While the Boy Scouts of America finally closed the door on discrimination against gay youth yesterday, anti-gay leaders have said lifting the ban will be the death of the 103-year-old organization.

"Sadly, the Boy Scouts' legacy of producing great leaders has become yet another casualty of moral compromise," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a statement. "Unfortunately, Boy Scout delegates capitulated to strong-arm tactics and abandoned the timeless values that have served the organization well for more than 100 years."

According to Perkins, who showered praise on the BSA a little less than a year ago when the organization upheld their longstanding discriminatory ban on gay members and leaders, yesterday's vote to lift the ban was the result of weak BSA leadership.

"It is clear that the current BSA leadership will bend with the winds of popular culture, and the whims of liberal special interest groups. There is little doubt that God will soon be ushered out of scouting. Now is the time for new leadership," stated Perkins. "In the meantime, we will stand with those BSA Councils who will now act to protect boys from a new policy that only creates moral confusion and disrespects the views of the vast majority of Scouting parents."

More than 60 percent of the 1,400 members of the BSA's 270 councils voted yesterday to approve a resolution backed by BSA leadership to lift the ban on gay youth under the age of 18. The ban on gay adult leaders was not considered and will remain in place. 

According to Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, which, unlike the FRC, played little role in the debate over the ban the past several months, the vote is the "beginning of the end for what once was one of America's noblest organizations."

"Their decision to admit openly gay scouts will end up sexualizing the organization. I am certain that having changed their policy on homosexuality, it's only a matter of time before courts order them to admit homosexual scout leaders," Brown said in a statement. "Meanwhile, countless thousands of churches will very likely pull their sponsorship rather than endorse homosexuality, and the entire organization will begin to collapse."

Advocates have vowed to continue to fight the remaining ban on gay adult leaders, stating that the message it sends to youth — that it is only acceptable to be a gay Scout until the age of 18 — is highly damaging. The BSA, however, have stated they consider the matter closed.

The Mormon Church, which is the largest sponsor of Scout units, said in a statement released after yesterday’s vote that they were “grateful to BSA for their careful consideration of these issues.” 

"We appreciate the positive things contained in this current proposal that will help build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of youth as we work together in the future," the statement read. 

Taking to Twitter, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association called on the Mormon Church to cut ties with the BSA. Later, Fischer questioned if the leadership of the church "may support gay Scouts because advancing the gay agenda may lead to the return of polygamy." 

"BSA now stands for Boy Sodomizers of America, because that's what will happen. Mark my words," Fischer tweeted.

[Images: Bryan Fischer (left) and Tony Perkins (Screenshots courtesy of YouTube).]

The Boy Scouts of America will end its longstanding ban on gay youth while maintaining a ban on gay adult leaders after a historic vote today at the organization's annual national meeting in Dallas.

More than 61 percent of the 1,400 members of the BSA's 270 councils voted to lift the ban earlier this afternoon, but the results of the secret ballot were not revealed until three hours later.

"No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone," the resolution stated. Supported by the BSA leadership and released in April after months of pressure from outside organizations, for the first time in the organization's 103-year history, Scouts under the age of 18 who are gay will no longer be kicked out because of their sexual orientation. The policy will take effect Jan. 1, 2014. 

Although the vote was a major win for advocates, it was also not the end of a fight that has gone on for decades.

"Today is a historic day for Boy Scouts across the country who want to be a part of this great American institution," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement. "But the new policy doesn't go far enough. Parents and adults of good moral character, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to volunteer their time to mentor the next generation of Americans."

"The Boy Scouts of America can do better," added Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality, in a statement. "We welcome the news that the ban on gay Scouts is history, but our work isn't over until we honor the Scout Law by making this American institution open and affirming to all."

In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the BSA could prohibit gay people from serving. But as the tide of public opinion about homosexuality has shifted (a recent Gallup poll found 54 percent of American adults consider gay relations morally acceptable), pressure has increased for the BSA to catch up with the times. 

Almost one year ago, in July, the BSA upheld its ban on gay youth and leaders. The ban's reaffirmation came after the recommendation of an anonymous 11-member committee that studied the issue for two years.

However, following public backlash and countless outside petitions launched by Change.org that saw nearly 2 million people call for an end to the ban as well as organizing efforts by GLAAD, the BSA sought another review. According to a BSA release from April announcing the proposed resolution, the response the BSA received was clear: "While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community, and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.”

In a column published Wednesday in USA Today, BSA President Wayne Perry called for adoption of the resolution as the "right decision for Boy Scouts."

