More than three months ago, on Dec. 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act into law, declaring to the crowd assembled, "We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot."

A little more than a month later, on Jan. 28, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley made clear repeatedly at a news conference that DADT remains in effect until the law's required certification, saying at one point, "It is still possible for a person to be discharged [under DADT]. I have heard nothing about a moratorium."

Today, that point was proven out as a three-person administrative separation board heard from the government, witnesses and the military-appointed lawyer for Petty Officer 2nd Class Derek Morado, in one of the first disclosed separation hearings since the DADT Repeal Act was signed into law.

J.D. Smith, the co-director of OutServe -- a group that started in 2010 for gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers -- said he had not heard of any other separation hearings since the repeal act was signed into law. As for commanders moving forward DADT-related discharge processes, though, he said, "That's absolutely still going on."

Morado approached Get Equal, according to the director of the organization that burst onto the scene in the spring of 2010 with its aggressive approach to LGBT equality advocacy -- that often ended in arrests -- for help. The group then sent an email alert to its members about Morado's case on March 30.

As the fresnobee.com detailed on March 30, Morado's case began when "he posted a photo of himself on his MySpace page [in 2009] kissing another man. ... A senior enlisted man in his ordnance and weapons unit turned him in, he said, and an admiral signed off on discharge proceedings."

As to Morado's efforts in advance of the hearing to reach out to Get Equal, director Robin McGehee said, "He was unsure what the process was going to be like and, just like us, very perplexed that he was hearing all these celebratory reports about repeal and why his hearing was continuing.

"For him, he was baffled .... He thought for sure his hearing was going to be put on hold," she added. "He was fearful that they were trying to make this happen before implementation."

Following today's hearing, the panel recommended Morado's retention in a 3-0 decision, according to an email sent by Get Equal this evening, which a lawyer familiar with the DADT discharge process said ends the case and allows Morado to continue serving.

Had the panel recommended Morado's separation, however, the separation would have to be reviewed by an admiral or higher, according to the lawyer. Additionally, a "Letter of Deficiency" could have been filed by Morado's lawyer, detailing any problems with the panel's decision. That Navy official's recommendation would then -- under the October 21, 2010, changes put in place by the Pentagon -- have needed to be approved by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, in consultation with the defense department general counsel and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, before Morado could have been discharged.

Before learning the outcome of the hearing, however, McGehee discussed the "emotional and physical stress" that she said Morado was facing and added pointedly, "It really begins to make you question why we're wasting the money on a hearing like this and also why were allowing the military to bully him."

Smith went further, saying, "The fact that everyone knows that the Pentagon hasn't discharged anyone since Obama signed the repeal law, and yet we are seeing, on the unit level, discharge procedures still going forward -- it's creating an almost harder position for some people."

Of the consequences of what he described as this two-tier process, "The longer they draw this out, the more confusion this causes," referring both to gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers and heterosexual servicemembers facing training about the repeal of DADT.

"They just need to move certification," Smith said, "They just need to end this thing."

[Photo: Morado (Photo from Morado's publicly available Facebook profile.)]

[Photo: President Barack Obama greets departing Associate Counsel to the President Alison J. "Ali" Nathan, left, Meg Satterthwaite, and their twin sons Oliver and Nathan, in the Outer Oval Office on July 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.)]

Former associate White House counsel Alison Nathan, an out lesbian, was nominated today by President Barack Obama for a judgeship on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In a statement from the White House, Obama said, "Alison Nathan is a distinguished individual who has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to justice throughout her career. I am grateful for her decision to serve the American people from the District Court bench."

Nathan currently serves in the office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (D) as special counsel to Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, a position Nathan has held since 2010.

Following graduation from Cornell Law School, Nathan clerked, first for Judge Betty Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Reacting to news of the nomination, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Tobias Wolff told Metro Weekly, "Ali Nathan is one of the most brilliant lawyers whom I have ever had the privilege to know. Her commitment to justice and the rule of law is exemplary. She will do America proud on the federal bench."

Nathan lives in New York with her partner, Meg Satterthwaite, and their twin sons Oliver and Nathan.

Nathan's nomination is the second pending and third out LGBT nominee Obama has made to the Southern District of New York. J. Paul Oetken, nominated in January, recently had his confirmation hearing, and Daniel Alter's nomination was withdrawn. U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts, who also sits on the Southern District of New York bench, was the first out LGBT federal judge, following her nomination by President Clinton in 1994.

Additionally, Obama has nominated Edward DuMont to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- in both the 111th and now 112th Congresses -- but his nomination has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

Today, a report on LGBT health called "groundbreaking" has been released by the Institutes of Medicine, "The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding," concluding:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals have unique health experiences and needs, but as a nation, we do not know exactly what these experiences and needs are. To advance understanding of the health needs of all LGBT individuals, researchers need more data about the demographics of these populations, improved methods for collecting and analyzing data, and an increased participation of sexual and gender minorities in research. Building a more solid evidence base for LGBT health concerns will not only benefit LGBT individuals, but also add to the repository of health information we have that pertains to all people.

The report's recommendations issued are: (1) NIH should implement a research agenda designed to advance knowledge and understanding of LGBT health; (2) data on sexual orientation and gender identity should be collected in federally funded surveys administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and in other relevant federally funded surveys; (3) data on sexual orientation and gender identity should be collected in electronic health records; (4) NIH should support the development and standardization of sexual orientation and gender identity measures; (5) NIH should support methodological research that relates to LGBT health; and (6) a comprehensive research training approach should be created to strengthen LGBT health research at NIH; and (7) NIH should encourage grant applicants to address explicitly the inclusion or exclusion of sexual and gender minorities in their samples.

As National LGBT Cancer Network executive director Liz Margolies writes in an opinion piece in today's Metro Weekly "'The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People' is a truly groundbreaking document that brings together in one place the current state of all our knowledge about LGBT health issues, and makes recommendations for policies and procedures to improve our health. It is a historic commitment by the federal government and a document we can rely on."

There will be much to come on this report from IOM, a part of the National Academy of Sciences. Already, Gary J. Gates, a scholar at the Williams Institute, said in a statement:

I applaud the IOM report's clarion call for LGBT inclusion in federal data sources and within publicly-funded research. Let's hope that federal statistical agencies charged with collecting data designed to measure the health and economic well-being of the American population will heed this call. Better data provides the building blocks for future research. The report's acknowledgement of the diversity of the LGBT community is also impressive as it highlights the need for research that considers the unique challenges faced by the transgender community, LGBT youth and seniors, and LGBT people of color. This groundbreaking report should mark the beginning of a concerted effort by the federal government to better understand the lives of the 9 million LGBT Americans who have been too often marginalized by both society and the research community.

In a statement about the report, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) -- who has sponsored the Ending Health Disparities for LGBT Americans Act and been focused on addressing LGBT health concerns in her time in Congress -- said, "For years, in Congressional hearings, briefings, and meetings, I have asked our national health policy officials and medical experts, 'What do you know about LGBT health?' Only to hear, 'I have to get back to you.' Today, we've gotten a well-researched and most welcome response. I am delighted that after years of advocating for more attention to LGBT health disparities, IOM's report will bring us closer to the goal of promoting good health for all Americans."

Read the LGBT Health Brief produced by IOM on the report: LGBTHealthBrief.pdf

The lead sponsor of legislation that seeks to prohibit discrimination against transgender Marylanders in the areas of housing, employment, and some commercial leasing is still fighting for the bill's passage in the Maryland State Senate, but tells Metro Weekly that success appears unlikely -- and lays the blame at the feet of Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D). 

Of Miller's actions in recent days, Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel, Prince George's) said, "It is a tremendous, gross disrespect to the community because he's marginalizing a group of people and basically saying, 'You don't matter, you don't count.'"

Pena-Melnyk, lead sponsor of the bill, talked to Metro Weekly today about Miller's decision to assign the bill to the Senate's Rules Committee, after the Maryland House voted 85-52 in favor of the legislation. Pena-Melnyk said there will be no hearing scheduled for community members to testify against or in favor of the bill, and that she suspects the bill will be killed in the Rules Committee. 

"On Saturday, 54 bills passed. On Monday, 40 bills passed the House. So a total of 94 bills," she says.

"There's a rule which says that the bills must pass the 76th day to the other chamber in order to be assigned to a standing committee. What that means is, in order for a bill to be considered timely, it has to pass before that 76th day, which was Monday, March 28, by 8 p.m."

"The Gender Identity bill passed on Saturday, way ahead of the deadline. We did that purposely to be timely. Out of the 94 bills that passed out the House timely, Miller, president of the Senate, killed one bill -- the Gender Identity bill -- and sent it to Rules."

In the past, a similar version of the bill has died four times in the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee, where the bill was expected to go. 

"You go to Rules when you're late. So there's no reason why the bill should have gone to Rules, because it passed timely on Saturday. He did it purposely because he wants to kill it. He bypassed our procedures and our rules. It is a tremendous, gross disrespect to the community because he's marginalizing a group of people and basically saying, 'You don't matter, you don't count.' He wouldn't do this to someone else. It is very disrespectful especially because we submitted the bill on time."

Pena-Melnyk said she had scheduled to meet with Miller yesterday. But he did not show. She waited for him for an hour before leaving.

"He refused to see me," she said.

Miller has not returned calls to Metro Weekly seeking comment. 

Though she's not giving up the fight to get the bill to a Senate committee for a scheduled hearing, Pena-Melnyk said that she will not be introducing similar legislation next year if the bill dies in the Rules Committee as expected. 

"I'm tired," she said. "I gave it my all. Even though I took public accommodations out, there were people in the transgender community who were upset that I took it out and wouldn't support it. Can you imagine, I would have never been able to get it out with public accommodations. You see how the bill is treated. I hope that now they respect the process and understand what it took and how difficult it is to prepare and argue for a bill like this, because the support is not there."

[Photo: Pena-Melnyk (Photo by Yusef Najafi.)]

The "hold" on same-sex married bi-national couples' green card applications -- celebrated by immigration and LGBT advocates -- is over, according to the spokesman for the agency that processes those requests.

"The guidance we were awaiting ... was received last night, so the hold is over, so we're back to adjudicating cases as we always have," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services press secretary Christopher Bentley told Metro Weekly this morning.

The agency will continue to "enforce the law," he says, which means that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which prohibits the government from recognizing same-sex marriages -- prevents those green card applications from being approved. 

In the past, they had been denied because of DOMA, but the administration's Feb. 23 decision to stop defending Section 3 of DOMA raised hopes for some that the USCIS and other immigration agencies would at least put such cases on hold while the constitutionality of DOMA was resolved.

The USCIS raised those hopes further when Bentley told Metro Weekly and, later, other news outlets on Monday, March 28, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues."

That night, however, an official from the Department of Homeland Security told Metro Weekly, "[P]ursuant to CIS's routine practice when there's a new law or regulation that will potentially affect their resolution of certain cases, they hold [the cases] in abeyance until they get the final guidance from the general counsel's office," the official said.

That final guidance, USCIS's Bentley tells Metro Weekly, was received last night, March 29.

Asked if districts would be able to put cases on hold while awaiting a final court determination about the constitutionality of DOMA, Bentley said, "No. The guidance is the same policy that has always been in place," which he said is to "enforce the law."

Asked if that means applications of same-sex bi-national couples would continue to be denied now as they had in the past, Bentley said, "Correct, based on the enforcement of DOMA."

As reported on Monday, March 28, by Metro Weekly, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will be introduced in the House on Wednesday, March 30.

The release from the office of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.):

BARNEY FRANK AND COLLEAGUES TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMATION ACT (ENDA)

WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday morning, March 30th, Congressman Barney Frank and other prominent Members of the House of Representatives will make an important announcement about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The legislation would extend federal employment laws, which currently prevent job discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability, to also cover sexual orientation and gender identity.  The bill applies both to the public and private sectors.

On the night before the event, Frank said that “passing an inclusive ENDA is a difficult but winnable fight – winnable if supported by a serious lobbying effort.  The bill we are about to introduce provides an important vehicle for that effort.”

Although some states have passed laws to prevent such discrimination, it is legal in 29 states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and legal in 38 states to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.  According to research by the Williams Institute, there is an ongoing pattern of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity nationwide.

WHERE:  Room 2220, Rayburn House Office Building
WHEN:   Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 9:15 AM
WHO:    Rep. Barney Frank, joined by Rep. George Miller, Rep. Jared Polis and other cosponsors of the legislation.  Also present will be representatives of leading LGBT equality, civil rights and social justice organizations.

When speaking with Metro Weekly on Sunday, March 27 -- and contrary to today's optimistic outlook in the release -- Frank said, "It's an organizing tool. Obviously, with the Republicans in power, you're not going to get the bill even considered."

[IMPORTANT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, UPDATE: "Immigration Official: 'The Hold Is Over'"]

The announcement on Monday, March 28, that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had issued guidance instructing its field offices to put on hold cases involving same-sex, married bi-national couples seeking a green card for the foreign spouse sent shockwaves throughout the immigration and LGBT communities. Further clarification from Department of Homeland Security officials, however, suggests a much more limited, nuanced decision that leaves the issue unresolved and couples' futures in doubt.

On Monday afternoon, USCIS spokesman Christopher Bentley told Metro Weekly, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues."

Despite statements from leading organizations – most prominently, Immigration Equality – suggesting that the cases would be held in abeyance until DOMA's constitutionality is settled, a DHS official told Metro Weekly on Monday night that the abeyance could last for as little as a week.

"[P]ursuant to CIS’s routine practice when there's a new law or regulation that will potentially affect their resolution of certain cases, they hold [the cases] in abeyance until they get the final guidance from the general counsel’s office," the official said. "DHS expects this issue to be resolved imminently."

After that abeyance has ended, the official notes, "[I]n individual cases, USCIS has always had the authority to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis, in light of the unique circumstances of that particular case."

The reason for the abeyance in this situation was not a new law or regulation, but rather the Feb. 23 letter sent from Attorney General Eric Holder to House Speaker John Boehner, detailing Holder and President Barack Obama’s determination that sexual orientation classifications should be subjected to heightened scrutiny when examined by courts and that, accordingly, they determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and would no longer be defending it in court.

Were it not for Section 3 of DOMA, LGBT and immigration advocates have said, a U.S. citizen who is half of a same-sex bi-national married couple would be able to sponsor his or her non-citizen spouse for the purpose of obtaining a green card. DOMA, however, has led to the denial of such requests in the past.

The Feb. 23 letter, however, has led attorney Lavi Soloway and others like Immigration Equality to argue in various immigration-related proceedings that cases should be put on hold while the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA – currently being challenged in several court cases – reaches a final judicial conclusion, likely by the Supreme Court.

