GOProud is ready for the upcoming election, and ready to take on the president.

Jimmy LaSalvia announced the launch of the group's election season plans today, saying in a statement, "Our organization's number one goal between now and November 2012 is defeating Barack Obama. We look forward to the Iowa Straw Poll as the kickoff to this effort."

The release goes on to note that the Ames Straw Poll will begin on August 11 with a Republican presidential candidate debate and conclude on August 13 with the straw poll. 

"This Republican presidential field is shaping up to be an incredibly strong one," LaSalvia said. "We look forward to hearing each of the candidates make his or her case about why they would be the best nominee to beat Barack Obama.

"Barack Obama's tenure in the White House has been an unmitigated disaster for all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans," he said. "Defeating Barack Obama and putting a conservative in the White House should be the number one goal of every single person in the conservative movement. It is certainly the number one goal of this organization."

The executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, Michael Mitchell, responded, saying,"The relentless GOP agenda to divide and conquer is the real unmitigated disaster.

"I'm not sure in what world passing major pieces of LGBT legislation such as the repeal of DADT and the Hate Crimes Act, as well as the appointment of hundreds of openly LGBT administration officials, is a bad thing. Let alone the implementation of dozens of policies by this President and this administration that are beneficial to our community in very real, meaningful and sometimes lifesaving ways."

Counter to that, Mitchell said, "The blatant attacks on the LGBT community that the GOP – and the extreme far right and Tea Party in particular – has perfected and ramped up in the past few months has been a stark contrast to the lies about creating jobs they sold us to get elected in 2010."

[Photo: GOProud board chairman Chris Barron, left, and executive director Jimmy LaSalvia. (Photo by Todd Franson/Metro Weekly.)]

On this week's Swish Edition, Metro Weekly editor Sean Bugg discusses the King & Spaulding brouhaha, the attack on Chrissy Lee Polis in Baltimore, and offers a glimpse into this week's cover story, celebrating 50 years of the Academy.

The board of directors at Equality Maryland announced today that Lynne Bowman, former director of programs and services at Equality Federation and a founder of Equality Ohio, will serve as the organization's interim executive director beginning May 2. 

[UPDATE: Read Metro Weekly's exclusive interview with Bowman: "Help From Ohio."]

The announcement comes less than one week after Equality Maryland's former executive director, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, told Metro Weekly she was fired from the organization. 

"Ms. Bowman will step in to lead Equality Maryland on an interim basis following the departure of Morgan Meneses-Sheets, who has stepped down as Executive Director," Chuck Butler, board chair, says in a release issued to Metro Weekly on Thursday, April 28.  

"Under Ms. Meneses-Sheets’ leadership, Equality Maryland made significant strides in achieving equality for LGBT citizens, coming closer than ever before to attaining marriage equality and gender identity antidiscrimination legislation in Maryland.  We thank Ms. Meneses-Sheets for her service and wish her well."

According to Equality Maryland, Bowman holds 22 years of organizational leadership experience under her belt, both with non-profit and for-profit organizations, as well as government sectors.  Most recently, Bowman served as the campaign manager for Democratic Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher’s U.S. Senate campaign in Ohio.

"Equality Maryland is thrilled to have a nationally known and respected leader at the helm of the organization."

[Photo by thewomensbook.com]

The White House responded this evening to questions about if and how the planned June 30 resignation date of Defense Secretary Robert Gates would impact the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, with White House spokesman Shin Inouye telling Metro Weekly, "The DADT repeal act was signed into law by the President, and certification and implementation will happen whomever serves as Secretary of Defense."

The president is expected to announce his intention on Thursday, April 28, to nominate Leon Panetta, the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to serve as Gates's replacement.

The announcement raises the likelihood that, as repeal advocates had expressed concern, Gates's resignation will come before repeal is finalized as set out in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act.

Of the requirement that the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president must certify that the changes needed to implement repeal are "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces," Inouye added, "The President has been in close contact with the Pentagon to ensure that certification occurs as soon as possible, consistent with the standards set forth in the bill."

Although neither the White House nor the Pentagon would answer whether either entity was planning for certification to fall to Panetta, Inouye did note, "We appreciate the service of Secretary Gates, and his leadership in achieving the passage of the Repeal Act, and for moving the certification process forward."

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Eileen Lainez, declined to speculate about questions regarding "future retirement and confirmation," although she did expand on the specific steps that remain in the Pentagon’s ongoing implementation of the DADT Repeal Act, telling Metro Weekly tonight, "Repeal implementation continues to progress."

Referring to earlier congressional testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), Lainez noted, "As discussed in April 1, 2011 testimony to the HASC Military Personnel Subcommittee, the department is looking at midsummer to go towards certification."

Describing that process, she wrote, "The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will certify to the President after careful consideration of the views of the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Military Service Chiefs and the Combatant Commanders."