"The BSA's executive committee unanimously presented this resolution because it stays true to Scouting's mission and remains focused on kids," Perry wrote. "No matter what your opinion is on this issue, America needs Scouting, and our policies must be based on what is in the best interest of our nation's children."

Although conservative groups warned lifting the ban on gay youth would lead to the destruction of an American institution, the resolution received a major boost when the Mormon Church, which is the largest sponsor of Scout units, said it was "satisfied" with the BSA's proposal.

But while today's vote was a victory for advocates, they insist their work is not yet finished, although the BSA indicated in a statement that they have "no plans for further review on this matter." For adults who wish to work for the BSA or volunteer as leaders for Scout troops, the BSA will still prohibit them from doing so.

"Having to look my son, Cruz, in the eye and tell him that our family isn't good enough was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. Today is truly a watershed moment for me, but even more so for the millions of kids across this country, who will now be allowed to serve in the Scouts without fear of rejection," said Jennifer Tyrrell, the Ohio lesbian mother who was ousted as leader of her son's Cub Scout pack in April 2012. "I'm so proud of how far we've come, but until there's a place for everyone in Scouting, my work will continue."

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to say what role the White House played in convincing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy to withhold his immigration amendment for binational same-sex couples during last night's committee hearing. 

Following a Tuesday Associated Press report that stated the White House had advised the Vermont Democrat to wait to propose his amendment until the immigration reform bill reaches the full Senate, Carney told reporters he was "not aware" of any such conversation.

"We are obviously engaged in conversations with the main players on this issue on a regular basis. And I don't have the contents of all those conversations," Carney said.

Leahy was successfully pressured by many members of his own party on the Senate Judiciary Committee to withdraw an amendment that would have provided protections for binational same-sex couples in immigration reform amid threats from Republicans to derail immigration reform if it were adopted.

Asked if he denied the AP report, Carney responded, "I'm not aware of that conversation."

"What I can tell you is the president supports the amendment," Carney continued. "The president also believes, as he made clear in Costa Rica, that we need to accept that we may not get everything we want. It doesn't mean we're not going to fight for the things that we believe in, and this president will."

In a statement released after the committee voted 13-5 to move the immigration-reform bill for consideration by the full Senate, President Obama said in a statement, "None of the Committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I." According to Obama, he hopes the bill will be improved with further amendments on the Senate floor. 

Asked Wednesday what specific improvements the president would like to see to the bill, Carney named Leahy’s amendment for binational same-sex couples.

"I think he's made clear that he supports that and would like to see Congress support that," Carney said. "He's also made clear that he doesn’t expect to get everything he wants in this bill. It doesn't mean he won't fight for everything he wants, but he understands that compromise means not getting every single thing that you want."

[Image: Jay Carney (Screenshot via YouTube)]

As one of the last Fortune 500 companies to not adopt an LGBT antidiscrimination policy, ExxonMobil is facing renewed pressure to do so after a complaint was filed today with the Illinois Department of Human Rights.

According to the complaint filed 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 they gave preference to a non-LGBT applicant who was less qualified than an LGBT applicant. According to the complaint:

In particular, when a highly qualified LGBT candidate applied to work as an administrative assistant for Exxon in Illinois, Exxon refused to invite the applicant for an interview and never contacted her about her interest in the position. In stark contrast, during the same time period a less qualified non-LGBT applicant applied for the same position and Exxon responded by contacting the less qualified non-LGBT applicant on three separate occasions to ask her to interview for the position. On the third occasion that Exxon contacted the non-LGBT applicant, Exxon’s representative even suggested that the position would be held open for the non-LGBT applicant for four days until the applicant could contact Exxon. And even after the non-LGBT candidate failed to respond to Exxon’s request for an interview, Exxon did not contact the better qualified LGBT candidate for an interview.

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. 

Although ExxonMobil's headquarters are located in Texas, which does not have LGBT workplace protections, and there are no federal protections due to the unsuccessful passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) by Congress, the complaint states that the Illinois Human Rights Act governs employment in that state where the open position with ExxonMobil was located.

"Exxon broke the law, defies industry standards and continues to betray the American people’s sense of fairness," said Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, in a statement. "This case is one more reminder that Exxon stands virtually alone in the Fortune 100 in denying qualified gay and transgender Americans a fair shot to get a job based on their talents and hard work. Exxon must obey the Golden Rule and do unto others as they would want others to do unto them."

The complaint comes one week before the company holds its annual shareholder's meeting in Dallas, where a resolution to adopt a policy banning anti-LGBT discrimination will be considered. Introduced by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, the resolution is similar to one considered last year by shareholders, who rejected it with an 80 percent to 20 percent vote.

