image 2: "Toss in a little humor and pop culture references, and social media can be a powerful force for leveraging people's personal networks into action," Wooledge says of Freedom to Work's social-media strategy.]

The Social Security Administration announced Friday a policy change long sought by advocates that will protect the privacy of transgender people and make it easier for transgender people to update their gender designation on necessary Social Security documents.

"Effective June 2013, Social Security is making changes to policies that may impact the transgender community in order to ensure we provide meaningful access to our programs," Social Security spokesperson Kia Anderson said in an email to Metro Weekly. "Specifically, we are making it easier for transgender individuals who wish to change their sex on our Social Security Number (SSN) records by accepting new types of evidence. We are no longer requiring surgery to change the sex identification field in our SSN records."

Social Security will now accept a range of different documentation to update the gender field in Social Security records, including a state-issued birth certificate, passport, court order, letter from a surgeon or medical certification.

"Most people may not see this as a big deal, but transgender people know that this seemingly small technical change will protect their privacy and give them more control over their own lives" said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, in a statement.

According to Keisling, the policy change, which advocates have sought for seven years, will have ramifications for transgender people in a variety of ways. Although Social Security cards do not indicate a person's gender, the Social Security Administration still keeps records of gender, which are often used in other programs. For example, Medicare is directly connected to Social Security

"All information for Medicare comes from Social Security, including the gender marker on the Medicare card," Keisling said. "If you are not able to change your gender marker on your Social Security account, your gender marker is going to be messed up in other places. Until today, we've had to fix each program one at a time."

The Social Security Administration has been considering the change over the past year and working with other government agencies to come up with a consistent policy across the government.

"The new policy gets rid of old, arbitrary requirements ... where people had to submit proof of specific medical treatments to update SSA records, even though these may not be available or appropriate for every person. The SSA's revised policy makes it is one of the last remaining major federal agency policies to drop these outdated requirements," said NCTE Director of Policy Harper Jean Tobin in a statement. The military's pension system and other record keeping systems still require requirements abandoned by the Social Security Administration today for gender designations."

Added Tobin, "Prior to this policy update, trans people risked being unsafely outed to front line Social Security staff as well as to any number of other bureaucrats and people they interacted with in their daily lives."

[Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons]

President Barack Obama said the nation has reached a turning point on LGBT equality during a reception for Pride month at the White House Thursday, though he also insisted that the work is not yet done.

"We've become not just more accepting; we've become more loving, as a country, and as a people," Obama said during 12 minutes of remarks to about 100 people in the East Room of the White House. "Hearts and minds change with time. Laws do, too. Change like that isn’t something that starts here in Washington, but it’s something that has the power that Washington has a great deal of difficulty resisting over time."

Listing a long list of accomplishments for his administration, including repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," passage of expanded hate-crime protections and lifting the country's HIV entry ban, Obama reiterated his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). 

"In 34 states, you can be fired just because of who you are or who you love. That's wrong. We've got to change it," Obama said of ENDA, adding, "I want to sign that bill. We need to get it done now. And I think we can make that happen -- because after the last four and a half years, you can't tell me things can’t happen."

Although ENDA is expected to finally receive a vote in the Senate for the first time in 17 years, Obama laid out no specifics on how ENDA might pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. He also avoided mentioning his position on an executive order long called for by advocates that would prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

For more than a year activists have pushed Obama to sign such an executive order, which he promised to do as a candidate for president in 2008, arguing the president could end at least some discrimination today. However, the White House has maintained that they consider the issues mutually exclusive and that they believe passage of ENDA is the correct strategy. Earlier this month, first lady Michelle Obama was interrupted at a private fundraiser by a woman associated with GetEqual protesting the president’s position on the executive order. 

White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated the White House's position to reporters a few hours before the reception, stating, "[W]e have said that we are supporting a legislative effort, the so-called ENDA legislation. And that's the approach that we've taken. So I would not expect any executive order to be signed at the reception."

At Thursday's reception, Obama said there will continue to be setbacks, but, "Eventually, America gets it right." 