The DHS official tells Metro Weekly today, however, "Suspending all cases implicating DOMA until there is final judicial resolution on DOMA's constitutionality would run contrary to our obligation and to the AG's letter and therefore DHS cannot and will not do that."

In the Feb. 23 letter, Holder wrote, "[T]he President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality."

Explaining how DHS interprets that language, while noting that the final guidance has not yet been issued, the DHS official said on Monday night, "The president has directed that administrative agencies ... should enforce DOMA as they did before, that there should be no change in the enforcement. Following from that, we will continue to enforce it as we did before, which is, we enforced it when cases come up."

Soloway disagreed with the DHS interpretation, saying, "It would be my preference that USCIS approached the Feb. 23 letter as leaving open the opportunity to hold the cases in abeyance, because in my view holding the cases in abeyance does not contradict the mandate to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act."

Although nothing in Holder's letter states that agencies must enforce DOMA in the same precise manner as the agencies had done in the past, the DHS official's statements suggest the agency interprets the Feb. 23 letter as including such a requirement.

Asked if DHS could exercise discretion to hold all eligible cases until DOMA's constitutionality is resolved, the DHS official said on Monday night, "[T]hat may or may not be the case in the absence of the attorney general’s statement, but the attorney general – and, by his authority, the president – are the final arbiters of executive branch action, and the letter to Congress could not be any clearer: that the president has directed executive branch agencies to enforce DOMA as they did before."

Asked specifically if Holder's letter removed the authority to exercise such broad discretion, the DHS official said, "Whatever discretion we may have had before, we have for the last 15 years, enforced DOMA in our adjudications, so that's what we will continue to do."

Explaining why he disagrees with the DHS view, Soloway said, "The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land, and that, therefore, no green card cases filed by bi-national gay couples can be approved. However, the agency can certainly withhold decisions on those cases for the time being and still be following both the letter and the spirit of the attorney general's Feb. 23 directive."

To that end, Immigration Equality executive director Rachel Tiven said, "Immigration Equality has asked the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to stop denying applications from loving, married couples, and we hope that they will do the right thing and do that."

Calling a limited abeyance "unfortunate," Soloway today noted that, regardless of the length or type of abeyance issued by USCIS, "any incremental changes in policy with regard to holding these cases in abeyance must be viewed with extreme caution and is not a signal for bi-national couples to go out en masse and marry and file green card applications."

On a positive note, Soloway said, "It is important that DHS has identified that USCIS retains the case-by-case discretion, and that is an important point for our advocacy efforts."

Tiven added, "And we are confident that especially this Department of Justice, which found the Defense of Marriage Act so odious to the Constitution that it couldn't possibly bring itself to continue to defend it, will make every appropriate policy change that will follow that.

"We hope that in the future, soon, that when [DHS] gives the final guidance, that they'll do that right thing."

Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County) has opposed gender identity anti-discrimination efforts in the past in the Judicial Proceedings Committee. Now that the Maryland House of Delegates has voted in favor of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235 moves to the Senate, with its first reading completed in the Rules Committee on Friday, March 25. 

Some advocates of the legislation expressed concern that the bill would not make it past that committee. And while Frosh has not released an official statement on his stance regarding the bill, supporters of Equality Maryland who lobbied for the legislation in Annapolis on Monday, March 28, say a meeting with Frosh was promising. 

The included Catherine Hyde, a Maryland resident and mother of a transgender child. In an e-mail sent to Metro Weekly on Tuesday, March 29, Hyde narrates her exchange with the Senator regarding the gender identity bill:

"Senator Frosh was pulled in many directions last night, but he made time to come speak with us. His aide, David Brewster, spent over an hour with us, listening to our concerns and asking helpful questions.

I spoke from my perspective as the parent of a 17-year-old transgender girl and my concerns for her ability to find housing and a productive job, as well as my concerns for her safety.

I also clarified that as Transgender Network Coordinator for a local chapter of PFLAG, I represent 10 families of transgender children, ranging in age from three and a half to 28.

Senator Frosh was good enough to stop by for 20 minutes and asked a wealth of questions about the bill itself as well as our strategy for gaining protections for this vulnerable group of people.

I got a very good sense that he was comfortable with the bill as written, and as he left, I understood him to agree to support it. So I was very satisfied with the meeting, and I am hopeful the bill will move out of Rules and through Judicial Proceedings to have its day on the floor this year."

Owen Smith, a transgender activist who works for Equality Maryland as field organizer for gender equality issues, was also in attendance at Monday night's meeting. Smith says Frosh told the group of lobbyist that he will get the bill to a vote in the Judicial Proceedings Committee after the Rules committee, and that he will vote in favor of it. 

"When we spoke with him yesterday he not only expressed that he’s willing to bring it to a vote in the [Judicial Proceedings Committee], but he also stated several times that he supports this bill. He said he has to get it through Rules Committee first. It’s kind of a little detour."

Frosh is the chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, where he has opposed similar legislation. He's the vice chair of the Rules Committee. Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's), lead sponsor of the bill, excluded "public accommodations" in the list of protections in H.B. 235 in hopes that it will pass through the Senate. That move has angered some members of the LGBT community who argue that the bill is inadequate because it only provides some, not all, protections on a state level.

Smith says Frosh responded positively to that change. 

"This is the most confident I’ve ever heard him speak, in saying that he would support the bill, since I’ve been involved in the past four years."

Baltimore City and Montgomery County currently provide protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity with regard to housing, employment and public accommodation in Maryland. The legislation seeks to implement protections statewide. 

Frosh did not immediately reply to a request for comment. 

When the Maryland House of Delegates voted in favor of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, advocates of the measure were immediately concerned about the bill’s movement in the Senate.

In the past, a similar version of the bill has died four times in the Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee, where the bill was expected to go. 

Metro Weekly has learned that H.B. 235 will not be going to that committee. Instead the bill received its first reading in the Senate’s Rules Committee on Friday, March 25, and a hearing is expected to be scheduled in the coming days. 

Sen. Katherine Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County) chairs that committee, with Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County) serving as its co-chair.

According to transgender activist Dana Beyer, who has been monitoring movement of the bill, the switch is bad news.

“It’s bad,” Beyer says, adding that there’s also no explanation given as to why the bill is going to the Rules committee.

“We don’t trust Frosh and this seems to be his way of killing it and leaving himself with clean hands,” Beyer says. “Bills don’t go to Rules Committee unless there’s a problem with them. This is not the normal process. There really is no reason for it. I would say this doesn’t look good, and there’s no excuse for it.”

Another activist in Maryland who has been lobbying for the legislation, Cathy Brennan, says the move means that the bill is "dead."

"The legislation appears dead for this session and a key issue for activists is to determine why Brian Frosh insists on being such an obstacle for this legislation," she says.

[UPDATE: Speaking to Metro Weekly, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, said the organization is not giving up, adding that the organization and supporters were in Annapolis lobbying for the bill yesterday. 

"This just happened last night," she said. "We are working with our legislative allies and community leaders to assess the best strategies and tactics at this juncture."

"This is a serious challenge, but we will keep working until the final hours of the session to make this happen. There are two weeks left. We are not giving up and the people who have been fighting by our sides are not giving up."

Ezra Towne, a transgender advocate who has been lobbying for the bill in Annapolis, is keeping a positive outlook on its road ahead.

"I don’t think the bill is dead," Towne says, "I think it's unfortunate that it has to go through another committee, but I think there's plenty of time to get the job done."

"This bill is incredibly important to me," Towne adds.  

"This summer I was out of work and I'm also a parent, and that's the first time in my life where my current status as a trans person and the ability to find employment really became an urgent issue for me."]

Before Saturday’s vote, amendments were made to the bill in the House’s Heath and Government Operations Committee, as well as during the bill’s second reading on the House floor.

One amendment added the definition of “gender identity” to the bill. The final version of that definition took out the words “appearance, expression or behavior,” and leaving the definition as: “a gender–related identity, or appearance of an individual regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.”

Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's), lead sponsor of the bill, expressed concern about the bill's movement in the Senate to Metro Weekly immediately following passage of the bill in the House, explaining that this time the bill was written to exclude public accommodations in hopes that it won’t be killed.

“I'm concerned because in the past the support has not been there, so I'm just praying to God, because we amended it the way that we did, taking out public accommodations, as painful as that was, that they will support it now, and that we have addressed their concerns.”

[UPDATE: Meneses-Sheets acknowledges that concern, and adds the bill is about saving lives.

“This is another hurdle to advancing job and housing protections in Maryland this year.  We are already working with allies to keep this important bill moving. It is challenging, but this bill would literally save lives and is worth fighting for.”]

Pena-Melnyk could not immediately be reached for comment. 

[IMPORTANT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, UPDATE: "Immigration Official: 'The Hold Is Over'"]

[IMPORTANT TUESDAY, MARCH 29, UPDATE: "DHS Official: Bi-National Immigration Case Abeyances Could End Within A Week."]

Following up on reports from this weekend, Metro Weekly just received confirmation from Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues."

He notes, however, "USCIS has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the President's directive to continue enforcing the law."

[FOR A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THESE ISSUES, READ: "Policy Change, At Least Locally, Puts Bi-National Couples' Immigration Cases On Hold."]

The legal distinction means that although DOMA is still being enforced, the USCIS is using its discretion to hold off on denying green card applications where applicable.

As Lavi Soloway, a leading attorney pressing these cases told Metro Weekly earlier, "The best thing for the Department of Justice to be doing now is to be holding off on decisions. We're arriving at a new day, and that means a lot of new opportunities."

Saying, "It's not exactly rocket science," Soloway noted when speaking about these issues previously that the administration "has twice dealt in a very special way with groups of individuals facing deportation."

He explained, "They put a moratorium on the widows of U.S. citizens in 2009, and, in 2010, the administration announced it would defer action on the deportation of individuals who are likely eligible under the DREAM Act. So, the administration has shown that it does use its executive branch muscle when it comes to discretion about who to deport."

Now, it appears, the USCIS has reached a similar decision about its response to the administration's Feb. 23 announcement that it no longer will defend Section 3 of DOMA in court. Were it not for Section 3 of DOMA, Soloway argues, a U.S. citizen who is half of a same-sex bi-national married couple would be able to sponsor his or her non-citizen spouse for the purpose of obtaining a green card.

Immigration Equality also has supported this argument, announcing in the week following the DOJ's Feb. 23 decision that it too was considering legal action regarding binational couples in the wake of the changed interpretation.

[UPDATE @ 4 PM: Soloway emails:

Confirmation that this policy is now in place nationally is cause for celebration. In many ways this is vindication of a two-decade long struggle by thousands of binational couples, advocates and attorneys. But the fight is not over yet. Many couples, after consulting with experienced immigration attorneys, may decide that this is the proper time to file a green card case. However, DOMA is still the final obstacle for attaining a green card; unless it is repealed or struck down, filing any case with immigration is not without risk.

There certainly will be further developments on this front, so check back for more.]

[UPDATE @ 5:33 PM: Immigration Equality's executive director Rachel Tiven said in a statement:

Today's statement is the first domino to fall for LGBT Americans with foreign national spouses. As Immigration Equality noted in our letters to both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, we believe that no spousal application should be denied until DOMA's constitutionality is settled. Immigration Equality has been fighting for LGBT immigrant families since 1994. In that time we have counseled more than 10,000 families – and for them, today’s news is a sign that relief is finally on the way.

According to the news release, lawyers associated with Immigration Equality filed a green card application on behalf of Edwin Blesch, an American citizen, and Tim Smulian, his South African husband. "Despite being legally married in South Africa – a marriage recognized in Edwin's home state of New York – the couple has struggled to remain together," the release notes.

Blesch said in the release:

Every day, we live with the very real possibility that, despite following every law and every policy of the United States, Tim will be forced to leave the country, and I will be left without my caretaker and the love of my life. Today's news gives us great relief, and great hope that we may soon be able to put that worry behind us. For the first time, we can begin to plan the rest of our lives together without fear that we will be torn apart.

Keep following Metro Weekly for continued coverage of this significant development.]

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) plans to introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the House on Wednesday, according to two LGBT equality advocates with direct knowledge of the congressman's plans. Frank's communications director, Harry Gural, confirmed that the plans are "to formally announce ENDA this week," although he added over the weekend that specifics are not yet nailed down and were expected to be so by this afternoon.

The bill, which Gural says will be the same exact bill as that introduced in the 111th Congress, would prohibit most employers from discriminating in hiring and promotions on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Although the bill is not expected to move forward in the House under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Frank, talking with Metro Weekly on Sunday, March 27, says, "It's an organizing tool. Obviously, with the Republicans in power, you're not going to get the bill even considered."

But, Frank -- the longest-serving out member of Congress -- says, "I'm going to be urging people to spend their time talking to those who have voted in the past for ENDA and are supportive of ENDA but where we're not certain they're still with us on the transgender issue."

Talking about the bill's movement -- or lack thereof -- in the 111th Congress, Frank says, "[W]e have work still to do and we have overwhelming -- over 90 percent -- support on the Democratic side for ENDA based on sexual orientation and we had, in the last Congress, about 30 Republicans that way. Unfortunately, there's a drop-off from that number to transgender, and this is a chance to work hard to sway those who are committed to ENDA to support the full transgender inclusion as well."

Additionally, Frank notes, "We got hate crimes done, and we got 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repealed, and you can't do everything at once. And that, in fact, the problem was ... there was a fall-off – a significant one on the Republican side and some on the Democratic side – because the votes may not be there for an inclusive ENDA."

Following up on the introduction earlier this month of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, Frank says with characteristic bluntness, "ENDA will pass before DOMA will be repealed congressionally."

Of concerns that DOMA repeal will take priority over ENDA's passage as legislative efforts move forward, Frank says the premise is "inaccurate," noting, "I believe that, with regard to DOMA, the goal is to win it in court. I do not think there is a good likelihood of getting DOMA repealed through the Congress. I think there is a good likelihood, in a Democratic Congress, of getting an inclusive ENDA.

"And that's the lobbying job for the whole community. Transgender people, lesbian and gay and bisexual people, our straight friends – the focal point should be to make sure that everyone who's supportive of ENDA supports the transgender inclusion."

Read the full Metro Weekly interview below the jump.

[Photo: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at the introduction of of the Respect for Marriage Act earlier this month. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

A growing body of evidence suggests that deportations of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold, at least in some parts of the country, until immigration officials in the departments of Justice and Homeland Security assess the impact of ongoing challenges to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act or perhaps until the courts can resolve those challenges.