"This case shows why Exxon must adopt and implement a policy banning discrimination based on who you are or who you love," said Peter Romer-Friedman, an attorney at Cohen Milstein, in statement. 

The Human Rights Campaign's 2013 Corporate Equality Index awarded ExxonMobil a score of -25. Of all Fortune 500 companies, 88 percent have a nondiscrimination policy for sexual orientation and 57 percent have one for gender identity. Of the top 20 Fortune-ranked companies, which includes ExxonMobil, 13 received scores of 100 percent.

ExxonMobil is also one of the government's top 100 contractors. In 2012, more than $505 million taxpayer dollars in federal contracts were awarded to ExxonMobil. There remains no law prohibiting federal contractors from LGBT workplace discrimination as long as ENDA remains stalled in Congress and President Barack Obama refuses to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating.

"Taxpayers are subsidizing policies that betray core American values of fairness and equality," said Almeida. "It's crucial that we stop wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on Exxon's refusal to follow basic corporate workplace standards."

Read the full complaint here:

ExxonMobil Complaint

Tuesday evening witnessed an increasingly rare defeat for the LGBT-rights movement after Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) was successfully pressured by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to withdraw an amendment that would have provided protections for binational same-sex couples in immigration reform.

At a time when advocates have been championing the momentum that is on their side as one state after another legalizes marriage equality and as the Democratic Party has fully embraced their cause, the actions of the committee on Tuesday were striking and, according to some activists, a betrayal.

"I don't want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country," said Leahy, who chairs the committee, when they turned to his amendment at the end of a markup period that began earlier this month. The amendment, Leahy said, would recognize married binational same-sex couples for immigration purposes, just as married binational straight couples are recognized.

But amid months of Republican threats to derail immigration reform that have only grown louder in recent weeks, Leahy turned to his colleagues who are part of the "gang of eight" to hear their thoughts on his amendments and why these protections were left out in the first place.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that "the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart" if the amendment was adopted. "It would be a bridge too far," Graham said.

Added Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, another member, "It would certainly mean this bill would not move forward." 

But for those who have witnessed Democrats voice their commitment to LGBT-inclusive immigration reform, it was the disintegration of support among Democrats that proved most striking. While each prefaced their statements by affirming their commitment to marriage equality and the goal of Leahy's amendment, every Democrat who spoke Tuesday evening urged Leahy to wait. Many noted that the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) is still pending before Congress and the Supreme Court is slated to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act next month. 

"I would just implore to hold off on this amendment at this time," said Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), stating it would "blow this bill apart." 

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said he believed Leahy’s amendment was the right thing to do, but, "I believe that this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill." 

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) both expressed concerns as well. Describing this as the "most excruciatingly difficult decision" of his career and saying not to adopt the amendment would be "rank discrimination," Schumer said he could not support the amendment if it would bring down the bill. 

"I will be here and ready to work with you, LGBT community, at each turn after this one to advance the cause of legal equality," Schumer said. "This is far from our last battle together."

Shortly after 7 p.m., May 21, Leahy announced what seemed inevitable at that point.

"I take the Republican sponsors of this important legislation at their word that they will abandon their own efforts if discrimination is removed from our immigration system," Leahy said. "So, with a heavy heart, and as a result of my conclusion that Republicans will kill this vital legislation if this antidiscrimination amendment is added, I will withhold calling for a vote on it. But I will continue to fight for equality."

Not long after, the committee voted 13-5 to move the immigration-reform bill for consideration by the full Senate, which is expected to take up the legislation in June. As the committee room erupted into chants of "Yes we can!" LGBT activists, who praised aspects of the bill, were left disappointed and angry.

"I think that Chairman Leahy is the only person whose grandchildren will not be embarrassed," said Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, referring to a question previously posed by Leahy about what future generations will think of their actions that day.

Speaking to Metro Weekly just outside the committee room doors, Tiven said it was striking that for so many Democratic senators who call themselves supporters of the LGBT community, few seemed to truly understand the families Leahy's amendment would have helped.

"I wonder if he would have called a vote if he would have gotten even one Democrat on that committee to support it," said Tiven. "It was so shameful to hear senator after senator say nothing when they have looked their constituents in the eye and said, 'I understand you are an immigrant family like any other.'"

Tiven and others have said there will be consequences, at the ballot box and at the campaign finance office. Although blame has been assigned to Republican members of the "gang of eight" for threatening to doom immigration reform entirely if protections were provided to the country’s estimated 28,000 binational same-sex couples, Democrats are also facing blame for not standing up to those threats.