"The genius of America is that America can change. And people who love this country can change it. That's what we’re called to do," he said. "And I hope that when we gather here next year, and the year after that, we'll be able to say, with pride and confidence, that together we've made our fellow citizens a little more free. We've made this country a little more equal.  We've made our world a little more full of love."

[Photo: President Barack Obama (right) and Vice President Joe Biden at Thursday's LGBT Pride reception. (Credit: Todd Franson/Metro Weekly)] 

Read Obama's full remarks here:

THE PRESIDENT: All right, I will not beat that act. (Laughter.) We could not be prouder of Zea and Luna for the introduction. And welcome, all of you, to the White House for Pride Month. (Applause.)

Zea and Luna are here with their moms, and also I think with Grandma and Grandpa -- correct? And so feel free to congratulate them afterwards for their outstanding introduction.

There are a few other folks who don't have the same star wattage that I want to acknowledge -- first of all, my Vice President, Joe Biden. (Applause.) We’ve got some outstanding members of Congress here, including a record number from the Congressional Equality Caucus. (Applause.) Eric Fanning, the Under Secretary of the Air Force, is here. (Applause.) Major General Patricia Rose and her wife, Retired Lieutenant Julie Roth, are here. (Applause.) We’ve got Fred Hochberg and Elaine Kaplan, two outstanding members of my team, who are here. (Applause.) And John Berry is here -- John is a former member of my team. You may not recognize him because he looks so well rested now that he’s left the administration. (Laughter.) 

And even though she couldn’t be here today, because she’s getting ready to finally take her seat on the bench and get to work, I want to congratulate Nitza Quinones Alejandro, who, just a few hours ago, was confirmed by the Senate, making her the first openly gay Hispanic federal judge in our country’s history. (Applause.) 

And what I'm especially excited about, in addition to Zea and Luna, we've got citizens from all across the country who wrote me letters over the last several years. And in a letter from Kathleen, a young woman from Massachusetts, I saw someone who had experienced too much discrimination and hatred at such a young age, at the age of 24. But I also read about someone who dreams of becoming a doctor so that she can help others, and who is determined to make a difference because, as she put it, she is “hopeful of a world filled with love.”

Love is what I saw in Valerie and Diane’s letter from North Dakota, who’ve been together for 37 years. Their son, Madison, is here, 14. They told me that when Madison was little -- he’s not little now, by the way. (Laughter.) He used to say that someday, he was going to become president and make it legal for his moms to get married. And now, they added, “I don’t think we’re going to have to wait that long.” (Applause.) 

Madison, I agree with you that it’s time. I agree that you should run for president. (Laughter.) And I agree that we’re not going to have to wait that long -- because from Minnesota to Maryland, from the United States Senate to the NBA, it’s clear we’re reaching a turning point. (Applause.) We’ve become not just more accepting; we've become more loving, as a country, and as a people. Hearts and minds change with time. Laws do, too. Change like that isn’t something that starts here in Washington, but it’s something that has the power that Washington has a great deal of difficulty resisting over time. 

It’s something that comes from the courage of those who stood up, and sat in, and came out. It’s something that comes from the compassion of family and friends and coworkers and teammates who show their love and support. (Baby cries.) Yes, it’s true. (Laughter.)

And it’s something that can be traced back to our Declaration of Independence -- the fundamental principle that all of us are created equal. And as I said in my Inaugural Address, if we truly are created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. (Applause.) 

That’s the principle that’s guided my administration over the past four and a half years. We passed a hate crimes bill in Matthew Shepard’s name. (Applause.) We lifted the HIV entry ban, released the first national HIV/AIDS strategy. We strengthened the Violence Against Women Act to protect LGBT victims. (Applause.) We told hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid that they have to treat LGBT patients just like everybody else. (Applause.) Starting next year, the Affordable Care Act will ban insurance companies from denying someone from coverage just for being LGBT. We put in place new policies that treat transgender Americans with dignity and respect. (Applause.) And because no one should have to hide who they love to serve the country that they love, we ended "don't ask, don't tell" once and for all. (Applause.) 