Although no officials in either agency or at the White House responded to requests for comment today, The Daily Beast/Newsweek reported on the evening of March 25 that the heads of two of the 26 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service districts -- those located in the District and Baltimore -- have said publicly in the past week that the cases of such married same-sex couples within their districts have been put on hold. Moreover, attorney Lavi Soloway tells Metro Weekly that he is aware of at least one other case in another district in which a same-sex married couple is scheduled to have the interview that the USCIS conducts for all married couples seeking marriage-based green cards.

Soloway tells Metro Weekly in an extensive interview today that he agrees with these district heads and is cautiously optimistic that this is a new national policy -- although he cautions that it is not yet clear that the policy is a national one and notes the circumstances could change if DOMA is upheld and that any couple should consult an attorney before acting on these developments.

"The most just approach [for the government] during this period is to maintain the status quo," he says, pointing to the 10-year bar on returning to the country faced by an individual who is deported. Moreover, he sees this issue as distinct from the broader marriage debate, saying, "This isn't about whether anybody thinks gay or lesbian couples should be able to marry. This is about whether the federal government should be discriminating between different groups of married couples."

Over the course of the month since DOJ announced that it -- and President Barack Obama -- viewed sexual orientation classifications as subject to heightened scrutiny and that, accordingly, it would no longer be enforcing Section 3 of the DOMA, several developments in immigration cases appear to show that married same-sex bi-national couples could be positively impacted by the decision, whether directly or indirectly.

Soloway started raising the issue in pending cases the day after the Justice Department's Feb. 23 decision. Were it not for Section 3 of DOMA, he argues, a U.S. citizen who is half of a same-sex bi-national married couple would be able to sponsor his or her non-citizen spouse for the purpose of obtaining a green card. DOMA, however, has regularly led to the denial of such requests, as happened with two of his clients, Josh Vandiver and Henry Velandia.

"Josh and Henry received their denial only four months after filing," Soloway, a co-founder of Immigration Equality, says. Following that denial, Soloway took the case before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), where it is now pending. Because of the Justice Department's decision, Soloway attached the DOJ announcement, which came in the form of a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, to the Feb. 24 BIA filing, claiming that the BIA should not be upholding denials of such applications in light of the decision by Obama and Holder that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

And, in the case of two bi-national couples who have brought such a claim in the month since the DOJ decision, officials within DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security -- both of whom have jurisdiction over different aspect of immigration law -- appear to be listening to Soloway's argument.

As Metro Weekly reported on March 9, Edwin Echegoyen and Rodrigo Martinez, who married in D.C., avoided separation because Martinez, who was due to be deported, was released under an Order of Supervision by officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement pending the outcome of marriage-related requests to avoid deportation. Meanwhile, Monica Alcota, who is from Argentina, and Cristina Ojeda were successful in getting Alcota's depotation proceeding adjourned by an immigration judge in New York until their marriage-based immigration case could be decided.

Following up on this anecdotal evidence, The Daily Beast/Newsweek's Mike Giglio reported on March 25 that "the heads of two USCIS districts—Washington, D.C. and Baltimore—informed attorneys from the advocacy group American Immigration Lawyers Association that cases in their districts involving married gay and lesbian couples would be put on hold." Although it is not yet clear whether the policy is one reached at the district level or if it has come from higher up, the cases are being handled differently since Feb. 23 in multiple districts and Soloway is already calling the development a "game-changer" for bi-national couples seeking to avoid deportation.

"There is no other reason in the world for these changes [to be happening so quickly]," he says, other than the DOJ decision.

The importance of this development, he says, is that "[a]nybody with a pending green card application should also be eligible for employment authorization." In this sense, he notes, "Abeyance [the legal term for putting the cases on hold] is important for people to be able to survive."

The other significant point of this change in at least some districts' policies is very practical in that a pending green card application will keep deportation proceedings from beginning. "When you're not in deportation proceedings, there can be no deportation order," he notes, which effectively means that putting the cases on hold stops the deportations. This, Soloway notes, was his aim when he started the Stop the Deportations project in 2010.

"Since the change of position by the administration on DOMA, we've had the opportunity to interact with immigration enforcement officials -- whether that be deportation officers or immigration judges -- and to bring to their attention the changing legal landscape for DOMA, and to advocate that the policy be put into place that essentially freezes cases in their status quo. Understanding, of course, that the Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of the land and we cannot achieve full equality for the bi-national couples we're representing [until Section 3 of DOMA is repealed or struck down]," he says.

"We have been trying, with significant success, to persuade those with discretionary authority to do so, to protect couples and keep them together for an indefinite interim period while the Defense of Marriage Act makes its way to what will be its final fate, either by the Supreme Court or by the hands of Congress."

Day by day, Soloway says, it is beginning to look like that is what is happening.

[Photo: Edwin Echegoyen, left, and Rodrigo Martinez are married in the District on March 1 (Photo provided by the DOMA Project).]

The Maryland House of Delegates voted 86-52 in favor of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, today, during the bill's third and final reading.

The bill now moves to the Senate's Judicial Proceeding Committee for amendments and according to the Maryland House's clerk office, will be voted upon on the Senate floor before the end of this year's legislative session on April 11.

[CLARIFICATION: Though it was reported that the Senate floor vote was expected on Monday, March 28, the Maryland House's clerk office clarifies that the bill needed to pass through the House floor before midnight on Monday, March 28, to be heard on the Senate floor before this year's legislative session wraps.]

During discussions leading up to the vote, which began at noon, Del. Ariana Kelly (D-Montgomery) said the bill is about ending discrimination and that transgender people are "normal." 

"There are not now, and never have been two simple boxes, male and female, that people fit into," Kelly said, "and that's okay."

Kelly's remaks followed those of Del. Joseph Minnick (D-Baltimore County), who mocked male-to-female transgender individuals he saw in the men's bathroom when the bill was in committee and said women should be "appalled" by the legislation. 

Del. Michael A. McDermott (R-Wicomico and Worcester) was vocal about voting against the legislation. 

"We're dealing with folks who don’t have a compass," he said, "they're not sure which direction points up."

Del. Rudolph Cane (D-Dorchester and Wicomico) said the bill is about ending discrimination. 

"We're telling you to do that [which] is fair and honest with people and protect [people's] rights," he said, "I'm voting green on this bill, because I don't want the word bully to be labeled to me. I want people to live good."

Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's), lead sponsor of the bill, talked about how it has taken four years to get the gender identity bill to the House floor, and the difficulty in taking out "public accommodations." She said she has spoken to many members of the LGBT community who are angry about the removal of "public accommodations." She said the debate heard on the House floor is exactly why she removed it, so the bill would not be killed. 

"I did so because the political reality is I could not have gotten the bill out," she said, "look at the discussion here today."

"You have to forgive me I told them," she added, "it's not what you want, it's not perfect, but it gives you protection."

Pena-Melnyk said she decided to speak after being disheartened by what she described insensitive remarks made on the House floor about transgender and gender non-conforming people.

"We need this bill because of what you heard here today," she said, tearing up.

"We have to protect our children against everyone .... I have three, but don't assume that [transgender people] are criminals. It is wrong to assume that they are criminals."

If signed into law, the legislation would prohibit discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, licensing and commercial leasing against transgender Marylanders.

While Equality Maryland has been fighting hard to get the legislation passed, opponents of the legislation also include members of the LGBT community who argue that the bill is inadequate because it only provides some, not all, protections by excluding "public accommodations" on a state level. 

But similar legislation, which included protections for transgender people with regard to Maryland public accommodations, has failed in the past.

H.B. 235 marks the first time Equality Maryland has been able to get a gender identity anti-discrimination effort past committee and now the House floor. 

[UPDATE @ 1:15PM: Speaking to Metro Weekly immediately following the vote, Pena-Melnyk said she was pleased but very concerned about the bill's movement in the Senate.

"I'm concerned because in the past the support has not been there [in the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee], so I'm just praying to God, because we amended it the way that we did, taking out public accommodations, as painful as that was, that they will support it now, and that we have addressed their concerns."

Transgender activist Dana Beyer and Lisa Deane-Polyak, who serves as vice president of Equality Maryland's board of directors, where in attendance in the House chambers to monitor the vote.

"We have a plan to go ahead," Beyer said. "Obviously its died, it's been killed the last four years in JPR, so it's a consideration, however, the composition in the Senate and of the JPR has changed. Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery) is a hero to many people, and he's running with the bill, so I'm very hopeful that we will see a different result." 

Deane-Polyak said she was gratified by passage of the bill, and the floor speeches in favor of the legislation, including one by Del. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City), who admitted to being wrong on this issue in the past. 

"Their speeches came through with the real authenticity and the real truth of this matter, which is that these folks are disproportionably subject to harm, this bill administratively is a step in the right direction of making all people equal under the law."

In a statement released following the vote, Equality Maryland's executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets said the organization is "proud" of the House.

"We are proud of the 86 Delegates who stood up for fairness today by voting to support H.B. 235. All hardworking people in our state, should have a chance to earn a living and provide for themselves and their families.  Nobody should have to live in fear that they can be legally fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their job skills or work performance. There is still work to do, but today, we're one step closer in seeing all transgender Marylanders are treated fairly under the law."

Currently, Baltimore City and Montgomery County provide protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity with regard to housing, employment and public accommodation.]

The Maryland House of Delegates is scheduled to discuss and vote on the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, during the bill's third and final reading today, Saturday, March 26. The reading may not occur until later this afternoon as the House has many other bills to vote on that are in the "second reading" stage.

If the vote is favorable, the bill will move to a Senate committee for amendments and finally to the Senate floor, expected no later than Monday, March 28, according to the House's clerk office.

For live coverage of the discussion and vote, follow Yusef Najafi on Twitter. Also, visit Metro Weekly for updates as they develop today.

H.B. 235 went through its second reading on Friday afternoon, March 25, after passing through the Maryland House's Health and Government Operations Committee with a 15-8 favorable vote earlier that day. The legislation seeks to prohibit discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, licensing and commercial leasing against transgender Marylanders.

Opponents of the legislation include members of the LGBT community who argue that the bill is inadequate because it only provides some, not all, protections by excluding "public accommodations" on a state level. Similar legislation, which included protections for transgender people with regard to Maryland public accommodations, has failed in the past.

 Currently, Baltimore City and Montgomery County provide protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity with regard to housing, employment and public accommodation.

The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, went through its second reading this afternoon on the Maryland House of Delegates Floor and was ordered to be "printed" for its third and final reading. According to the clerk's office of the Maryland House of Delegates, the third reading is scheduled to take place on Saturday, March 26, in order to get the bill to the Senate floor by Monday, March 28.

The bill passed through the Maryland House's Health and Government Operations Committee with a 15-8 favorable vote this morning. The legislation seeks to prohibit discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, licensing and commercial leasing against transgender Marylanders.

There were no amendments made to the bill during second reading. Amendments were made to the language of the bill in committee. One that took away "expression" and "behavior" from language in the bill, but kept "appearance" and identity. Regardless of the removal, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, says the bill will still protect expression and behavior because of the way it is written. According to Meneses-Sheets amendments may not be introduced during the bill's third reading.

Speaking to Metro Weekly following passage of the bill's second reading, Meneses-Sheets said she is "thrilled."

“We still have a lot of work to do on this bill in a short period of time, but in one day we got through committee and second reading for the first time,” she says. “This critical bill has died in committee year after year, and this is an exciting moment and now we get back to work.”

For updates to this story, continue to visit metroweekly.com.

The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, passed through the Maryland House's Health and Government Operations Committee with a 15-8 favorable vote, according to Equality Maryland.

The legislation, which seeks to prohibit discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, licensing and commercial leasing against transgender Marylanders, will now move on to the Maryland House of Delegates floor for a full vote.

[UPDATE] According to prominent transgender activist Dana Beyer, the bill's third reading and final vote are expected on the House floor before midnight on Monday, March 28. The bill will then move to the Senate. 

"The party-line vote is indivcative of the fact that there's strong support on the floor," Beyer says.

According to Beyer, amendments made to the bill in committee were limited to the language used in the bill and were of "no great significance." A proposed amendment to allow greater religious exclusions was rejected. 

In a statement released by Equality Maryland Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk's (D- Anne Arundel, Prince George's), the lead sponsor of the bill, said the legislation is about fairness.

"Every Marylander should expect to work or live in comfortable housing without fear of losing either because of who they are.  HB 235 provides the protection necessary to make sure that every Marylander can live without fear of discrimination."

Equality Maryland executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets told Metro Weekly yesterday that she was confident of a favorable vote in committee, despite some delay introduced by Republican Del. Susan Krebs (Carroll County) who sought a definition of "transgender," one that was approved by Maryland's Attorney General, prompting a "procedural hold" until this morning.

"All hardworking people in our state, including transgender people, should have a chance to earn a living and provide for themselves and their families," Meneses-Sheets states in the release. "Nobody should have to live in fear that they can be legally fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance."

Meneses-Sheets also said that she is confident the bill will make it on to the House floor for a vote before the end of this year's legislative session, which is April 11.

Though it could not be determined if Kreb's dilemma was appeased with a resolution, she ultimately voted against the measure.

Opponents of the legislation include members of the LGBT community who argue that the bill is inadequate because it only provides some, not all, protections by excluding "public accommodations" on a state level. Similar legislation, which included protections for transgender people with regard to Maryland public accommodations, has failed in the past.

Currently, Baltimore City and Montgomery County provide protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity with regard to housing, employment and public accommodation.

Voting record on bill is now available. 

Voting in favor of H.B. 235:

• Peter Hammen (D-46)
• Shane Pendergrass (D-13)
• Eric M Bromwell (D-8)
• Bonnie Cullison (D-19)
• Robert Costa (D-33B)
• James Hubbard (D-23A)
• Ariana Kelly (D-16)
• Dan Morhaim (D-11)
• Peter Murphy (D-28)
• Shirley Nathan-Pulliam (D-10)
• Nathaniel Oaks (D-41)
• Joseline Pena-Melynk (D-21)
• Kirill Reznik (D-39)
• Shawn Tarrant (D-40)
• Veronica Turner (D-26)

Voting against the measure: 

• John Donoghue (D-2C)
• Donald Elliott (D-4B)
• William Frank (D-42)
• A. Wade Kach (D-5B)
• Nic Kipke (D-31)
• Susan Krebs (D-9B)
• Patrick McDonough (D-7)
• Justin Ready (D-5A)

A bill that seeks to prohibit discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, licensing and commercial leasing against transgender Marylanders was scheduled to be voted on today in the Maryland House's Health and Government Operations Committee. The vote, however, did not happen due to a "procedural hold" brought forth by Republican Del. Susan Krebs (Carroll County).

According to a staffer from the Health and Government Operations Committee office, Krebs said she needed a definition of "transgender," one that was approved by Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler (D), before voting on House Bill 235. That request, according to the staffer, was placed Wednesday, March 23.