"Instead of working to achieve common-sense solutions, Senators Graham, Flake, McCain and Rubio threatened to derail the entire immigration bill to appease a small but vocal group of anti-gay social conservatives that will do anything to stop progress for lesbian and gay couples," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement. "We are extremely disappointed that our allies did not put their anti-LGBT colleagues on the spot and force a vote on the measure that remains popular with the American people."

Added Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, co-director of GetEqual, "Today it became clear that our so-called 'friends' don't have the courage or the spine to stand up for what's right, and are content to buy into the false choice that Republicans created — holding a sorely-needed immigration bill hostage in order to cement inequality into law." 

As the immigration reform bill moves forward, it is expected to become increasingly more difficult to attach Leahy's amendments when the legislation faces the full Senate. Many Democrats seem hopeful the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA and make this a nonissue for immigration reform, but advocates insist that is a risky bet to make.

In a statement released Tuesday night, President Barack Obama, who had originally called for same-sex couples to be included in immigration reform, reiterated that the bill was the product of compromise.

"None of the Committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I," Obama said. Earlier Tuesday the Associated Press reported the White House was advising Leahy to wait to offer his amendments until the bill reached the full Senate. In his statement, Obama added that he remains "hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements."

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

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy withdrew two amendments to immigration reform that would have provided protections for binational same-sex couples Tuesday evening.

At the end of the committee's markup of the Senate's immigration reform bill, the Vermont Democrat announced he would withdraw his amendments "with a heavy heart" amid Republican threats to derail immigration reform if they were included in the bill by the committee.

"I don't want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country," Leahy said when the committee began to consider his amendment.

Leahy's decision comes after weeks of pressure from LGBT-rights advocates who have sought an LGBT-inclusive immigration reform bill.

Leahy's first amendment would add protections that mirror the language of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would recognize immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same sex and grant rights denied to immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same sex, including eligibility for green cards, due to the Defense of Marriage Act. His second amendment would provide equal protection to married binational same-sex couples.

Members of the committee said the issue should be addressed at another time. Democratic members also said the issue could be resolved by passage of UAFA or after the Supreme Court rules on DOMA in June.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the "gang of eight" that drafted the bill, warned that "the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart" if the amendment was adopted. 

"It would be a bridge too far," Graham said if same-sex marriage made its way into the final bill.

Added Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, "It would certainly mean this bill would not move forward." 

A number of Democrats, known as LGTB allies, voiced concerns that Leahy's amendments would cause the bipartisan coalition that helped draft the legislation to disintegrate as well. 

"I would just implore to hold off on this amendment at this time," said Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), stating it would "blow this bill apart."

Said Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, "I believe that this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill."

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) both expressed concerns as well, despite avowing their opposition to discrimination. 

Describing this as the "most excruciatingly difficult decision" of his career and saying not to adopt the amendment would be "rank discrimination," Schumer said he could not support the amendment if it would bring down the bill.

"I will be here and ready to work with you, LGBT community, at each turn after this one to advance the cause of legal equality," Schumer said. "This is far from our last battle together." 

The bill is expected to be considered by the Senate in June, where Leahy's amendments, if considered, will face another uphill battle by the full body. 

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

The pressure is on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy to bring a vote on two amendments he filed to provide protections for binational same-sex couples in immigration reform. But as of late Tuesday afternoon, it remains unclear if Leahy will do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Peace Corps will begin accepting applications from same-sex couples who want to serve overseas beginning early next month, the organization announced Tuesday.

"Service in the Peace Corps is a life-defining leadership experience for Americans who want to make a difference around the world," Deputy Director Hessler-Radelet said in a statement. "I am proud that the agency is taking this important step forward to allow same-sex domestic partners to serve overseas together."

The Peace Corps will require same-sex couples to sign an affidavit to verifying their relationship. Since the Peace Corps was establishment in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, married couples have been permitted to volunteer together overseas. More than 8,000 people serve in 76 countries today and 7 percent of assignments are filled by straight married couples.

The application process will open to same-sex couples on June 3, and applications can take up to a year to process. According to the Peace Corps, they are working with field staff to determine countries and communities safe for same-sex couples.

"The Peace Corps has long looked to expand opportunities to serve and reflect the diversity of the United States in its volunteers abroad," reads a supplemental statement released by the Peace Corps. "In 2009, President Obama directed agencies to take steps, where possible, to expand access and benefits to the LGBT community, and that also drove the development of this policy. The agency has recognized an interest among prospective volunteers and believes same-sex couples will bring new skills and experiences to the field that will benefit the organization.