But part of the reason we're here is because we know we’re not done yet. When Zea and Luna wrote me last December, they told me they would have voted for me if they could have -- thanks, guys. (Laughter.) They also laid out quite an agenda. I hope Congress is listening to them.

But I want them and all of you to know that I’m not giving up the fight to keep our kids safe from gun violence. (Applause.) I’m not giving up the fight for smarter and better schools. I’ll continue to support marriage equality and states’ attempts to legalize it, including in my home state of Illinois. We're not giving up on that. (Applause.) 

And as we saw earlier this year with the gun safety debate, sometimes this stuff takes time, and it’s frustrating. You take two steps forward and sometimes there’s a step back. But I deeply believe in something that Martin Luther King, Jr. said often, and that is that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Eventually, America gets it right.

That doesn’t mean we can be patient. We know from our own history that change happens because people push to make it happen. We've got to do the hard work of educating others, showing empathy to others, changing hearts and minds. And when we do that, then change occurs. It doesn’t come always as quickly as we like, but progress comes. 

We’ve got to keep pushing. We’ve got to make access to health care more available and affordable for folks living with HIV. We’ve got to implement the protections in the Affordable Care Act. We’ve got to keep making our classrooms and our neighborhoods safe for all of our young people. 

And I agree with Susan, a PFLAG mom from Ohio -- we’ve got to end LGBT discrimination in the places where we work. Susan wrote me and said, “If I have a concern it is that there are so many LGBT men and women who contribute to the wealth and growth of our nation … but they still are not protected from harassment in the workplace.” 

And I share that concern. In 34 states, you can be fired just because of who you are or who you love. That’s wrong. We’ve got to change it. There’s a bipartisan bill moving forward in the Senate that would ban discrimination against all LGBT Americans in the workplace, now and forever. We need to get that passed. (Applause.) I want to sign that bill. We need to get it done now. (Applause.)

And I think we can make that happen -- because after the last four and a half years, you can't tell me things can’t happen. Look around. We’ve got gay and lesbian soldiers, and sailors, and airmen, and Marines who are here today. We’ve got married couples from places like New York and Washington State. (Applause.) You’ve got a couple of guys here on stage who I don't think anybody in their high schools thought would be the President and the Vice President of the United States. (Laughter.) So don't tell me that things can't happen when we put our minds to them. (Laughter.)

The genius of America is that America can change. And people who love this country can change it. That’s what we’re called to do. And I hope that when we gather here next year, and the year after that, we’ll be able to say, with pride and confidence, that together we’ve made our fellow citizens a little more free. We’ve made this country a little more equal. We’ve made our world a little more full of love. 

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.) Enjoy the party. (Applause.)

The wait is almost over.

Before the month's end, the nation's highest court will decide two landmark cases that have the potential to dramatically change the marriage-equality movement and the lives of millions gay Americans.

Since the Supreme Court concluded oral arguments nearly three months ago in U.S. v. Windsor, the case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case concerning California's ban on same-sex marriage, advocates have waited for a ruling that could change their movement. 

As argued by Theodore Olson, the conservative half of the star legal duo leading the charge against Proposition 8, during oral arguments before the court on March 26, not only is California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but so is denying same-sex couples the right to marry anywhere in the country.

But while California clerks are preparing for the possibility that they will again be permitted to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time since California voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008, many doubt the high court will usher in marriage equality in all 50 states when it issues its ruling later this month. 

Barring a sweeping ruling in the Proposition 8 case, those who have fought for marriage equality for decades say the work that remains after the Supreme Court rules may look much the same.

"The day after is very much likely to look like the day that came before," Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, told Metro Weekly. "The same strategy that brought us to this point is the strategy that will bring us to our goal nationwide." 

This strategy includes growing the majority who support marriage equality, winning more states and ending federal marriage discrimination in the form of DOMA. But Wolfson insists the strategy has never been individual wins in all 50 states.