A committee vote has been scheduled for H.B. 235 for Friday, March 25, but the office did not have information as to what will happen with the vote if Gansler has not responded by then.

Kreb's did not immediately return a request for comment. A spokesperson in the attorney general's office, meanwhile, was unable to provide any immediate information about the status of request when contacted by Metro Weekly this evening. 

Speaking to Metro Weekly about today's developments, Equality Maryland executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets said she is confident that the bill will make it through committee, even without Kreb's support, and land on the House floor before the end of this year's legislative session, which is April 11.

"It will go up for a vote tomorrow and we will still have plenty of time to get it out of the House," she says.

"In no way do I think the bill is dead. It's going to come out of committee tomorrow and then they're still working all day tomorrow, Saturday, Monday, they have multiple sessions everyday -- there's plenty of time." 

Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk's (D- Anne Arundel, Prince George's) is the lead sponsor of the bill, but -- with ongoing floor proceedings late today -- she was unavailable for comment this evening.

Currently, Baltimore City and Montgomery County provide protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity with regard to housing, employment and public accommodation. Supporters of the statewide legislation argue that often times people are unaware of these local protections. Opponents of the legislation include members of the LGBT community who argue that the bill is inadequate because it only provides some, not all, protections by excluding "public accommodations" on a state level. 

[Photo: Krebs]

Despite the passage of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act in December 2010, numbers released today about discharges under the law in the year proceeding the vote serve as a stark reminder of the daily potential impact of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to servicemembers. According to information obtained today by Servicemembers United and partially confirmed to Metro Weekly by the Department of Defense, the U.S. Armed Forces discharged a total of 261 people in fiscal year 2010, which ran from Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010.

Nearly three-quarters, 180, of the 250 discharges from the four branches under the Department of Defense -- the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy -- came in the "statement" category of discharges. A Department of Defense spokesperson confirmed the total number of DOD discharges to Metro Weekly this evening. Of the remaining 70, 65 discharges were classified in the "act" category and 5 were classified as being marriage-based.

The Army discharged 93 people, the Air Force discharged 64, the Marine Corps discharged 39, the Navy discharged 54 and the Coast Guard discharged 11, according to the documents, a copy of which was provided to Metro Weekly. The Coast Guard, which is under the control of the Department of Homeland Security, did not categorize its 11 discharges in its response to Servicemembers United.

Although most of the DOD branches reported about twice as many "statement" discharges than "act" discharges, the Army reported four times as many "statement" discharges -- 74 -- as "act" discharges -- 18.

Alex Nicholson, the executive director of Servicemembers United, said in a statement, "While this latest official discharge number represents an all-time annual low, it is still unusually high considering that the Secretary of Defense issued a directive half-way through the fiscal year to make it much harder for military units to discharge troops under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

The change referenced by Nicholson was the March changes to DADT separation policies that raised the level of the officer who is authorized to initiate an inquiry or separation proceeding regarding the DADT policy to a general or flag officer in the servicemember's chain of command.

"Despite this law clearly being on its deathbed at the time, 261 more careers were terminated and 261 more lives were abruptly turned upside down because of this policy," Nicholson said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said in a statement, "While even one discharge under the discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law is too many, the 2010 numbers represent a marked decline from years before.

According to Servicemembers United, National Guard discharges often are not included in the official DOD numbers that are released. Accordingly, the organization said today that "the total unofficial number of servicemembers discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is now at least 14,316."

Sarvis pointed to the numbers as a sign of the need for implementation of the DADT Repeal Act, ending DADT.

"But these numbers underscore the need to accelerate the timeline for training and repeal. The reality is that investigations continue and service members are still in danger of being discharged," he said. "We look forward to certification by Secretary Gates, Chairman Mullen, and the President as we move toward full repeal."

Certification is required under the DADT Repeal Act, followed by a 60-day congressional review period, before DADT is removed from law and repealed in full.

Eileen Lainez, a Defense Department spokesperson, wrote to Metro Weekly in response, noting, "The decision to certify will be made by the Secretary of Defense/Chairman/President when they determine DoD is ready to make this change consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces, and that conditions have been met for all the services, commands and units." 

She added, "Training the force is an essential component to ensuring implementation is consistent with these standards. However, certification by the secretary and the chairman does not require a hundred percent of the people to be trained. We're going to try to get to a high percentage of the units as quickly as we can."

Adding a reference to transgender servicemembers, whose status was not addressed in the DADT Repeal Act, Sarvis said, "Until we achieve full equality for all LGBT service members, the job is not done."

In a brief order issued today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs' request to vacate its earlier stay order, which is keeping Proposition 8 in effect during the appeal of the Perry v. Brown challenge to the marriage amendment.

The order, from the three judges hearing the appeal:

Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

The plaintiffs had made the request of the Ninth Circuit to lift the stay shortly after the Department of Justice announced that it would no longer be defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote, "The conclusion of the United States that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation is unquestionably correct. Proposition 8 cannot survive the requirements of heightened scrutiny because its invidious discrimination against gay men and lesbians could not conceivably further an important government interest. Indeed, proponents have made no serious attempt to defend Proposition 8 under that exacting standard."

The ongoing consideration by the California Supreme Court of the certified question sent to it by the Ninth Circuit in the Perry case, which is delaying final resolution of the case by the Ninth Circuit, was an additional reason why the plaintiffs had requested that the stay be lifted. The California Supreme Court is considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have any "particularized interest" in the case or any legal right under California law to defend the proposition in court.

[UPDATE @ 2:55 PM: The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which has brought the Perry challenge, issued the following statement from board president Chad Griffin:

Several weeks ago, we filed a motion with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking the Court to lift its stay and allow California's gay and lesbian couples to marry. We felt then, as we do now, that it is decidedly unjust and unreasonable to expect California’s gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second-class citizens while their US District Court victory comes to its final conclusion.

It is un-American to deprive gay and lesbian couples of their fundamental constitutional right to marry. These are adults in committed, loving relationships who just want to live their lives without government interference.

Last August, the US District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. We believe that the courts will permanently secure the freedom to marry for all Californians.

AFER is committed to ensuring that all Americans have the freedom to marry.]

A bill that seeks to prohibit discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, licensing and commercial leasing, against transgender Marylanders, just passed its first hurdle, moving through the Government Operations Subcommittee of the Health and Government Operations Committee, according to Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk's (D- Anne Arundel, Prince George's) office. 

Though details of passage of the bill through subcommittee were not immediately available, a representative from Pena-Melnyk's office told Metro Weekly amendments were made this afternoon to the bill "quickly," and they will be posted on the H.B. 235's official page shortly.

Pena-Melnyk is the lead sponsor of the bill. The bill will be put to a committee vote next week according to her office. If that vote is favorable, the bill will move to the House for a floor vote.

Currently, Baltimore City and Montgomery County provide protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity with regard to housing, employment and public accommodation. Supporters of the statewide legislation argue that often times people are unaware of these local protections.

On March 3, Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from Missouri, introduced a resolution purporting to "demand that the Department of Justice continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in all instances."

The move, in response to the Feb. 23 decision by President Barack Obama and DOJ that statutes that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more searching inquiry – called "heightened scrutiny" – and that, accordingly, Section 3 of DOMA – which creates a federal definition of marriage – is unconstitutional.

Hartzler's resolution does not leave it at calling for DOJ to defend DOMA. It also takes a swipe at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – referred to by opponents as Obamacare – and referenced Obama's past statements that, as the resolution states it, "marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." It goes so far as to "condemn[]" what it characterizes as the administration's "direction" not to defend Section 3 of DOMA in court.

Nearly three weeks after introduction, however, the resolution had less than 100 co-sponsors. The 98 Republicans – and zero Democrats – to sign on in support of the resolution as of the evening of March 22 represent less than half of the Republican caucus.

As Human Rights Campaign spokesman Fred Sainz told Metro Weekly on March 22, "This is a dog of an issue for most Republicans, and most reasonable, politically sophisticated Republicans completely understand that public opinion has shifted way away from these issues."

Asked if this means Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) – a co-sponsor of the resolution – isn't a "sophisticated politician," Sainz said, "I am. She is ... and I would daresay that the 100 of them that signed on ... these are like red-meat folks."

To compare, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, was introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on March 16 and already has 108 co-sponsors. Another reference point is the original passage of DOMA in 1996, when 342 members of the House – included many from both parties – voted for the bill (although only 117 co-sponsored the legislation introduced by then-Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.)).

Referring to additional information about its recent polling on the issue that HRC plans to release on March 23 and that Metro Weekly was permitted to review this evening, Sainz said, "Every single cross-section of America, every single – repeat every single cross-section of America is opposed to DOMA. Every single one of them."

The polling question provided specific information detailing only Section 3 of DOMA and asked whether the respondent "favor[s] or oppose[s] the law banning federal recognition of legal marriages." Section 2 of DOMA, which purports to prevent states from having to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, was not referenced in the poll's description of DOMA.

With that caveat, the numbers from the HRC poll, which was conducted in partnership with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, shows that majorities in every age group oppose DOMA and that pluralities in every geographic region oppose the law. 

Further, he added, "And every single cross-section of America, when they're told the benefits that DOMA denies legally married same-sex couples, the numbers go even higher."

For example, majorities from every age group support providing Social Security survivor benefits for legally married same-sex couples, with nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of those ages 18-29 responding in the affirmative. Even in the least supportive group, those age 65 and older, the support was at 53 percent.

Addiitionally, the survey shows that majorities in every geographic region support protecting spouses from losing their homes in cases of severe medical emergencies or death. The support here ranged from 69 to 70 percent of people in the Northeast, central portion of the country and West and stood at 56 percent of respondents in the South.

Of the failure of the pro-DOMA resolution to pick up much traction – only four members had signed on to the resolution in the previous week – Sainz said, "The data does not support that this is where America is trending. That's why the Republican leadership, which has to kind of balance the philosophical convictions of some of its members versus what is going to move the country as a whole, has really tried to minimize this issue because they understand that this is not a winner of an issue for them."

In fact, unlike the resolution put forth by Hartzler, the resolution passed by the Republican leadership to allow the House to intervene in pending DOMA challenges and those leaders' statements on the matter have been almost completely devoid of any talk of marriage, instead focusing on their claimed duty to defend laws passed by Congress.

[Photo: Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, speaks at the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act on March 16. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Following up on the earlier news regarding the desire of the U.S. and Brazil to create a Special Rapporteur for LGBT issues at the Organization of American States and today's United Nations statement, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that referred to ending anti-LGBT violence and human rights abuses a "critical issue."

Carney said in his statement:

President Obama believes that advancing the human rights of minorities and the marginalized is a fundamental American value. The President was pleased to announce during his trip to Brazil that he and President Rousseff agreed to promote respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals through the establishment of a special rapporteur on LGBT issues at the Organization of American States.  This special rapporteur will be the first of its kind in the international system.    

Over the past months our diplomats have been engaged in frank, and at times difficult, conversations about the human rights of LGBT persons with governments from around world. This morning, at the United Nations Human Rights Council, some 85 countries joined the United States in reaffirming our joint commitment to end acts of violence and human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  The President is proud of the work we have done to build international consensus on this critical issue and is committed to continuing our determined efforts to advance the human rights of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[UPDATE @ 9:30 PM: The State Department also released the following statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding the U.N. statement:

Today, 85 countries from every region of the world joined together in a historic moment to state clearly that human rights apply to everyone, no matter who they are or whom they love. 

The United States, along with Colombia and Slovenia, took a leading role on this statement along with over 30 cosponsors.  Countries around the world participated including many that had never supported such efforts.  And we hope that even more countries will step up, sign on to the statement and signal their support for universal human rights.  

This statement is an example of America’s commitment to human rights through dialogue, open discussion and frank conversation with countries we don’t always agree with on every issue.  In Geneva, our conversations about the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals with countries where sexual orientation is not only stigmatized, but criminalized, are helping to advance a broader and deeper global dialogue about these issues.

As I said last June, gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.  We will continue to promote human rights around the world for all people who are marginalized and discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity.  And we will not rest until every man, woman and child is able to live up to his or her potential free from persecution or discrimination of any kind.]

At the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) National Dinner on Saturday, March 19, 2011, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was presented with the Anna Curren Award for his leadership in helping to pass the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act in the 111th Congress. He spoke, not of himself, but of the leadership of former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and LGBT servicemembers past, present and future.

In notable part, he said:

As with every civil rights movement, we all benefit in another way: By reclaiming our history, by winning the right to tell our country's story more honestly and more fully.

It's time to learn from the stories of the gay Americans who served and sacrificed for us -- not always openly, but always bravely.

Some of those stories are recent history: Eric Alva, Purple Heart winner and the first American wounded in Iraq. Thank you, Eric. Margarethe Cammermeyer, for whom I campaigned for Congress. Thank you, Margarethe. Paula Neira, who introduced me -- a nurse, a lawyer, a Navy combat veteran, who has stood up against discrimination.

Every one of them is a living testemant to service and patriotism

Mike Almy, an Air Force major -- kicked out -- testified before the Senate. Captain Anthony Woods of West Point, two tours in Iraq. Zoe Dunning. So many other names I could mention. Thank you all for the courage you showed and are showing to this very day.

Ladies and gentleman, we also know that the stories stretch much further back. As President Obama said, there is no doubt that gay Americans have fought and died in every one of our wars since America's founding. ...

For every one of those men and women who served in silence, the repeal of DADT is about them, too.

Now it's time to write a new generation of stories. They will be written by young men and women like the young man who wrote me last fall. They will serve openly, and proudly. They will benefit our country and our principles. They will be leaders in the civil rights movement of our time. They will endure sacrifice and separation from their loved ones so that the rest of us don't have to. Some of them will die, will die for their country so that the rest of us don't have to.

Let's recognize their service and every American's service for the precious gift it is. Let us give every American's service the honor it deserves.

Watch:

Also, check out the speeches from Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis, also available at Metro Weekly.

In a statement released to Metro Weekly on Monday, March 21, Equality Maryland board chair Chuck Butler and Equality Maryland Foundation board chair Patrick Wojahn detail what led to the organization's decision to request a delay in a vote on the 2011 marriage bill.

The two wrote, in part:

It’s understandable that because the marriage bill moved so swiftly through the Senate, many thought the bill would sail through the House. For several reasons, including the results of last year’s election, this didn’t happen. The night before the March 11 vote, House leaders informed us that the bill did not have the 71 votes necessary for passage. They made clear two key issues: first, as time went on, the bill was losing support; second, if the House voted on the bill, certain Delegates who might take a risky “yes” vote to pass a meaningful piece of legislation would vote “no” because they knew the bill would fail. So rather than garnering 68 or 69 votes – still short of the 71 needed – the bill could be defeated with only 50-some votes in support.