"... The Peace Corps will only consider placement of same-sex couples in countries where homosexual acts are not criminalized. There are many factors that affect ultimate placements, including applicants’ overall competitiveness, program availability, departure dates, medical accommodations and safety."  

Outside organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, worked with the Peace Corps and its LGBT groups to assist with implementation of the inclusive policy.

"Like many of the administrative advancements, this is an important step to leveling the playing field and giving opportunities for same-sex couples to serve their country," said HRC spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz.

Virginia General Assembly legislators overall earned higher pro-gay rankings on an annual legislative scorecard published by Equality Virginia Advocates Monday, due largely in part to the presence of an anti-bullying bill that did not specifically address LGBT students but allows individual school districts, particularly more progressive ones, to set forth their own standards and procedures regarding bullying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama will posthumously award the nation's highest civilian honor to lesbian astronaut Sally Ride, the White House announced Monday.

Ride, who became the first American woman to travel to space in 1983, will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom later this year. Protective of her private life, she came out in her obituary after she died in July following a 17-month battle with pancreatic cancer. 

"We remember Sally Ride not just as a national hero, but as a role model to generations of young women," Obama said in a statement. "Sally inspired us to reach for the stars, and she advocated for a greater focus on the science, technology, engineering and math that would help us get there. Sally showed us that there are no limits to what we can achieve, and I look forward to welcoming her family to the White House as we celebrate her life and legacy."

Ride devoted much of her life to advancing science education and the U.S. space program. According to the White House, Ride's partner of 27 years, Tam O'Shaughnessy, along with Ride's mother and sister, were notified the president had selected Ride for the honor last week.

[Photo: Sally Ride (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)]

Ten out LGBT elected or appointed officials will be honored for their commitment to equality and public service at the White House on Wednesday afternoon as "Harvey Milk Champions of Change."

"When President Obama posthumously awarded Harvey Milk the Medal of Freedom in 2009, he praised his leadership and courage in running for office. Today, we honor Harvey Milk's legacy in these ten outstanding public servants, who will surely inspire the next generation of public servants," said Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to the president, in a statement announcing the event.

Wednesday's ceremony will coincide with the birthday of Harvey Milk, who was assassinated in 1978, less than a year after he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 

According to Chuck Wolfe, president of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, "These are LGBT leaders who have demonstrated a strong commitment to both equality and public service. They are citizen legislators, executives and appointees who serve honestly, openly and proudly."

The Champions of Change program was established by the White House as a means to honor those "who are doing extraordinary things to empower and inspire members of their communities."

Read the White House's bios of the 10 officials who will be honored here: 

Simone Bell
Georgia State Representative
Atlanta, GA

Simone Bell serves in Georgia House District 58 in Atlanta, Georgia. After more than 20 years of advocacy and activism around a host of issues she won a special election in 2009 and became the first African American out lesbian to win a seat in a State House in the United States. Representative Bell serves on Inter-Governmental Coordination, Juvenile Justice, and Human Relations and Aging committees, and is a respected member of the Democratic Caucus WHIP Team. Representative Bell shares her life with her partner of 24 years, Valarie Acree.

Angie Buhl O'Donnell
South Dakota State Senator
Sioux Falls, SD

Senator Buhl O’Donnell, 28, is in her second term in the South Dakota State Senate, serves as the minority caucus chair, and is the first openly LGBT person elected to any office in the state.  Senator Buhl O'Donnell has a background in non-profit work, and has advocated for LGBT South Dakotans, as well as for women, Native Americans, workers, low-income families, domestic violence and sexual assault victims.  A proud 4th generation South Dakotan, Senator Buhl O'Donnell represents the heart of Sioux Falls, South Dakota's largest city, where she resides with her husband, Jacob. 

Karen Clark
Minnesota State Representative
South Minneapolis, MN

Representative Karen Clark was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1980, making her the longest serving openly gay or lesbian state legislator in the country.  She represents three inner city neighborhoods in South Minneapolis, the lowest income district in the state.  Representative Clark is an advocate for low income, Indigenous American Indian and community of color constituents, including many new Americans.  A former public health nurse, current college instructor and co-founder of the Women’s Environmental Institute, some of Representative Clark’s major legislative accomplishments include chief authoring and passing worker and consumer right-to-know toxic exposure laws, affordable housing and homelessness initiatives, youth and dislocated worker job training strategies and numerous  human rights, environmental justice  and anti-discrimination protections. Recently, Representative Clark authored and helped pass the 2013 Minnesota Freedom to Marry bill with bi-partisan support.