"Rather, the strategy is to get a critical mass of states and a critical mass of public support that creates climate for the Supreme Court or potentially Congress to bring the country to national resolution," Wolfson said. "So it's not that we're sitting here saying, 'Oh, my God, how are we going to win in each state over the next multiple decades?' It's rather, 'How can we work as hard and as fast as possible to win as many states as we can to bring the country home?'"

According to Human Rights Campaign Vice President Fred Sainz, "If the Supreme Court returns marriage to California, 30 percent of the U.S. population – including our most populous state -- will live in marriage equality states. When the next marriage cases reaches the high court, there’s no reasonable argument that could be made as to why the remaining 70 percent of the U.S. population could be denied marriage." Sainz adds the momentum after such a ruling, even if it is limited to California, would be enormous.

Despite state legislatures in Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota voting to legalize same-sex marriage in May alone, the strong momentum has still given way to setbacks in recent weeks – setbacks that will likely continue.

After the Illinois Senate passed marriage-equality legislation on Valentine's Day, the bill languished in the state's House of Representatives until the last day of the session, May 31. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) called on the House to vote and even President Barack Obama, who previously served in the state Senate, returned to Chicago for a fundraiser to stump for the bill. 

"I wrestled with this for a long time and I am absolutely convinced it is the right thing to do," Obama said during that late May event.

But it wasn't enough to bring the bill to a vote. Despite assurances they had enough votes for passage, a tearful Rep. Greg Harris (D), the lead sponsor of the bill who is also gay, took to the floor to announce no vote would come this session. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, noted that "political figures are falling over themselves to endorse" marriage equality during oral arguments in the DOMA case. Advocates are now pointing to Illinois as an example of why the Supreme Court must resolve this issue once and for all.

Stating that the Illinois House "neglected the rights of its constituents" by failing to call a vote, HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement that the body's "inaction is a prime example of why the U.S. Supreme Court must rule in favor of full marriage equality nationwide to ensure the security and welfare of these and countless other American families aren't left to chance in future political battles."

Advocates insist the work is not yet done in Illinois and marriage equality could still be secured before the end of the year. However, the disappointment in the House was indicative of a fight that could become increasingly complicated in the absence of a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court. 

There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and the process for repealing such amendments varies significantly from state to state. As noted in a recent report by the Human Rights Campaign, the three different avenues for enacting such a repeal generally include a voter initiative to put the issue on the ballot; legislation approved by state lawmakers; and a constitutional convention. Some states require a combination of those three avenues.

In Nevada, lawmakers have already begun the long and arduous process of repealing the state's ban on marriage equality. Last month, the Nevada Assembly voted 27-14 to repeal the state's 2002 same-sex marriage ban. But in order for the repeal to take effect, the next consecutive legislative session two years from now must also vote to repeal the amendment and then the issue must be presented before voters in 2016. It's less complicated in states such as Oregon, where marriage-equality supporters hope to place a constitutional amendment on the 2014 ballot that would reverse the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The initiative has the support of Gov. John Kitzhaber (D).

A focus also remains on states like New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed marriage-equality legislation approved by lawmakers in early 2012 under the argument it should be an issue left to voters. (Wolfson notes the last time New Jersey put a civil rights issue on the ballot was in 1915, when male New Jersey voters shot down an initiative to grant women the right to vote.) The Legislature has until January 2014 to override Christie’s veto, and organizations like HRC and Freedom to Marry are working to see that it happens.

"The marriage movement has always found a way around the obstacles in front of us. … [A]round, over or above, we've always found a way to advance marriage equality," Sainz said in an email to Metro Weekly. "Assuming the Court returns marriage to California, we'll continue to do that. Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii will be up soon. And Oregon and Nevada will follow with electoral contests overturning their amendments. We won't be stopped until there’s marriage equality in all 50 states." 

But while activists remain focused on states within reach of granting full equality to same-sex couples, without a sweeping ruling focus on the Supreme Court will not fade quietly.

"Unless the court hands us the full victory we are hoping for, our work will be to continue building a majority and preparing to get back to the court with that added momentum," Wolfson said. 

And when might they return to the Supreme Court?

"We're certainly talking years, not decades."