We spent the night in discussions among Equality Maryland board and staff, members of the Assembly’s LGBT Caucus, and our national partner organizations, trying to find a way to save the bill. Everyone realized that if the legislature passed the bill, opponents would likely gather sufficient signatures to place a repeal referendum on the next election ballot. The political realities of a referendum meant that, if we didn’t pass the bill in 2011 or 2012, we wouldn’t have another shot until 2015.

Read the full statement: Recommit.pdf

Over the weekend, President Barack Obama made an official state visit to Brazil, including a meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Included in the joint statement issued by the leaders about the relationship between the two countries was news that the two leaders would work within the Organization of American States to establish a "Special Rapporteur" to help in "promoting respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals."

From the leaders' statement:

The leaders stressed the shared commitment to promote and protect human rights and to support the consolidation of democracy around the world. In keeping with the Inter-American Democratic Charter, they reaffirmed that democracy is essential to political, economic, and social development. They reiterated that the values of liberty, equality, and social justice are intrinsic to democracy, and that the promotion and protection of human rights is a basic prerequisite for the existence of a democratic society. ...

They agreed to cooperate in advancing democracy, human rights and freedom for all people bilaterally and through the United Nations and other multilateral fora, including ensuring respect for human rights in the context of the democratic movements and transitions; strengthening the UN Human Rights Council as recently demonstrated in the case of the creation of the Commission of Inquiry on Libya; promoting respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals through the establishment of a Special Rapporteur at the OAS; and improving the conduct of free and fair elections regionally and globally, including through the promotion of human rights in the context of elections and increasing their accessibility to disabled persons.

The OAS, according to its website, "was established to achieve among its member states, as stated in Article 1 of its Charter, 'an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.'"

According to the website, "The OAS uses a four-pronged approach to effectively implement its essential purposes, based on its pillars: democracy, human rights, security, and development."

The OAS currently has a similar position, a Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, a post created by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1997. That post was established "in response to the recommendations of broad sectors of society in different States throughout the hemisphere who shared a deep concern over the constant restriction of freedom of expression and information." The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), described as an "autonomous organ" of the OAS, is one of two entities established under the OAS to address human rights issues in the Americas and is made up of a seven-member board elected by the General Assembly of the OAS.

Both Brazil and America have representation on the newest board, which held elections today. George Washington University Law professor Dinah Shelton (bio) was elected chair of the board, according to a news release issued by the IACHR. The other members are from Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Venezuela

It was not immediately clear whether the LGBT Special Rapporteur post has support from other IACHR members and, if so, when the post would be established.

[Photo: Shelton (Photo from GW Law website.)]

Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George today faced significant questions about the federal prosecution of 13 people who protested at the White House in 2010 in opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The protesters -- who sought more action from President Obama to end the ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual service -- had been charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office with a federal regulation prohibiting "interfering with agency functions," specifically violating a lawful order of the National Park Service.

After two different hearing times today in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in the District, the possibility of any trial on the charges was put off until September.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1997, raised concerns about the charges in court this morning, asking the attorneys -- Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela George, the prosecutor, and defense attorneys Mark Goldstone and Ann Wilcox -- to confer about whether the rarely invoked charges needed to be pursued.

Of the judge's morning statement, which invoked civil rights-era prosecutions of protesters in questioning the charges brought against former Lt. Dan Choi and 12 others, Goldstone said, "The judge was telegraphing very clearly that he sees the case similiar to how we see this case: as a civil rights exercise, as a First Amendment exercise, as people who non-violently expressed their opposition to a policy which has now been repealed. So, what's the harm to the government if the case is dismissed, or if the case is handled in such a way that it doesn't result in a criminal conviction?"

Explaining the ways of doing that to Metro Weekly after the hearing, Goldstone said, "Lots of times demonstrators enter pleas of 'post and forfeit,' which is not a criminal conviction even though the charge itself might have been a crime." He also noted that there is the possibility of "deferred sentencing, in which case, if they are good, the charge will be dismissed."

After the judge brought the attorneys and defendants back to court a little before 3:30 this afternoon, George told Facciola that, after quick consultation with colleagues and her superiors, the "government is not prepared to accept or reject the court's" recommendation to find a way to avoid the trial on the federal regulation violation charge.

Of possible hearing dates when the judge would be out of the country, Facciola told the attorneys, "You better get a date for me because I'm going to keep this case."

After Goldstone presented possibilities for avoiding a conviction, the judge told the prosecutor, "I would urge you to give these proposals serious consideration."

The parties agreed to hold a status conference with the court and the attorneys at 10 a.m. May 17 to discuss those proposals. A date of Sept. 19 was set for the defendants to enter a plea or begin trial.

Because the 13 had not been processed in the federal system because their initial arrests were handled by local authorities, the 12 defendants in attendance -- Choi; Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen (Ret.); Cpl. Evelyn Thomas; Cadet Mara Boyd; Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of Get Equal; Dan Fotou, eastern regional field director for Get Equal; former U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Miriam Ben-Shalom; former U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Justin Elzie; U.S. Army veteran Rob Smith; Father Geoff Farrow; Scott Wooledge; and Michael Bedwell -- were processed by the U.S. Marshals Office following the hearing.

The final defendant, former U.S. Army Arabic Linguist Ian Finkenbinder, was not present at today's hearing.

Goldstone, after the hearing, explained how he saw what was happening, telling Metro Weekly, "We're trying to figure out an acceptable resolution to the case that will satisfy our clients, who do not want a conviction for locking themselves up to the White House fence. That would be a successful resolution."

Of the prosecution's action to charge under the federal regulation, Wilcox told reporters, "We think it's pretty clear that they're just kind of digging in their heels, and they just don't want to allow people to get a break on this particular go-round -- on this conviction."

[Photo: Front row, from left: Thomas, McGehee, Sandeen, Wooledge, Wilcox (standing). Back row, from left: Fotou, Elzie, Boyd, Bedwell, Goldstone, Farrow, Ben-Shalom. (Photo courtesy Get Equal.)]

[Photo: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) speaks at the Senate introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act on March 16, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

At an afternoon news conference in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) kicked off what she said would be "a long road" to passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. Senate -- an effort also launched earlier today in the House that received support this afternoon from the White House.

Laying out her aim to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act by "us[ing] the regular order [of Senate procedure] as much as we can ... so that the hearings are held and nobody can say we pushed anything through," Feinstein also noted her opposition to DOMA since its original passage in 1996 because, she said, marriage has traditionally been regulated by the states.

White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Metro Weekly in an email this afternoon, "The President has long said that DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. We welcome the introduction of bills that would legislatively repeal DOMA, and look forward to working with lawmakers to achieve that goal."

Of the repeal effort, though, which was being introduced with no Republican support in either chamber, Feinstein said, "Nobody should think this is easy. It's not easy. ... Whether it takes one year or two years or three years or four years, we are committed to it."

Calling DOMA an "injustice that is wrongly enshrined in U.S. law," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) referenced the successful passage of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and said, "I know we will will prevail for marriage equality, too."

Both Gillibrand and Feinstein introduced a couple from their respective states who are fighting to repeal DOMA -- Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper of California, who spoke of the way their marriage was dismissed by U.S. Customs Service agents on the way home from their honeymoon, and Jon and Robert Cooper of New York, who married in Connecticut and spoke about their parenting of five adopted children.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) -- in his first months in the Senate -- joined Feinstein, Gillibrand and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) at the news conference introducing the bill, saying, "We are not proposing, through the repeal of DOMA, to build a new wall; we are proposing to tear one down. ... Discrimination should not be the policy of our government."

Blumenthal, the longtime state attorney general in Connecticut before moving to the Senate after his election this past November, discussed the need for legislative repeal, saying, "Ultimately, the courts will strike down DOMA as unconstitutional, but they will do so too slowly for our federal government to send a message that discrimination in the United States is intolerable ...."

As for the lack of Republican co-sponsors, Feinstein directed the audience to provide help, saying, "Well, that's all we have now, so go go go!"

Talking with Metro Weekly after the news conference, Gillibrand added, "We will get Republican support. We will earn it over time."

Of efforts to recruit Republican co-sponsors, she noted, "We didn't have any early takers, but that doesn't mean we won't have support from the Republican Party."

The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), held confirmation hearings today on four of President Barack Obama's nominees for the federal judiciary. The hearings were led by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), however, and garnered attendance only from Schumer and freshman Deleware Sen. Chris Coons (D) -- despite the fact that one of the nominees is openly gay and another had worked on litigation seeking marriage equality in New York.

J. Paul Oetken, an out gay attorney who worked at Jenner & Block and Debevoise & Plimpton, also spent substantial time in government, working in both the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and the White House under President Clinton. A former law clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Oetken currently serves as the senior vice president and associate general counsel at Cablevision.

He was nominated, on Schumer's recommendation, for a judgeship on the Southern District of New York -- one of the key federal trial courts in the nation.

In Schumer's introduction of Oetken, the senator noted that, in addition to records of excellence and moderation, "I also look for candidates who bring diverse views and backgrounds to the bench. Paul is the first openly gay man to go through an Article III confirmation process in this country, which makes this moment historic. But long after today, what the history books will note about Paul is certain to be his achievements as a fair and brilliant judge."

Schumer did not mention that another of Obama's judicial nominees, Edward C. DuMont, also is an out gay attorney. His nomination, however, did not progress in the 111th Congress, despite having been nominated initially in April 2010. Obama renominated DuMont at the start of the 112th Congress, three weeks before Oetken's nomination on Jan. 26, yet his nomination has still not yet received a hearing.

Coons echoed Schumer's remarks, adding the insight that he was a classmate of Oetken's at Yale Law School. He called Oetken "a shockingly bright person" with a "broad range of capabilities."

Among the other nominees being considered was Paul Engelmayer, another nominee for the Southern District of New York, who Schumer noted had "been involved in highly contentious cases, such as the New York state same-sex marriage case."

Engelmayer, an attorney at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr since 2000, wrote on his Judiciary Committee questionnaire that he "represented 10 same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses in New York State and who ... challeng[ed] that denial." The case, Shields v. Madigan, lost at the trial court level and on appeal. The highest court in New York, the New York Court of Appeals, heard a similar case in 2006, Hernandez v. Robles, that resulted in a 4-3 ruling against those seeking same-sex marriage licenses.

When Oetken had the chance to introduce guests, he said, "I would like to introduce a few of my family members and friends who are here .... First of all, my partner, Makky Pratayot, is here. I'm very happy he was able to come down from Manhattan, where we live." He went on to introduce his brother and his family, who were in attendance, as well as other family members unable to attend but who were watching online, and friends able to attend the hearing.

The questions from Schumer and Coons, which related to the nominees' views on the role of a judge and their experience for such a position, included a question from Schumer about Engelmayer's experience with cases such as the same-sex marriage case. He asked, "Can you give the committee assurance that you understand the difference between being an advocate and being a judge?"

Engelmayer responded, "There is an enourmous difference between being an advocate and being a judge, and I understand it. An advocate's responsibility is to zealously advance the interests of his or her client. ... A judge stands in an entirely different situation. A judge is a passive recipient of cases brought by other people and his or her responsibility is to resolve those case as narrowly as possible in accord with the rule of law, checking all of his or her personal [views] at the courthouse door."

In response to a question from Coons about hows his experience would help him a a judge, Oetken said, "I think the sort of common thread in terms of qualities that I have that I think would serve me well on the federal bench are, in particular, my ability to listen carefully to the parties and to different arguments and to not give short shrift to those arguments but to try to understand them in their best light, to analyze difficult legal issues carefully and rigorously, to write well and, at the end of the day, to rule on the basis of the law and precedent and the facts of a particular case before me."

Among those who attended the hearing was Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block, where Oetken previously worked. A prominent Supreme Court lawyer, Smith previously served chair of the board of directors of the progressive American Constitution Society. Of the hearing, Smith said, "It went very, very well. As you'd expect, the nominees are very well qualified -- certainly Paul Oetken, who I've known for many years, will be a great judge."

After the hearing, Schumer told Metro Weekly that the next step would be a mark-up and vote on the nominations in the committee. As for the timing, he said that Leahy would set it, but, "The sooner the better."

Smith, who argued Lawrence v. Texas -- the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that ended sodomy laws in the country -- also talked about changed attitudes regarding LGBT equality. Of the lack of any expressed opposition from committee members regarding Oetken's sexual orientation or Engelmayer's work in support of marriage equality, Smith told Metro Weekly, "The world is changing. We hope it continues to change. It does seem that the reaction here is quite different than it might have been 10 years ago to nominees with these backgrounds."

Looking over toward Oetken, he added, "Very interesting to see -- very pleasing to see."

[Photo: Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) (left) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) talk with judicial nominee J. Paul Oetken (r) after his confirmation hearing on March 16, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[Photo: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) speaks at the reintroduction of the Respect for Marriage Act on March 16, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the longest serving out LGBT member of Congress, today looked back on the change that's taken place since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. As he stood in the Rayburn House Office Building with colleagues and supporters at the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA and add additional protections for legally married same-sex couples, he told those assembled in response to a question from Metro Weekly, "The fact that we've now evolved to the point where Republicans are complaining that we are introducing this bill because it causes them political problems is a good sign of progress. It used to be the other way around. It started out as a wedge issue for them."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is the lead sponsor of the bill, added, "We're hoping for some Republican sponsors at some point."

Of the lack of any Republican co-sponsors to the legislation, Frank said, "Finally, I would say, as a general principle, the notion that people who believe in something should be deterred from pressing it because no one in the other party will support them is nonsense -- absolute nonsense."

Regardless, Nadler said he had "no commitment" from the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), to bring the bill up for consideration but added, "We will seek that obviously. We're going to ask for that. The fact that 108 put their names on the bill initially, before its introduced even, shows a considerable amount of support for it."

Along with Nadler and Frank, who had not co-sponsored the bill in the 111th Congress, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and out LGBT Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) were in attendance, along with LGBT equality advocates, including the lawyers and plaintiffs in two cases challenging DOMA's federal definition of marriage.

Nancy Gill, a federal postal employee for 23 years, said of herself and her wife, Marcelle Letourneau, "Marcelle and I have been happily together for 30 years and happily married for five. We're raising two kids. Unlike my married co-workers, I can't put Marcelle on my health insurance because of DOMA."

They are the lead plaintiffs in a case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders that succeeded at trial and is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Gill said of the need for an end to DOMA, "Our family should be treated the same as the families of our co-workers, and our children should be just as secure as theirs."

Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in a New York federal court challenge to the law, Windsor v. United States, said today, "All marriages should be treated equally in the eyes of the law."