Michael A. Gin
Mayor of Redondo Beach
Redondo Beach, CA

Mayor Michael A. Gin is currently serving on his second term as the 28th Mayor of the City of Redondo Beach, having been reelected in March 2009.  As Mayor, he has seen the city through several years of economic challenges with a consistently balanced budget and a thriving local economy.  He has worked to bring the community together from all sectors on various issues, resulting in uniquely collaborative solutions.  Mayor Gin has been in public service for over 20 years.

Kim Coco Iwamoto
Hawaii State Civil Rights Commissioner
Honolulu, HI 

Kim Coco Iwamoto, a certified therapeutic foster parent, was elected to Hawaii’s State Board of Education in 2006 and re-elected in 2010.  During her time in office, Commissioner Iwamoto was able to implement many of the policy recommendations of the Department of Education’s Safe School Community Advisory Committee, and in 2011, she drafted the Hawaii Safe Schools Act, which gave the legislature and the governor an opportunity to join the effort to reduce bullying and harassment in public schools.  The bill was signed into law later that year.  In 2012, Commissioner Iwamoto was appointed and confirmed to the Hawaii State Civil Rights Commission.

John Laird
California Secretary of Natural Resources
Santa Cruz, CA

John Laird has a forty year public service career, including twenty-three years in elected office.  In 1983, he was one of the first openly gay Mayors in the country.  His election to the state legislature in 2002 made him one of the first openly gay men elected to the California legislature, where he was author of 82 bills signed into law and was part of leadership as Budget Chair. He was appointed California’s Secretary of Natural Resources on January 5, 2011.  Secretary Laird resides in Santa Cruz and Sacramento, with his spouse John Flores.

Ricardo Lara
California State Senator
Long Beach, CA

In 2012, Senator Ricardo Lara, a native of East Los Angeles, became the first openly gay person of color elected to the California State Senate.  He is the first LGBT legislator to Chair the California Latino Legislative Caucus and also serves as Vice Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and as a member of the Committee on Senate Rules.  Senator Lara represents parts of Southeast Los Angeles and Long Beach, which is home to the nation’s largest port complex and one of the most diverse populations in the United States.

Kim Painter
Johnson Country Recorder
Iowa City, IA 

Kim Painter serves as Johnson County Recorder in Iowa City, Iowa.  In 1998, she became the first openly gay person to win election to public office in Iowa.  In 2007, she was selected by peers to serve as president of the Iowa State Association of Counties.  She has also chaired Iowa’s Commission on the Status of Women.  She and spouse Jessica Kardon have been together for 17 years. They married in Iowa in 2009.

Chris Seelbach
Cincinnati City Council Member
Cincinnati, OH

When he was elected in 2011, Chris Seelbach became the first openly gay person ever elected in the city of Cincinnati.  Since taking office, Council Member Seelbach has led efforts to extend equal partner health insurance to all city employees, create an LGBT liaison in the police and fire departments, and make it mandatory for anyone accepting subsidies or funding from the city to agree, in writing, to follow an inclusive non-discrimination policy. 

Pat Steadman
Colorado State Senator
Denver, CO

An attorney by training, Senator Pat Steadman has worked for equal rights for LGBT Coloradans for over two decades.  In 1992, he helped organize the lawsuit challenging Colorado's infamous "Amendment 2," an anti-gay initiative that was declared unconstitutional by the United State Supreme Court in 1996 in the landmark Romer v. Evans ruling.  Prior to his election, Senator Steadman was a partner in a successful lobbying firm in Denver where his clients included LGBT advocacy groups, and on their behalf he championed anti-discrimination laws, second parent adoption, hate crimes protections and equal benefits laws.  Senator Steadman was the lead sponsor of Colorado's recently enacted civil unions law. 

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

The anti-gay Family Foundation of Virginia last week released its 2012-2013 General Assembly ratings providing overall "pro-family scores" for Virginia legislators ahead of this year’s elections for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and the House of Delegates.

The 12th edition of the "report card" ranks legislators on a number of issues the Family Foundation, an organization pushing for public policy to be based upon the values of "life, marriage, parental authority, constitutional government and religious liberty," deems important, from school choice to abortion to public prayer.

"It is our hope that the report card, along with voter guides TFF Action will distribute in the fall will motivate citizens to vote, and help them make informed choices when they go to the voting booth," the Family Foundation wrote on its website announcing the ratings.