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

[Editor's Note: This article has been updated to include additional comment from Fred Sainz.]

Sen. Patrick Leahy rekindled the debate over inclusion of same-sex couples in immigration reform late Tuesday after filing an amendment similar to one that failed to clear the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. 

"Seeking equal protection under our laws for the LGBT community is the right thing to do," the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement. "I withheld my anti-discrimination amendment during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup. As the entire Senate turns to debate the immigration bill, the fight for equality must go on."

Under immigration law, the amendment seeks to recognize "any marriage entered into in full compliance with the laws of the State or foreign country within which such marriage was performed."

Leahy withheld his amendment after Senate Republicans threatened to derail immigration reform over the inclusion of same-sex couples. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in late May, many Democrats viewed as allies of the LGBT community abandoned the amendment over fear Republicans would doom immigration reform entirely.

But while Leahy has made good on his promise to file his amendment, which would strike for immigration purposes the federal government's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman under the Defense of Marriage Act, it remains to be seen if Senate leadership will agree to bring Leahy's amendment to the floor for a vote. If it does, it is uncertain if the amendment will receive the necessary number of votes to be adopted.

President Barack Obama was a supporter of an LGBT-inclusive immigration bill, but has reiterated throughout the past several months that compromise may leave the legislation lacking provisions he would have otherwise supported. Speaking on the topic of immigration at an event at the White House Tuesday, Obama did not mention inclusion of same-sex couples directly, but said the bill will likely go through more changes during the amendment process on the Senate floor. 

"Now, this bill isn't perfect. It's a compromise," Obama said. "And going forward, nobody is going to get everything that they want -- not Democrats, not Republicans, not me."

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

The White House has threatened to veto a defense spending bill that includes an anti-gay provision advocates say would open the door to discrimination in the military. 

In a lengthy statement of administration policy released Tuesday, the Obama administration outlined its concerns with the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, which was approved by the House Armed Services Committee earlier this month.

"While there are a number of areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration has serious concerns with certain provisions," the statement reads. "[I]f the bill is presented to the President for approval in its current form, the President's senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill."

Among the administration's concerns is a Republican amendment that was proposed by Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming and adopted by the House Armed Services Committee that seeks to expand religious protections, but which LGBT-rights activists insist would impede the implementation of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, 'actions and speech' reflecting the 'conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member,'" the administration statement reads. "By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment." 

Advocates have labeled the provision as unnecessary due to protections that already exist within the military. According to a statement from OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson released earlier this month, the provision "is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to sabotage the climate of inclusion and respect for all that our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense have called for in our military, and would create a license to bully, harass, and discriminate against service members based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any number of other characteristics."

[Photo: The White House (Credit: Justin Snow/Metro Weekly)]

The White House announced Monday President Barack Obama's intent to nominate Daniel Baer as the next ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), who, if confirmed, would become the fourth out LGBT person to serve as a U.S. ambassador and the first to do so for a multilateral institution.

"These men and women have demonstrated knowledge and dedication throughout their careers. I am grateful they have chosen to take on these important roles, and I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come," Obama said in a statement announcing Baer's nomination, along with the nominations of several others.

The OSCE is the world's largest international governmental organization with 57 participating countries focused on security issues, including crisis management and conflict prevention.

Baer joined the Obama administration in 2009 and currently serves as deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the Department of State. A graduate of Harvard University and Oxford University, Baer previously taught at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University and was a faculty fellow in the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University.

The Washington Post reports Baer is one of as many as five out ambassadors Obama is expected to nominate in coming weeks. 

According to Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, Baer is the right pick for the job.

"Deputy Assistant Secretary Baer has led a distinguished career of public service, both at home and abroad," Griffin said in a statement. "Over the last few years at the Department of State, Daniel has worked tirelessly to promote democracy and human rights in every corner of the globe, helping to secure and protect the freedoms of the world's most vulnerable communities. This, paired with his years of global business experience, makes him an outstanding choice to be our nation's next Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe."

Earlier this month, Secretary of State John Kerry marked LGBT Pride month by stating that protecting universal human rights is at the "very heart of our diplomacy."