Roberta Kaplan, Windsor's attorney, had described her client's relationship with Thea Spyer, which began before the Stonewall riots and led to the couple's 2007 marriage in Toronto.

Despite her long history that visibly moved people in the room, it was Windsor who said of the members of Congress and LGBT advocates in attendance, "It's thrilling to be here and to meet all these heroes."

The Senate introduction of the bill is slated for 2 p.m. today.

[Photo: Windsor (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

The Republican House leadership's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, discussed earlier today here, just got a lot more concrete. They will be facing off against Edith Windsor on May 9.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, who is hearing the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA brought by Windsor in the Southern District of New York, filed an order today setting May 9 as the first showdown between the Department of Justice, the House DOMA defense lawyers and Windsor's lawyers -- Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and the ACLU. 

Specifically, Francis set a status conference for 9:30 a.m. that day "for a conference with the Court to discuss how this case should proceed in light of the President's decision, as announced by the Attorney General on February 23, 2011, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7 as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."

Before that, Francis set April 18 as the deadline for Congress to seek to intervene in the case.

Windsor, the widow of Thea Spyer, was forced to pay a $350,000 estate bill following Spyer's death because of the federal government's refusal to recognize Windsor's marriage to Spyer. The New York City couple, whose 2007 wedding in Toronto was featured in The New York Times, were the subject of a documentary, Edie & Thea: A Very Long Engagement. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed legally in other jurisdictions for limited purposes.

As Kaplan told Metro Weekly when the case was brought, "I have an 81-year-old client, and $350,000 is a hell of a lot of money -- a huge amount of money that she paid in violation of the Constitution. My client had to pay the government, and she wants her money back."

And now, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will be sending lawyers to Francis's courtroom to argue against the DOJ and Kaplan about why DOMA's limitation leading to that $350,000 bill is not unconstitutional.

Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog broke the news earlier this evening here.

Read Francis's order: windsor_order.pdf

[Photo of Windsor and Spyer from Edie & Thea: A Very Long Engagement.]

The decision of the House Republican leadership on March 9 to authorize the House counsel's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court prompted questions from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about the cost of the defense and new polling from the Human Rights Campaign suggesting the American people oppose such action.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress, meanwhile, plan to introduce legislation on Wednesday, March 16, to repeal DOMA and add additional federal protections for same-sex couples who marry in one state and move to another where their marriage is not recognized.

In the House, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who was the lead sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) in the 111th Congress, is to be joined by all four out gay representatives – Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) – aand Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) to announce the House introduction of the RMA in the 112th Congress. According to a news release, the RMA has more than 100 co-sponsors in the House.

Frank's decision to co-sponsor the bill this year is notable because he did not co-sponsor it in the 111th Congress. One of the reasons why he did not was the bill's "certainty provision," which guarantees that the federal government will continue to recognize a same-sex couple legally married in one state if the couple moves to a state where same-sex marriages are not recognized. Frank said in 2009 that the provision would "stir up unnecessary opposition with regard to the question of are you trying to export it to other states."

Frank said then that another reason for his opposition was that passage of the bill was "not anything that's achievable in the near term." This year, however, Frank is on board -- even though Republican control of the House makes movement in that chamber even less likely than in the 111th Congress.

In fact, no Republicans are slated to be on board as con-sponsors of the RMA on Wednesday, the deputy executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, Christian Berle, told Metro Weekly this evening. He added, however, "I am confident that there will be a Republican on the House, and potentially the Senate bill, this year."

On that Senate side, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) are set to introduce the bill in the upper chamber, also on Wednesday.

The Bipartisan House Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), by a 3-2 vote over the objections of Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), had directed the House general counsel this past week to defend the 1996 law that would be repealed by the RMA. Those supporting the defense were Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

On Tuesday, March 15, however, HRC released new polling conducted in partnership with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, that showed a majority of Americans oppose DOMA, which the survey question described as "the law banning federal recognition of legal marriages" between "gay and lesbian couples." Fifty-one percent of respondents said they oppose the law, while 34 percent of respondents support it.

The polling question refers to Section 3 of DOMA, which is the portion of DOMA under challenge in several lawsuits and that the Department of Justice, on Feb. 23, announced it would no longer defend in court. Section 2 of DOMA, which purports to prevent states from having to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, was not referenced in the poll's description of DOMA.

Despite this changed public opinion about DOMA, the House leadership voted to move forward with a defense of Section 3 of the law. In a letter sent to Boehner on March 11 about that defense, Pelosi asked for more information about its specifics.

"It is important that the House receive an estimate of the cost to taxpayers for engaging private lawyers to intervene in the pending DOMA cases," she wrote. "It is also important that the House know whether the BLAG, the General Counsel, or a Committee of the House have the responsibility to monitor the actions of the outside lawyers and their fees."

LCR executive director R. Clarke Cooper said in a statement that it should not be surprising that "Congress has decided to exercise its legal right, and some would say duty, to defend the law," but added, "We are confident that this law will ultimately be overturned despite any defense presented by House counsel, and will continue to work with our allies in Congress to advocate for legislative repeal."

GOProud board chairman Chris Barron made a similar point, telling Metro Weekly, "[C]onsidering Congress passed DOMA, it's entirely appropriate for Boehner and the House to step in and defend the law as Constitutional. We disagree about the need for DOMA but we certainly understand and respect the role each branch of the government plays."

READ the full HRC poll here: HRC-DOMA-poll_GQRR-questionnaire.pdf

[Photo: Nadler (Photo from Nadler's congressional office website.)]

It was in the fall of 2007 that Maryland's Montgomery County passed a bill that protects citizens from discrimination in areas such as housing, employment, public accommodations, under the basis of gender identity.

The lead sponsor of the bill was Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg, and prominent transgender activist Dana Beyer worked for the councilmember as her aide. When the bill was passed into law, Ruth Jacobs and others opposing it formed Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government (CRG), for which Jacobs served as president.

CRG began collecting signatures for a petition to put the law to referendum.

In the fall of 2008, Jacobs filed a complaint with the Montgomery County Ethics Commission against Beyer, claiming that Beyer had disrupted the group's efforts to collect signatures at a grocery store in February and threatened to use her power working for councilmember.

The Montgomery County Ethics Commission announced on March 8, 2011 that they have exonerated Beyer of all charges.

Jacob's complaint argued that Beyer had violated an ethics law which states: "A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity."

The Ethics Commission dismissed the complaint under the following code: "[t]he rules of evidence used in judicial proceedings do not apply. The Commission may admit and give appropriate weight to evidence, including hearsay, that possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent persons."

While Beyer feels vindicated by the dropped charges, she says an apology from the Ethics Commission is necessary.

"I am not happy that I have not received an apology from the county or any kind of compensation from them," she said, speaking to Metro Weekly. "That's what I'm discussing now with my attorney."

Beyer could not initiate an effort to seek an apology or compensation because the Ethics Commission had not ruled on her case. With the March 8 ruling, dismissing Beyer of charges, she can start that process.

"The main problem which has not been resolved to any degree whatsoever, is that the Ethics Commission did not perform an investigation. They did not perform due diligence before they chose to charge me. And to the best of my knowledge I'm the first council staffer ever charged with an ethics violation," she said.

"I believe, and I will prove this in court if the opportunity ever rises, that this was a politically motivated attack on me because of my trans-history ... and that it was all done for the specific reason of damaging my political career and that of my boss [who] hired me.

"She was not reelected," Beyer said, adding that it has also damaged her own political career, in seeking election as a Maryland delegate.

"I know of at least one instance, I'm sure there were more, where I did not receive endorsements from various advocacy groups because of this. Having an ethics cloud hanging over me, people who were sensibly my friends, and should have given me the benefit of the doubt, but because the ethics commission has decided to charge me, felt like they couldn't do so."

[Photo: Beyer (Photo by Todd Franson.)]

J. Paul Oetken, the out gay New York attorney who was nominated by President Barack Obama for a federal judicial appointment in late January, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his work for the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association writing an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case at the U.S. Supreme Court was one of the 10 "most significant litigated matters" that he personally handled in his nearly 20-year legal career.

Oetken's work has included time at "BigLaw" firms like Jenner & Block and Debevoise & Plimpton and time in government, working in both the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and the White House under President Clinton. His experience led the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to rate Oetken "unanimously qualified" for the nomination.

On Wednesday afternoon, March 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on several judicial nominees, including Oetken's nomination to serve as a trial court judge in the Southern District of New York. The hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The question about Oetken's most significant cases is one of several that every judicial nominee answers in a questionnaire submitted to the committee before hearings are held on the nominations. The committee asks about every aspect of nominees' professional careers, from schooling to employers and from speeches to, as with Lawrence, cases.

Oetken's questionnaire responses run more than 20 pages long and note, among more hefty details, that he went "door-to-door leafleting and phone-banking" for former Vice President Al Gore (D) and "co-hosted a fundraising event" for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

A former law clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Oetken notes that he is a member of Lambda Legal, the ACLU's LGBT Project and the American Constitution Society. It also details that the previously was a member of DOJ Pride and the Human Rights Campaign.

Oetken writes in his questionnaire that his work on the Lawrence amicus brief -- which was co-authored by Chai Feldblum, who now serves on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- was done pro bono.He also notes that, in addition to the 2003 Supreme Court case, he had "worked on an amicus brief on behalf of the American Psychological Association" in a successful 1995 challenge to Tennessee's sodomy law.

Another out gay nominee, Edward C. DuMont, originally was nominated for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in April 2010. When the Senate did not act on the nomination in the 111th Congress, Obama renominated DuMont on Jan. 5, 2011, for the 112th Congress. DuMont was rated "unanimously well qualified" by the ABA panel, yet no hearing has been scheduled on his nomination.

READ Oetken's questionnaire: JPaulOetken-PublicQuestionnaire.pdf

[FULL DISCLOSURE: Geidner, while a law student at the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, coordinated a panel, "From Hardwick to Lawrence: Sodomy Laws and GLBT Equality in the New Century," on which Oetken was a panelist. The panel is referenced in Oetken's questionnaire.]

Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery), the only out gay member of Maryland's Senate, who introduced the marriage legislation in the Senate with Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery), released a statement today in regard to the House of Delegate’s move to send the bill back to committee.

The legislation, now slated to be debated during Maryland’s 2012 session, would have granted same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions.

Madaleno’s full statement is below:

Today, the House of Delegates did not pass the Civil Marriage Protection Act (SB 116), but instead chose to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. While I share your disappointment in this news, I remain committed to the passage of SB 116. In fact, today’s action will enable us to continue fighting to provide same-gender couples the freedom to marry in Maryland. SB 116 has been passed by the Maryland Senate and remains before the House of Delegates.

Clearly, our fight for marriage equality is not over. I will continue working with my colleagues in the House to see that the Civil Marriage Protection Act receives a vote on the House floor. Whether it takes a few days, weeks, months, or even years, my commitment to marriage equality will never waiver and my belief that our families will receive the legal recognition they deserve will not falter.

Unfortunately, throughout American history, various groups of people have been subjected to discrimination and prejudice. Yet every generation of Americans has held out their hand to those who have been left out of the promise of equality. Every generation has accepted the responsibility of standing up for the rights of those who are not like them. Every generation has said, “You are not the other. You are us.”

We are not the first to fight for equality and we will not be the last. This effort is not over, nor is the effort to pass the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act (HB 235) this year. Today, we continue undeterred on our path to full equality and freedom for all.

UPDATE, Full report: No Maryland Marriage Vote. 

Maryland House of Delegates Chairman Del. Joseph Vallario stunned supporters and opponents of Senate Bill 116, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, after a three-hour debate during the bill's final reading by sending it back to the House' Judiciary Committee for further debate. 

During the final moments of debate, discussions became religious from both sides of the argument. 

Del. Heather Mizeur, one of the eight openly LGBT people serving in the House, talked about her childhood, and how she knew she wanted to be an elected official, she knew she was a devout Catholic and she knew she was a lesbian. 

"I prayed and I prayed and I prayed that it would go away," she said "Especially the gay part. Make it go away. By the time I was in college… I realized that never once with my conversations with God, did God tell me it was wrong."

"You can't stop us from loving each other," Mizeur said, adding that, "what we're asking for is the ability to protect oru relationships and that commitment to forever.”

Del. Luke Clippinger, who is gay, talked about how Senate Bill 116 protects religious institutions, explaining that he is a Presbyterian and would not be allowed to get married at his church or any Presbyterian church.

"I've heard that somehow I am less than natural," he said, "That I am less than human. That I am less than. I am here to claim today to this House, that I am not less than. I am a child of God... and perfectin my imperfections." 

The Maryland's House of Delegates is entering hour two of debates on Senate Bill 116, legislation that would grant same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

Discussions from both sides have been passionate and often ended with abpplause in the House chambers.

Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County) said he found it offensive that the gay rights movement is often compared to the civil rights movement. Burns added that he's been threatened and called the "N-word" regarding his opposition to the marriage bill. 

"The civil rights movement as I knew it... had nothing to do with same-sex marriage," he said, "and those who decide to ride on our coattails are historically incorrect. The civil rights movement was about putting teeth into the Declaration of Independence." 

Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (Prince George’s and Anne Arundel) talked about her friendship with late Senator Gwendolyn Britt, who was lead sponsor of a marriage equality bill before she died from heart failure in January 2008. 

"This was her bill," Pena-Melnyk said.

Del. Cheryl Glenn (D-Baltimore City), presented an amendment to change the name of the bill to include "Civil Unions" not "marriage." Glenn said she has promised activists supporting same-sex marriage she would be lead sponsor of legislation providing protections, but as long as that is called "civil unions" not "marriage."

"It's all about the word of God," she said. "It truly is."

Del. Kathleen Dumais (D-Montgomery County), co-sponsor of the marriage bill, countered that by saying, "Creating something separate is not equal, and I respectfully request rejection of amendment."

Glenn's amendment was rejected by a voice vote. 

Del. Michael A. McDermott (R-Wicomico and Worcester Counties), who opposed the measure, expressed frustration that the amendment failed. "The thing you could have achieved in this House today will go on the ash heap," he said, calling the civil unions bill a "bridge."

The Maryland House of Delegates is currently debating Senate Bill 116, during its third and final reading. If the bill is passed into law, it would grant same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

For live coverage, follow Yusef Najafi on Twitter, with full coverage to follow on metroweekly.com.

Before the Maryland House of Delegates Health and Government Operations Committee heard testimony on Wednesday, March 9, from many supporters and a few opponents of House Bill 235, a bill that would prohibit discrimination in the state on the basis of gender identity in the areas of areas of housing, employment, licensing and commercial leasing, Equality Maryland held a press conference in the same building.