The report card rates legislators on four specifically LGBT-related issues: the "conscience clause" adoption bill signed into law by Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) in 2012; the confirmation of Virginia’s first openly gay judge, Tracy Thorne-Begland, to the Richmond General District Court; a bill signed into law this year that allows student groups at public colleges and universities to discriminate based on religious, political or philosophical beliefs; and a measure that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment - which was considered as a bill in the Virginia Senate, and as a floor amendment to a budget bill in the House of Delegates.

The report card ratings highlight an intensely partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to LGBT issues, particularly among those candidates seeking higher office, with Democrats largely voting in favor of LGBT rights and Republicans opposed, even in the more socially liberal areas of Northern Virginia.

Nine state senators and 13 delegates received perfect scores on a scale of 0 to 100 from the Family Foundation, including two of the seven canddiates for lieutenant governor: Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William, Fauquier counties) and Sen. Stephen Martin (R-Chesterfield, Amelia counties, Colonial Heights). Both Republican candidates for attorney general were also among those getting top marks from the Family Foundation: Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg, Rockingham, Rappahannock, Shenandoah, Page, Warren counties) and Del. Rob Bell (R-Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Rockingham counties).

In contrast, Sen. Mark Herring (D-Loudoun, Fairfax counties), one of two Democrats running for his party’s nomination for attorney general, received a score of just 18; while Sen. Ralph Northam (D-Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Northampton, Mathews, Accomack counties), one of two Democrats running for lieutenant governor, received a rating of 25. Herring's and Northam's respective party-primary candidates, Justin Fairfax and Aneesh Chopra, were not rated by the Family Foundation, as they are not members of the General Assembly. 

Two other legislators from Northern Virginia received perfect scores from the Family Foundation: Sen. Dick Black (R-Loudoun, Prince William counties) and Del. David Ramadan (R-Loudoun, Prince William counties).

On the other end of the spectrum, four delegates, all Democrats from Northern Virginia, received zero ratings: Bob Brink (D-Arlington, Fairfax counties), Patrick Hope (D-Arlington), Kaye Kory (D-Fairfax Co.) and Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax Co.).

On the four LGBT issues graded by the Family Foundation, almost all Northern Virginia senators - aside from Black - were pro-LGBT, with seven voting against the "conscience clause" and student group discrimination bills, and in favor of the nomination of Thorne-Begland and the employment nondiscrimination bill. Those seven earned scores ranging from 12 to 24. 

Two other senators, George Barker (D-Alexandria, Fairfax, Prince William counties) and Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax City, Fairfax Co.), who voted in favor of the student-groups bill, netted ratings of 21 and 41, respectively.

Sens. Chuck Colgan (D-Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William Co.) and Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Loudoun, Fauquier, Clarke, Frederick counties, Winchester) voted for the student groups and the "conscience clause" bills but pro-gay on the other two votes, earning them higher ratings from the anti-LGBT group: 53 for Colgan and 89 for Vogel. 

A partisan divide was more apparent among the 29 delegates representing Northern Virginia, with 14 of 15 Democrats taking pro-LGBT positions. Their overall scores ranged from 0 to 38. 

The remaining Democrat, Del. David Bulova (D-Fairfax Co.), earned a Family Foundation rating of 26 and had a mostly pro-gay record, though he did vote for the student groups bill pushed by the Family Foundation.

Vocally anti-gay Democrat Del. Bob Marshall (Manassas Park, Prince William Co.) earned a 93 rating. He was one of seven Northern Virginia Republicans who earned scores from 90 to 100 from the Family Foundation. All seven supported anti-gay legislation and opposed any progress on LGBT rights in the legislature.

Six other Republicans, including some often purported to be among the GOP's moderates – Del. David Albo (R-Fairfax Co.), Del. Barbara Comstock (R-Fairfax, Loudoun counties), Del. Tag Greason (R-Loudoun Co.), Del. Randy Minchew (R-Loudoun, Clarke, Frederick counties), Del. Joe May (R-Loudoun, Clarke, Frederick counties), and Del. Tom Rust (R-Fairfax, Loudoun counties) – all voted to confirm Thorne-Begland, but otherwise voted according to the Family Foundation's recommendations. Del. Jim LeMunyon (R-Fairfax, Loudoun counties) had a mixed record of support for LGBT issues. 

Among those seven, the Family Foundation of Virginia rated Albo an 80, Comstock an 89, Greason an 88, Minchew an 89, May an 88, Rust a 63, and LeMunyon a 74.  

LeMunyon and Rust, while earning some of the lowest "pro-family" ratings among Republicans in the General Assembly, still rated significantly higher than most Democrats in the Family Foundation's assessment. 