"LGBT persons must be free to exercise their human rights—including freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and association—without fear of reprisal," Kerry said. "Human rights and fundamental freedoms belong to all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

[Photo: Daniel Baer (Courtesy of the U.S. Department of State)]

The White House is standing behind first lady Michelle Obama's handling of an LGBT-rights activist who interrupted her at a private fundraiser in D.C. on Tuesday to protest the president’s stance on an LGBT executive order.

"[I]t's my personal opinion that she handled it brilliantly," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, one day after the first lady was interrupted by Ellen Sturtz of the LGBT-rights organization GetEqual. Sturtz was confronted by the first lady after interrupting her speech and calling on the president to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Carney reiterated the president's support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, referring to answers he gave to Metro Weekly at the previous day's briefing. Carney said he had not discussed the heckling incident with the president.

Read the full exchange here:

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: The First Lady, at an event last night, was confronted by a protestor who was asking about the executive order for federal contractors, and I'm just wondering if you could explain again why the President hasn't signed the executive order. 

CARNEY: Well, I did yesterday, so I could point you to what I said yesterday. The President fully supports a legislative effort, a bill called ENDA, on this matter. And again, I would just point you to what I said yesterday. 

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: The legislative effort doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Given what you know about how Congress is moving things, I think it's unlikely to move. So I'm just wondering what is the --

CARNEY: I think that assessment is made frequently about difficult propositions, but that does not mean we should not support it and it does not mean that it won't come to pass.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Is there some reason you think it should be a legislative effort and not an executive order?

CARNEY: Again, I've addressed this many times, but we do believe that that’s the right way to go.  It was the right way to go with "don't ask, don't tell" and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and we believe this is the right way to go strategically.  And that’s why we're working with Chairman Harkin and others and pushing for this legislatively. 

Mark. 

CBS NEWS: Jay, if I could follow up on that -- any chance you asked the President what he thinks of the way Mrs. Obama responded to a heckler last evening?

CARNEY: I haven't asked the President that, but it's my personal opinion that she handled it brilliantly.

[Image: Jay Carney (Screenshot via YouTube)]

House Republicans are again attempting to adopt protections for religious liberty in the military that would open the door to discrimination in the wake of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act adopted by the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday evening would "protect inappropriate, defamatory, and discriminatory speech and actions," according to the nation’s largest LGBT military organization. 

"Religious liberty is a core American value, and we support the accommodation of all beliefs. What we can never support is legislation that sanctions one belief at the expense of others and places unit cohesion, the safety of our troops, and their ability to accomplish the mission in jeopardy, and that’s exactly what this bill would do," said OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson in a statement. Moreover, the amendment would take away the ability of military commanders to maintain order by exercising control over behavior in the field and give that authority to lawmakers.

The amendment, offered by Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming, would broaden a "conscience clause" that was included into the defense budget signed into law by President Barack Obama in January. Obama described that provision as "unnecessary and ill-advised," but signed the massive military spending bill anyway because the Constitution forbids him from rejecting particular provisions.

"The military already has in place policies that adequately protect a service member’s personal beliefs while also protecting unit cohesion and good order and discipline," said Robinson. "This amendment is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to sabotage the climate of inclusion and respect for all that our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense have called for in our military, and would create a license to bully, harass, and discriminate against service members based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any number of other characteristics."

The Senate is expected to begin consideration of their own version of the defense bill later this summer.

Senate Democrats are seeking to make protections for LGBT public school students law and part of the rewrite of the nation's massive education bill.

In the 1,150-page revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, often referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act, and introduced yesterday as the Strengthening America's Schools Act, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) included provisions that mirror the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA). If enacted into law, the provisions would prohibit discrimination and harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.

"No child should dread going to school because they don’t feel safe," stated Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who proposed a similar provision two years ago, but was forced to withdraw it in order to secure Republican support. "Our nation's civil rights laws protect our children from bullying due to race, sex, religion, disability, and national origin. My proposal extends these protections to our gay and lesbian students who shouldn't ever feel afraid of going to school. I'm also pleased my provision is now a part of the education bill that will soon be debated in the Senate Education Committee."