Speaking at the event were supporters of the bill, including Father Joseph Palacios, a board member of Catholics for Equality, Donna Cartwright, president of Pride at Work, and Alex Hickox, who talked about the fear of losing his job for coming out as transgender and the impact that would have on his life and home.

"I shouldn't be judged on being transgender, nor my gender expression, what I should be judged on, what all of us should be judged on is our work ethic and our ability to to do our jobs," Hickox, 34, said.

Today the equal rights organization posted video from the press conference. Below are Hickox's, and Palacios' speeches. To view more video from the March 9 press conference, visit Equality Maryland's YouTube channel. 

Alex Hickox:

Father Joseph Palacios:

Today's White House conference on bullying is underway. First Lady Michelle Obama and President Barack Obama opened the conference this morning, addressing an audience of activists, politicians and others committed to combatting bullying in schools, including bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Metro Weekly senior political writer Chris Geidner is at the White House for the conference and will be providing live-tweets throughout the day -- follow him at @chrisgeidner and @metroweekly to get the latest from the White House, as well as further reports to come. (Photo by Ward Morrison/Metro Weekly.)

Here are their remarks:

MRS. OBAMA:  Good morning.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Everyone, please.  Good morning, and welcome to the White House. 

     I want to thank all of you for joining us here today to discuss an issue of great concern to me and to Barack, not just as President and as First Lady, but as a mom and a dad.  And that is the problem of bullying in our schools and in our communities.  

     As parents, this issue really hits home for us.  As parents, it breaks our hearts to think that any child feels afraid every day in the classroom, or on the playground, or even online.  It breaks our hearts to think about any parent losing a child to bullying, or just wondering whether their kids will be safe when they leave for school in the morning.

     And as parents, Barack and I also know that sometimes, maybe even a lot of the time, it’s really hard for parents to know what’s going on in our kids’ lives. 

     We don’t always know, because they don’t always tell us every little detail.  We know that from Sasha.  Sasha’s response is -- “What happened at school today?”  “Nothing.”  (Laughter.)  That’s it.  It’s like, well, we’re taking you out of that school.  (Laughter.)

     So as parents, we know we need to make a real effort to be engaged in our children’s lives, to listen to them and be there for them when they need us.  We need to get involved in their schools and in their activities so that we know what they’re up to, both in and out of the classroom.  And when something is wrong, we need to speak up, and we need to take action.

[Photo: The resolution approved by the Republican members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group today, as posted on Twitter by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).]

The Bipartisan House Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), by a 3-2 vote over the objections of House Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), directed the House General Counsel to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

Pelosi, in a statement, said:

"President Obama took a bold step forward for civil rights when he announced that the federal government would no longer argue to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act in court.  DOMA is discriminatory; it's unfair and indefensible; and it betrays our nation's long-held – and long-cherished – value of equality for all.

"Since its proposal and passage, this legislation has raised constitutional questions and has been viewed as a violation of the equal protection clause. The House should not be in the business of defending an unconstitutional statute that is neither rational nor serves any governmental interest.  DOMA actually discriminates against American families.

"Given the complexity and number of cases, this legal challenge would sap hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, if not more, during a time of limited fiscal resources.

"Pursuing this legal challenge distracts from our core challenges: creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and responsibly reducing the deficit.  And that is why I voted against this action today."

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), and John Conyers (D-MI) just issued the following joint statement:

“This 3-2 vote, carried over the vigorous objection of House Democratic Leaders and structured to avoid a vote of the House as a whole, is partisanship at its worst.

“The President correctly concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act cannot and should not be defended in court.  It has been 15 years since Congress enacted DOMA, and the myths and stereotypes used to support its enactment have been shattered.  Married gay and lesbian couples pay taxes, serve their communities, struggle to balance work and family, raise children and care for aging parents.  Their contributions and needs are no different than anyone else’s.  The majority of Americans understand this and now favor extending the time-honored tradition of marriage to loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.  There is no legitimate reason for the federal government to continue denying married gay and lesbian couples the legal security, rights and responsibilities that recognition of their marriages would provide.  

“We are extremely disappointed that the House Republican Leadership has decided to actively promote and defend discrimination; and they cannot cloak their intentions with the false assertion that the President or DOJ have failed to execute the law faithfully.  The Administration considered this issue carefully, over several years, and opted not to defend DOMA in court after extensive study of the legal and factual issues at stake.  Based on the lack of any reasonable arguments that justify the harm that DOMA imposes on loving gay and lesbian couples, DOJ correctly concluded that Section 3 of the law violates the Constitution.  Its conclusion was hardly remarkable, as one federal judge already has ruled that the law is unconstitutional and cannot be justified under even the lowest level of judicial review.  

“The President’s decision that DOJ should not be expected or required to continue making harmful and unreasonable arguments that demean its credibility, and that of the American people, was appropriate.  While the decision not to continue defending a law is rare – as it should be – it is not without precedent.  The President has pledged to honor his duty to faithfully execute the law by enforcing Section 3 of DOMA until it is either struck down or repealed.  His courageous decision also honors his oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’ by ensuring that the rights it guarantees have meaning.

“Rather than seeking to defend this law in court, House Republican Leaders should work with us to repeal DOMA.  This action debunks House Republican Leadership’s claim of being the so-called guarantor of states’ rights.  House Republican Leaders seem only to favor states’ rights when it suits them ideologically.  Rather than recognizing every states’ married couples equally, Section 3 of DOMA refuses to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples from five states and the District of Columbia.  Those states have a clear interest in ensuring that all of their married couples receive the same recognition under federal law.  Certainly, Republican Leadership is not acting in these states’ interests.”

The move comes in the wake of today's 4:30 p.m. meeting of the BLAG, which Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) convened on March 4 in response to the Department of Justice's Feb. 23 decision that it would no longer defend Section of DOMA.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "Apparently, the Republicans' jobs plan is a full employment project for right-wing lawyers bent on defending discrimination. With today's vote, Speaker Boehner has made clear that an anti-equality agenda trumps helping American families in tough economic times, including loving and committed couples who are legally married in their states."

[Photo: Edwin Echegoyen, left, and Rodrigo Martinez are married in the District on March 1 (Photo provided by the DOMA Project).]

Attorney Lavi Soloway provides the following update about Edwin Echegoyen and Rodrigo Martinez. The Maryland couple, who married in D.C. on March 1, faced separation today, as Martinez was due to surrender in Baltimore for deportation to El Salvador.

Soloway relayed that "Rodrigo was released" in an email sent to Metro Weekly at 2:30 p.m. today.

Talking with Metro Weekly later this afternoon, Soloway said, "They're not moving forward with a deportation at this time. They're waiting for his case to work his way through the process."

Soloway said that Martinez did report to immigration officials' custody earlier today but was released under an Order of Supervision, which is taking into account his Motion to Reopen Proceedings and Motion for Emergency Stay of Removal and the pending Petition for Alien Relative -- beased on their marriage -- filed by Echegoyen.

Under the order, Martinez will need to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials monthly. Additionally, Soloway said, Martinez must notify ICE of any travel outside of the Maryland, Virginia or D.C. area for more than 48 hours.

As Metro Weekly reported last night:

On March 7, Soloway filed a Motion for Emergency Stay of Removal, which would prevent Martinez's deportation, and a Motion to Reopen Proceedings and evidence of the marriage, which could lead to the consideration of whether [the Defense of Marriage Act] should continue to prevent Echegoyen from being able to sponsor Martinez, with the relevant officials.

Ordinarily, an American spouse would be able to sponsor his or her spouse for immigration purposes, but DOMA has in the past prevented same-sex couples from sponsoring their spouses – even when legally married. As detailed by Metro Weekly, Soloway is raising challenges to that practice following the Department of Justice's conclusion on Feb. 23 that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Of the circumstances of the new Department of Justice conclusion about DOMA, Soloway said, "I believe they're aware of it because they review the documentation carefully."

[NOTE: This post was revised and updated following an interview with Soloway at 3:55 p.m.]

The Maryland House of Delegates held debates and ultimately rejected all presented amendments to Senate Bill 116, during its second reading on the House floor on Wednesday, March 9.

More debates and a vote on the measure are expected on Friday, March 11, during the bill’s third reading in which other amendments can also be introduced.

If signed into law, the legislation would grant same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

Amendments proposed on the House floor included one by Del. Andrew Serafini (R-Washington County) to change the name of the bill from the Civil Marriage Protection Act to the “Same-Sex Marriage Act.” That was rejected 52-85.

The House spent the majority of the debate on a floor amendment proposed by Del. Aisha Braveboy (D-Prince George’s County) to ensure that the bill is partnered with another bill that would guarantee that the marriage legislation goes to referendum.

Maryland’s House is comprised of 141 delegates, from 47 districts, of which 98 are Democrats and 43 Republicans.

Senate Bill 116 passed the Senate on Feb. 24, with a 25-21 vote. Passage of the bill in the House would send the legislation to Gov. Martin O’Malley’s (D) desk.

O'Malley has said that he will sign the legislation into law if it passes through the Senate and the House.

Opponents have said that they will seek a referendum for which a total of 55,736 signatures are required on the petition and must be submitted to Secretary of State John P. McDonough (D) by June 30. One third of those signatures are due on May 31.

Speaking to Metro Weekly after the marriage bill’s second reading, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of the state’s equal rights organization Equality Maryland, remained determined.

“This is an important step forward but it’s not a done deal,” she said. “We have to keep up the work in order to make sure this important legislation passes for all loving and committed gay and lesbian couples in Maryland.”

Carmen Cacciatore, co-founder of Fly-Life marketing agency, announced this afternoon that the earlier reported deal between Target Corp. and Lady Gaga was dissolved this past week.

Bob Witeck of Witeck-Combs Communications was familiar with the dissolved deal, although he does not represent Gaga or any of the parties, and told Metro Weekly, "Despite the expectation that this was all unfolding as a deal, it has been in a sensitive stage of continued discussion for probably the last three weeks."

He added, "Quite a few people, even early on, were afraid it was going to dissolve."

In February, talking to Billboard about the deal, Gaga had said, "[O]ur relationship is hinged upon their reform in the company to support the gay community and to redeem the mistakes they've made supporting those groups." Target had faced criticism in 2010 for donations the company made to groups supporting candidates who oppose LGBT equality.

Of today's announcement, Witeck said, "They wanted to make it public now. They decided it was important that people know there is no deal."

Witeck said, speaking only for himself, "I'm very impressed by her."

Referring to her LGBT fans, he said, "Throughout this whole process, she has remained true to her audience. I think she's a person of great integrity, and I think people will recognize that."

The specifics of the reason for the deal being dissolved were not immediately available.

In an email sent to supporters today, Virginia state Del. Adam Ebbin (D-Arlington, Fairfax) officially announced his previously discussed plans that he will be running for a spot in the state's senate:

... I announce my candidacy for the Virginia Senate.

Since 2004, I've had the great honor of representing Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax in the House of Delegates. I'm proud of the progress we've made to expand green energy usage, protect workers from exploitation, advance the rights of LGBT Virginians, and fight the scourge of human trafficking.

If you send me down the hall from the House to the Senate, I will be ready on day one to stand up for our progressive values.

Ebbin will be running for the 30th District seat currently held by Democrat state Sen. Patsy Ticer, who announced her retirement earlier this year.

In a news release announcing the campaign, Ebbin's campaign touts his qualifications and successes:

A resident of Alexandria for 22 years, Delegate Ebbin was a founder of the Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club, an officer of the Eighth Congressional District Democratic Committee, and is a member of the Alexandria Democratic Committee. Governor Mark Warner appointed him to be Chief Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry.

In the House, Delegate Ebbin was honored five times as a Legislative Hero by the Virginia League of Conservation Voters, as an Outstanding Virginian by Equality Virginia, and has a 100% voting record from both the Virginia AFL-CIO and NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. He is the Senior Whip of the House Democratic Caucus and a founding member of the General Assembly's Progressive Caucus.

Way back in 2005, Metro Weekly profiled Ebbin in a cover story Q-and-A with Sean Bugg.

Here's one of the questions that, still today, stands out:

MW: Your first term in office turned out to be one of the most anti-gay terms ever in the Virginia Legislature. What was it like serving as a gay man in the middle of that legislative hostility?

EBBIN: You get a knot in your stomach when you see some of the votes and you're losing them. A lot of gay and straight people say to me, ''How can you stand to be down there? It must be awful.'' I love being there. I love knowing that if someone is going to spread some anti-gay vitriol I can grab the microphone and say, ''Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker'' and speak and be recognized. I can ask them to speak the truth or to understand the truth.

Read the whole thing.

Ebbin's email -- including information about his campaign kick-off event to be held March 20 -- can be found below the jump.

[Photo: Ebbin (Photo by Todd Franson.)]

The Maryland House of Delegates is expected to start debates on marriage equality legislation (Senate Bill 116) as early as Wednesday, March 9, according to Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County).

“It will be probably be read across the desk Monday night, and Tuesday will probably be special order to give people time to work on amendments,” Mizeur told Metro Weekly on Friday, March 4, after Maryland’s House Judiciary Committee voted the bill “favorable” 12-10. [Vote summary]

Mizeur is one of 141 delegates in the House, which includes 98 Democrats and 43 Republicans, from 47 districts.

“We will have amendment debates on Wednesday. And because it’s a Senate bill that we’re working on, it can be amended on third reader too, so we might be dealing with amendments on Thursday as well. Then we will have final passage probably on Thursday, maybe Friday, definitely this week.”

Reacting to passage of the bill in committee, Mizeur said she was not surprised.

“We always knew it was going to,” she said. “We hit a couple of speed bumps along the way, but we always had confidence we were going to work through those and move on to the floor, where will have a bigger debate, and final passage to make Maryland the sixth state that recognizes the importance of equality for everybody.”

Those speed bumps included a change of heart from Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George’s County), who was co-sponsor of the House version of bill, but ultimately voted against the legislation in committee, and the indecisiveness of Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery County), who during his campaign had told voters he would support marriage legislation for same-sex couples, but alluded to having changed his mind as the committee vote approached.

Ultimately, Arora voted in favor of the bill, and said he would do so on the House floor in hopes that voters in Maryland will finally decide on the matter.

Reacting to Arora’s vote, Mizeur said she would like to “focus on the positive.”

“We needed his vote,” she said, “and his constituents need him to stand up to his promises and he’s now come back around to doing that. We just need to move on.”

Del. Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery County), the lead sponsor of the marriage bill in the House, who confirmed to Metro Weekly last week that Arora had told him he was going to vote yes in committee and no on the floor, was also pleased by the vote.

“I am very happy to have his vote on this important matter,” Barve wrote in an e-mail message to Metro Weekly. “If indeed the bill is petitioned to referendum, I am confident the voters of Maryland will make history by affirming the new law in a plebiscite.”