Equality Virginia, the commonwealth's major nonpartisan LGBT-rights organization, will release its own scorecards for members of the General Assembly Monday. 

[Photo 1: Sen. Dick Black (R), of Leesburg, who scored 100 on the Family Foundation's legislative report card (courtesy of Virginia General Assembly).]

[Photo 2: Del. Scott Surovell (D), of Mount Vernon, a longtime LGBT ally, earned a zero rating on the Family Founation's legislative report card (courtesy of Virginia General Assembly).]

On the heels of a win that saw Minnesota become the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage, the same group that helped secure passage of a marriage-equality bill in the state Legislature is shifting its focus to protecting those lawmakers who made it happen.

Earlier this week, Minnesotans United announced the formation of a political action committee focused on re-electing legislators who cast "Yea" votes on same-sex marriage legislation earlier this month. Although there have been attempts to protect supportive lawmakers in other marriage-equality battleground states, the PAC is a first of its kind, and comes as marriage-equality opponents have threatened to defeat Republicans and rural Democrats who voted for the legislation.

"MN United PAC will work tirelessly to ensure that the leaders in the Legislature – Republican and Democrat – who voted yes for marriage this year have the grassroots and financial support they need to be re-elected," said Richard Carlbom, campaign manager for Minnesotans United, in a statement. "These legislators cast an important historic vote, and now it's our turn to show our appreciation and tell them that we've got their back." 

The Minnesota win has been particularly sweet for marriage-equality advocates nationwide. Minnesotans United was first formed to defeat a same-sex marriage ban after the Republican-controlled Minnesota Legislature was able to bypass the governor to put an initiative on the ballot to amend the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage. After a fierce election campaign, during which the coalition spent around $13 million, voters defeated the amendment at the ballot box on Election Day in November. In the process, they also elected Democratic majorities to both houses. On May 9, the Minnesota House of Representatives approved marriage-equality legislation with a 75-59 vote. On May 13, the state Senate followed suit with a 37-30 vote and one day later the bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton.

Now, with marriage-equality opponents vowing to elect majorities to overturn the law, advocates say the PAC is the "natural next step" for the broad coalition of organizations.

"The PAC was a way for us to say to legislators that we're not just going to roll over an be done with this," said Jack Loesch, communications director for Minnesotans United. "We're going to support you and make sure you've got the momentum and the support to get re-elected." 

According to Loesch, Minnesotans United was able to learn from defeats in previous states as well as the backlash some lawmakers have faced for their pro-equality votes, to anticipate the next moves of their opposition. The PAC will raise money, among other ways, by tapping into an email list of more than 200,000.

Republicans who vote in favor of marriage equality remain the most vulnerable to primary challenges. Indeed, in New York state, only one of the four Republican senators who voted in favor of marriage equality in 2011 returned to the state capitol in Albany after Election Day in 2012. 

"Voters will have their say, and it will not be pretty for Republicans who voted for gay marriage," Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage, told the Star Tribune of the five Minnesota Republicans who voted for marriage equality.

Despite those threats, advocates maintain that the ambitious mission set out by Minnesotans United will be a model for future states. 

"First to defeat the amendment and at the same time to elect good lawmakers, and then to mount this campaign to win the freedom to marry and now to defend it is a wonderful example of how we need to do this work in more states," said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry. 

According to Wolfson, who has been involved in every state marriage battle since founding Freedom to Marry in 2003, some lawmakers will face real and serious primary challenges, but the PAC is an example of an adapting movement.

"It shows the maturation of our movement and our ability to fill the gaps to do what we need to do," Wolfson told Metro Weekly. "We have gotten better and better at longer-term public education and then added in the greater sophistication in coalitions and lobbying, and then added in electoral work and now, ratcheting it up again, our ability to defend the lawmakers who do the right thing. We are getting better and better at all of the pieces, all of the methodology, that are needed to have and to hold what we want and what we win."

[Image courtesy of Minnesotans United]

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, spoke out for LGBT acceptance in all nations in a video statement released today.

"We will continue to work in every possible arena to protect communities and promote societies in which everyone – especially LGBT youth – can live safely and without fear regardless of who they are or whom they love," Rice said, marking the International Day Against Homophobia. "We call on all nations and all peoples to join us in ensuring that human rights are universally protected everywhere every day."

Rice's message comes as the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (IDAHO) is observed in nations across the globe. First held in 2005, it is coordinated by a committee based in Paris. The annual event is meant to bring change by raising awareness of anti-LGBT discrimination in countries across the globe. 

Watch Rice's statement here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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