The bill received unanimous Democratic support by all members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, including the backing of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the chamber's first out member. No Senate Republicans have yet indicated support for the bill.

"I'm excited that the Student Non-Discrimination Act as introduced by Senator Franken [Tuesday] is also included in the Senate's Early Childhood Education Act (ESEA) for the first time, which would ensure that LGBT students are protected against bullying and harassment in schools," said out Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), the sponsor of SNDA in the House. "SNDA's inclusion in this important bill is reflective of how important protecting all students is and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Education & Workforce Committee to move forward on our bipartisan bill in the House." 

Polis introduced SNDA in the House along with Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) in April. Supporters of SNDA argue it is similar to Title IX, which banned gender discrimination in the 1970s. 

"All students, including LGBT students, deserve equal opportunity to a solid education and all of its benefits," said HRC President Chad Griffin in a statement. "School is where young people learn, grow, and develop mentally and emotionally. It's a space that must be free of discrimination and intimidation. Unfortunately too many are harassed, bullied, and discriminated against causing many to underperform or drop out." 

The LGBT provisions in the education bill come weeks after LGBT-rights advocates were left disappointed and angry after Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, including Franken, abandoned an amendment that would have extended protections to binational same-sex couples due to Republican threats to derail immigration reform. The LGBT-inclusive education bill is expected to face similar opposition from Senate Republicans.

[Photos: Tom Harkin (left) and Al Franken (Courtesy of the U.S. Senate)]

First lady Michelle Obama was interrupted at a DNC fundraiser in D.C. Tuesday evening by an LGBT-rights activist calling on President Barack Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from LGBT workplace discrimination.

"One of the things that I don't do well is this. Do you understand?" the first lady said to applause, according to a White House transcript.

Obama then left the lectern under a white tent in the backyard of the residence of Karen Dixon and Nan Schaffer in Northwest D.C. and approached the heckler, who was Ellen Sturtz of the LGBT-rights organization GetEqual.

"[L]isten to me or you can take the mic, but I'm leaving. You all decide. You have one choice," Obama said, according to the pool reporter at the fundraiser.

The crowd urged Obama to stay, with one woman near Sturtz shouting, "You need to go!"

Sturtz was eventually escorted out while shouting that she was a "lesbian looking for federal equality before I die." The incident came hours after White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated to reporters in response to questioning from Metro Weekly the president's support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) instead of an executive order requiring LGBT nondsicrimination protections among federal contractors.

Obama promised to sign such an executive order as a candidate for president in 2008. In April 2012, he backpedaled on that promise and advocates have been pushing the White House to act ever since.

The fundraiser was also attended by the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In a statement released by GetEqual after the incident, Strutz said she felt compelled to interrupt the first lady as she discussed a better future for the next generation. 

"I lived and worked in the closet, hiding who I was in order to earn a living," said Sturtz. "I had planned to speak tonight with DNC officials but, as the First Lady was talking about our childrens' future and ensuring that they have everything they need to live happy and productive lives, I simply couldn't stay silent any longer. I'm looking ahead at a generation of young people who could live full, honest, and open lives with the stroke of the President's pen, and I was hoping that the First Lady would share my concern for all of our young people."

[Photo: Michelle Obama (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)]

It was more than a year ago, in April 2012, that leaders from some of the nation's largest LGBT-rights organizations sat down for a meeting at the White House. In attendance was White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, who told them that President Barack Obama would not sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from LGBT workplace discrimination.

The news was a major and unexpected blow that came after weeks of speculation that the president would make good on his 2008 campaign promise to sign such an executive order, which would protect about 20 percent of the civilian workforce.

Among the consolations made to advocates in the room that day was news that a study would be conducted on LGBT workplace discrimination, possibly led by the Council of Economic Advisors, and released with the White House's seal of approval. Advocates insisted the study was unnecessary and that plenty of data already existed. Winnie Stachelberg, executive vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, was among those in the meeting and described announcement of the study as "confounding and disappointing."