Supporters of the bill were also pleased by the unexpected favorable vote of committee chair Del. Joseph Vallario (D-Prince George’s County), who before the committee vote had said he would vote against the measure.

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said that he will sign the legislation into law if it passes through the Senate and the House. Opponents have said that they will seek a referendum for which a total of 55,736 signatures are required on the petition and must be submitted to Secretary of State John P. McDonough (D) by June 30. One third of those signatures are due on May 31.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) released a statement this afternoon strongly suggesting that the House will take up a court defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in the wake of the Obama administration's decision on Feb. 23 that it will no longer defend Section 3 of the 1996 law.

In the statement, Boehner said, "I will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States, which was enacted by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. 

According to Boehner's office, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is a five-member panel consisting of the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, Majority Whip, Minority Leader, and Minority Whip. Under House rules, his office said in a statement, "the advisory group has the authority to instruct the non-partisan office of the House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House of Representatives."

Boehner added, "It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy. The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally -- and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution."

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), while praising Obama's earlier decision as a "bold step forward for civil rights and equality," opposed Boehner's decision.

"Aside from standing up for a discriminatory law and failing to focus on jobs and the economy, this action places Republicans squarely on the wrong side of history and progress," Pelosi said in a statement. "In addition, this decision will burden the staff and monetary resources of the Office of the General Counsel, and given the complexity of these cases and the number of courts involved, it is likely this will cost the House hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars."

The Department of Justice, in a letter sent to Boehner on Feb. 25, alerted him to 11 cases in which DOJ believes its decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA is implicated.

Pelosi continued, saying, "This is nothing more than a distraction from our most pressing challenges, and Speaker Boehner should follow his own advice and work with Democrats to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit.”

The Human Rights Campaign, which has urged Boehner to focus his attention elsewhere for the same reason, was quick to condemn the move.

"House Republican leadership has now shown they’re more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems," HRC president Joe Solmonese said in a statement. "As families across the country continue to struggle, the House Republican leadership's prescription is to keep families they don't like from accessing needed protections."

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, had been pushing for Boehner to act. He celebrated today's move, saying in a statement, "We commend Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor for intervening to defend DOMA. This follows President Obama's decision to abdicate the requirement of his constitutional oath that he 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' A forceful intervention is a necessary response that will limit the dangerous precedent set by President Obama's refusal to defend DOMA."

Maryland's House Judiciary Committee voted today 12-10 in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 116.

The bill now moves on to the House of Delegates for a floor vote. That vote is expected in the coming week. SB-116 passed through the Senate on Feb. 24, with a 25-21 vote.

The vote came after several amendments were discussed on March 4, including one by Del. Neil Parrott (R-Washington County) to allow grandmothers to marry their grandsons. That amendment was withdrawn.

If signed into law, the legislation would grant same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

Opponents have threatened to take the issue to take the marriage legislation to the ballot box. According to Maryland's State Board of Elections, opponents of the marriage bill can start collecting signatures for a statewide referendum immediately after the passage of the bill in the House of Delegates, before Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signs the bill.

A total of 55,736 signatures are required on the petition and must be submitted to Secretary of State John P. McDonough (D) by June 30. One third of those signatures are due on May 31.

[UPDATED @ 2:45: In a statement issued by Equality Maryland following the vote, Del. Kumar Barve, lead sponsor of the bill says:

"To me, this legislation is all about family, liberty and respect. I respect the civil liberties of same-sex couples who wish to solemnize their relations and families in the eyes of the law. I also respect the values of those in our society who are not comfortable with same-sex relationships. Surely there is enough space in America for all of us to build our lives and families as we choose and live next to each other."]

Maryland Del. Sam Arora (D) has come under scrutiny from those who supported him during his candidacy in 2010. Arora had said he was supportive of marriage equality for LGBT people and was even the co-sponsor of House bill that would grant same-sex couples legal marriage recognition while protecting the freedoms of religious institutions.

It all changed this week when Del. Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery) confirmed that while Arora had told him he plans to vote for the measure in committee, he would vote against it on the floor.

Adding even more confusion to the developments, in a statement posted on his official web site on March 4, Arora implies that he will vote yes in committee and on the floor, insinuating that ultimately the marriage legislation will be decided by voters.

He writes:

I have heard from constituents, friends, and advocates from across the spectrum of views and have thought about the issue of same-sex marriage extensively. I understand their concern—this is a very serious issue, and one that many people feel passionately about. As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill. While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say. I will vote to send the bill to the floor because it deserves an up-or-down vote. On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate.

Today, Lambda Legal called for U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White to order the Office of Personnel Management to grant health insurance benefits to the wife of Karen Golinski, a federal court employee, "as soon as is reasonably possible."

Responding to the Department of Justice's Feb. 28 filing that defended its position that the Defense of Marriage Act prevents it from allowing federal employees to cover their same-sex spouses, Lambda summarized its argument, writing for Golinski:

The Executive now acknowledges that its interference with the provision of equal benefits to plaintiff is an unconstitutional act in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Nonetheless, the Executive declares that it plans to proceed with its concededly unconstitutional and illegal actions until this Court orders it to stop. Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to do so forthwith.

Read the filing: Lambda-GolinskiResponse.pdf

Although the U.S. Supreme Court today noted that "Westboro [Baptist Church]'s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government's regulatory reach," the court concluded that the picket by the anti-gay church led by Fred Phelps outside Iraq war veteran Matthew Snyder's funeral could not be prohibited directly or punished indirectly through a lawsuit seeking legal damages, as was done here.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for eight of the court's nine members, "Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were."

Marine Lance Corporal Snyder was killed in Iraq, and his father, Albert Snyder, sued for the church's protest at his son's funeral. As Roberts wrote of the protest, "The picket signs reflected the church's view that the United States is overly tolerant of sin and that God kills American soldiers as punishment." Among the signs used by the church's members at the funeral protest were: "Thank God for IEDs," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Fags."

Matthew's father took his case to the Supreme Court in October 2010, asking the justices to overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that the First Amendment prevents Snyder from bringing a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the WBC for protesting outside his son's funeral.

With Justice Samuel Alito as the sole voice of dissent, Roberts declared for the court in Snyder v. Phelps, "The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro's picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself."

The chief justice went on to write, "Given that Westboro's speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt."

Roberts explained, "The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was 'outrageous.' 'Outrageousness,' however, is a highly malleable standard with 'an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression,'" referencing the Supreme Court case involving Jerry Falwell's unsuccessful lawsuit against Hustler magazine.

Roberts concluded, "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

The chief justice concluded similarly as to other claims at issue in the case, state law torts of intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy.

Summing up his opinion -- and view of American free speech -- Roberts wrote, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

Alito's dissenting opinion started off with a rebuke to that very point, with the justice writing, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

Read the case: 09-751.pdf

[Photo: A member of the Westboro Baptist Church protested outside the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2010. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Today, the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is releasing what it calls "a comprehensive look at the finances of 39 leading national LGBT organizations." The participant organizations had revenues of more than $161.3 million in 2009 and represent nearly 70 percent of funding for all LGBT social justice advocacy organizations.

The $161 million, however, is a decrease of 20 percent from 2008, a fact that MAP attributes, at least in part, to the economic crisis nationwide and the fact that 2009 was an off-election year.

The 39 organizations include advocacy organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans, issue organizations like Freedom to Marry and The Trevor Project, legal organizations like Lambda Legal and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and research and public education groups like The Palm Center.

Among the most striking findings is that more than 96 percent of LGBT adults contributed less than $35 to any of those 39 LGBT organizations in 2009. According to MAP, "only 3.4% of LGB adults have donated to a participant" organization. Less than 15,000 people gave $1,000-plus donations in 2009.

Moreover, the 3.4 percent number is likely a dramatic overstatement. As the report notes, "Given that the combined donor figure almost certainly includes a significant number of heterosexual allies and individuals who contributed to multiple organizations, the actual portion of LGBT adults who have donated is likely much lower than 3.4%."

Another interesting finding related to staffing, which MAP found "is roughly racially/ethnically representative of the broader U.S. population." Of the 808 staff members combined among the 39 organizations, 32 percent were non-white – with 12 percent each identified as African-American/Black and Hispanic/Latino(a), another 7 percent identified as Asian/Pacific Islander and the remaining 1 percent identified as Native American/Other. Board make-up, meanwhile, was more white, with a full three-quarters of the 689 board members identified as white.

Gender make-up was nearly balanced, with 46 percent of staff and 40 percent of boards identifying as women and 3 percent and 2 percent, respectively, identifying as genderqueer or other. Both staff and board make-up included 6 percent who identified as transgender.

Among the funding findings included a remarkable statistic that "[t]he average organization receives almost half (48%) of its revenue from its 10 largest contributors."

Additionally, although many often raise concerns about the efficiency of organizations' spending, MAP found, "Of total organizational expenses, 79% are spent on programs and services, 9% are spent on management and general expenses and only 12% are spent on fundraising. These numbers more than meet the efficiency benchmarks set by the American Institute of Philanthropy and the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance."

Read the report: 2010-national-lgbt-movement-report.pdf

The latest from Sarah Palin, a response to the National Organization for Marriage about President Obama's decision not to defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, is pouring over with confusion.

"I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Like the majority of Americans, I support the Defense of Marriage Act and find it appalling that the Obama administration decided not to defend this federal law which was enacted with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by a Democrat president. It's appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected."

Unfortunately for Palin, polls starting over this past summer are showing that the majority of Americans support marriage equality. A larger percentage, one could presume, support overturning at least the portion of the law that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages legally conducted in a state.

Moreover, her reference to the Democratic president who signed the bill into law fails to mention that the man, Bill Clinton, now supports marriage equaliity or, as Kevin Nix writes, "That's true, but that was 14 years ago."

Finally, as to Obama, the president's stated position as a candidate was that he supports the repeal of DOMA. In fact, it was his defense of DOMA caused some of the strongest rebukes he's received from any of the left during his presidency. If Palin wants to make an accusation of "flip-flopping," it should be of his Justice Department's defense of the law during his first two years in office to his decision on Feb. 23 no longer to defend Section 3 (although Attorney General Eric Holder gave an explanation for the change in position). Additionally, it should be noted that the government continues to enforce the law while challenges move through the court system.

In a conference call with reporters today, White House Deputy Communications Director Jen Psaki said that next Thursday, Mar. 10, the White House will hold a conference on bullying.

White House Domestic Policy Advisor Melody Barnes said that the conference is an event that would include President Obama and the Education and Health and Human Services departments.

Calling it an issue "very near and dear to the president and first lady's heart," Barnes noted that the president had recorded an "It Gets Better" video and said that the conference would include "students and parents and teachers and others impacted by bullying" and address, among other topics, "ways to take action to address [bullying] in their communities."

Metro Weekly reported on Feb. 17 that, in a meeting Obama held with senators to discuss the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, there was no discussion of either of the bills introduced in the 111th Congress that were aimed at reducing anti-LGBT bullying.

The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) and Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA) never received the specific endorsement of the administration in the 111th Congress, although White House and Education Department officials repeatedly expressed support for the aims of the bills.

Neither Barnes nor Psaki referenced federal legislative efforts as a topic of discussion at the conference.

More details about the Mar. 10 conference are expected to be available soon, according to a White House spokesperson.

[UPDATE @ 5:15 PM: From the White House:

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, March 10, President Obama, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services will welcome students, parents, teachers and others to The White House for a Conference on Bullying Prevention. The conference will bring together communities from across the nation who have been affected by bullying as well as those who are taking action to address it. Participants will have the opportunity to talk with the President and representatives from the highest levels of his Administration about how all communities can work together to prevent bullying.

More details to come ...]

Maryland’s House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on House Bill 175, the House version of the marriage bill which was approved on the Senate floor last week, this afternoon, March 1.

But the vote was delayed. In an e-mail sent to Metro Weekly, Del. Luke H. Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), who is gay, confirmed that the committee vote has been delayed.

“It will be rescheduled to after the bill hearings that were previously scheduled for today,” he wrote. “Precise time is unknown.” Asked if that vote would happen on March 1, Clippinger added, "hearings sometimes go very, very late."

According NBC Baltimore, the vote was delayed because two delegates, and supporters of the bill, were absent.

House Bill 175, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, seeks to establish that “a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid in the State; prohibiting an official of a religious institution or body authorized to solemnize marriages from being required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the constitutional right to free exercise of religion; etc.”

Metro Weekly reported on Feb. 28 about the process involved in any referendum effort to stop the bill, if enacted, from going into effect. Opponents have said they intend to seek a referendum vote.

[UPDATE @ 6:45 PM: The Baltimore Sun reported on Tuesday evening that a vote would not happen on March 2. 

The House Judiciary Committee did not vote on same-sex marriage this evening. Delegates on the committee, even some sponsors, say they need more time to think.

The development comes after hours of talks between the House leadership and several co-sponsors who said they wanted to withhold support to draw attention to other issues, including education funding and unrelated family law bills.  

According to the Sun, Del. Jill Carter (D-Baltimore) and Del. Curt Anderson (D-Baltimore) staged walkouts on Tuesday, saying they would not vote on the marriage bill until other issues, "including a child custody bill and education funding, gain traction in the General Assembly this year." The Sun adds that Chairman Joseph F. Vallario will make a decision regarding the bill on Wednesday, March 2.]

Metro Weekly has received a media advisory that on Tuesday morning, Mar. 1, "Queer Rising Will Block Traffic in Midtown Manhattan to Demand Marriage Equality."

According to the advisory, "At 8:30am, members of the LGBTQ activist organization Queer Rising will block morning rush-hour traffic in the heart of Midtown! [T]he activists will unfurl a 75-foot banner w[ith] the message: 'NY DEMANDS MARRIAGE EQUALITY NOW!'"

Eight members of the group, ranging in age from 24 to 48, are slated to participate in the action:

• Kevin Beauchamp, 48 year-old, blind gay activist, partnered for 9 years
• Nora Camp, 29 year-old queer activist
• Natasha Dillon, 26 year-old lesbian activist and MBA student
• Frostie Flakes (aka Adam Siciliano), 24 year-old drag queen activist and nightlife performer
• Jake Goodman, 31 year-old queer activist and educator
• Honey LaBronx (aka Ben Strothmann), 31 year-old drag queen activist, actor, & photographer
• Eugene Lovendusky, 25 year-old gay activist, educator and NYCGMC member
• Kitten Withuwip (aka Caldwell) 24 year-old drag queen activist of color and actor/comedienne

According to the group, "This demonstration and act of civil disobedience is in protest to the lack of marriage equality in New York State and to demand the passage immediately."