"The LGBT community of organizations working on this issue -- not just HRC -- told the White House that it had all of the research it needed and that any further research or studies was just kicking the can down the road," HRC Vice President Fred Sainz recalled Tuesday in an email to Metro Weekly. 

But while White House spokesman Shin Inouye confirmed to Metro Weekly last month that the administration continues to study the issue, more than a year later no study has been released and the White House is revealing few details.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney offered no updates or details on the reported study, instead repeating, much as he has for the past year, the president’s continued support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

"I don't have any updated status on that for you," Carney said in response to questioning from Metro Weekly. "I think that the president's record on support for LGBT rights is significant and well known. The president believes the right approach to this problem is an inclusive piece of legislation and that’s the approach that we’re taking. It was the approach we took with repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and we continue to support this effort. We welcome Chairman [Tom] Harkin's steps in the direction of holding a vote on this. So that's the position we think is right, strategically, when it comes to making this happen."

Carney's statements Tuesday have only added to frustration with a White House that otherwise has "done virtually everything right," as Sainz put it. But continued inaction by the White House to address the executive order – which almost all supporters of ENDA universally agree would build momentum for a piece of legislation that has been stalled in Congress for decades, and would add antidiscrimination protections for some immediately – has disappointed advocates who look to Obama as the strongest LGBT ally to ever occupy the White House.

"We can't wrap our minds around why the White House won't issue the EO. It's just mind-boggling. This is a White House that has done virtually everything right," said Sainz. "This President has shown tremendous leadership and advanced equality in historic and unprecedented ways. With that perspective, it's very frustrating and hard to understand why they are unwilling to take this opportunity to protect as many LGBT people as possible from the prospects of workplace discrimination."

Much as Metro Weekly noted last week, Sainz said Obama's signature would force a company like ExxonMobil, which is one of the federal government’s top contractors and received $505 million taxpayer dollars in contracts in 2012, to adopt an LGBT nondiscrimination policy. On May 29 during their annual meeting in Dallas, ExxonMobil shareholders voted overwhelmingly, for the 14th consecutive year, to reject a resolution to adopt such a policy.

Advocates insist delay on the executive order, let alone a study of LGBT workplace discrimination, is baffling. "All of the data is out there on this issue," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"At the White House meeting last year, HRC's Joe Solmonese did a particularly strong job pushing back on the idea floated by Valerie Jarrett, Ceclia Munoz and John Berry that the White House or some other federal agency might possibly launch a study about LGBT workplace discrimination rather than the president signing the long-stalled executive order at that time," recalled Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, referring the HRC's president at the time. "I'm proud that all of us in the White House meeting presented a united front and rejected the need to waste taxpayer money on some unnecessary government study. There's no need to delay this any longer."

Since last year, 37 senators, 110 members of Congress and 54 progressive organizations have signed on to letters calling for Obama to sign the executive order. However, the White House hasn’t budged, instead referring to what was a very real executive order a year ago to a "hypothetical" executive order when asked about it now.

Among those senators who have pushed the president to act is Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the lead sponsor of ENDA in the Senate. Speaking Tuesday at a Center for American Progress event unveiling a new report that shows the hardships the nation's estimated 5.4 million LGBT workers face, Merkley said he will continue to encourage Obama to act.

"I do feel it is completely compatible with the legislative route," Merkley said of the executive order. "I feel the more that you have in place examples of nondiscrimination working, the more you take away the excuses from anyone who might argue it’s unworkable at some level. But it has been the president's decision as of now to wait and see what happens on the legislative front."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who is chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is expected to call for a markup of ENDA later this summer and, according to Merkley, 17 years after the last Senate vote on ENDA, "We will this year pass employment nondiscrimination in the U.S. Senate."

Meanwhile, with ENDA's uncertain future in the House of Representatives, pressure on Obama will continue as long as he holds the power to end discrimination today, with the White House's lackluster response to questions about a study few wanted only fueling advocates' frustration and perhaps also their resolve.

"This President is rightly held to a higher standard," said Sainz. "He can and should sign the EO immediately."

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