Repeating the language contained in the statute, Lainez also wrote, "They will certify when they are satisfied that conditions for implementation of the new policies and regulations written by the Department are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces."

Per the statute, a 60-day congressional review period will follow the certification before the 1993 law is taken off the books and open gay, lesbian and bisexual service is allowed in the military.

Obama is expected to announce Panetta’s nomination – as well as the nomination of Gen. David Petraeus to replace Panetta at the CIA – at an afternoon news conference in the Rose Garden on Thursday, April 28.

[Photo: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, second from left, testifies before the Senate on Dec. 2, 2010, regarding the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. (Photo by Ward Morrison/Metro Weekly.)]

Here's the report from Harlan Spector at The Plain Dealer:

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A federal judge ruled Monday that a gay Cuyahoga County worker can claim constitutional protection in her job discrimination lawsuit against the county.

The ruling involves Shari Hutchinson, a lesbian who works for the county child support enforcement agency. Hutchinson sued the county in 2008, claiming she was denied promotions based on her sexual orientation, and that administrators retaliated against her when she complained.

U.S. District Judge James Gwin ruled that Hutchinson's claim falls under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, a decision that her lawyer described as far-reaching and unprecedented.

Reviewing the opinion, here are the key two paragraphs:

[T]he Court concludes that an employee who alleges sexual orientation discrimination under § 1983 is not per se precluded from establishing an equal protection claim against her employer. Simply because Title VII does not include sexual orientation as a statutorily protected class does not, in this Court’s view, automatically remove all constitutional protection where a plaintiff employee claims equal protection violations based on her membership in that class. The Court is not convinced that application of Title VII’s framework—i.e. the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework, Singfield, 389 F.3d at 566-67—requires wholesale application of Title VII’s limitations on what classes are protected whenever an equal protection claim arises in the employment context. Though sexual orientation may not be a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the Court finds that constitutional disparate treatment claims alleging sexual orientation discrimination by a public employer at least garner the bare minimum of rational basis review.

Accordingly, because Hutchinson’s complaint states that the County did not hire or promote her to a number of positions for which she was qualified because of her sexual orientation, and that the County did not treat heterosexual job candidates similarly, the Court finds that Hutchinson has pled plausibly actionable equal protection claims under § 1983.

Gwin found that current precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, means that "Hutchinson's equal protection claim should ultimately be subject to rational basis review," which is the lowest level of scrutiny and requires only that any "discrimination was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

Gwin's opinion and order was in response to a request from the county for a decision to dismiss the case on the pleadings. The case now moves forward to discovery and a possible trial.

Read Judge Gwin's opinion and order in Hutchinson v. Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners: HutchinsonOrderOpinion.pdf

President Barack Obama plans to nominate Leon Panetta, currently serving as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a senior administration official told reporters today.

Gates has announced previously that he plans to leave office this year, but the official said that -- on the condition that Panetta is confirmed -- Gates would like to resign effective June 30. This timing draws into question the timeline for the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

In a statement issued this morning, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis said, "This expected nomination underscores the need for Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to move forward now on DADT repeal certification. Earlier this month, the Army, the largest of the services,  testified before Congress that it would be ready to certify by May 15 when more than 50 percent of the force is scheduled to be trained."

He added, "We thank Secretary Gates for his remarkable leadership on repeal and hope the Secretary will finish the repeal job on his watch, and that all of the services will be ready in May."

Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson concurred, saying in a statement, "We continue to stress that it would be best for the armed forces if Secretary Gates would ensure that the task of certifying the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is complete prior to his departure. This job began on Secretary Gates' watch, and it is only right that the job be finished on his watch."

Military training in preparation for DADT repeal is ongoing, according to the testimony of military officials before the House of Representatives earlier this year. Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, for example, testified to the House Armed Services Committee on April 7 that Air Force training will not be completed until June 30.

On April 1, testifying before the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley had laid out a plan that he suggested could end DADT by September – although he would not give a specific date.

Stanley said that he "anticipate[s] the training will be completed by this summer." At that time, Pentagon officials detailed that about 9 percent -- or 200,000 -- of servicemembers had been trained. The director of the Joint Staff, Vice Adm. William Gortney later clarified, noting, "We anticipate about mid-summer ... to get the recommendations from the service chiefs to the chairman."

The certification required by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act by the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president will not happen until some point after that training, say Pentagon officials, although Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James explained in January that it "does not require 100 percent" of the servicemembers to be trained.

As such, it is unclear whether the military or administration expects the certification required of the Defense secretary to come from Gates -- although the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, when paired with today's statement about an intended June 30 resignation date, makes it appear unlikely.

Also unclear is whether and what additional time would be needed -- even assuming the Pentagon otherwise is prepared for certification -- for Panetta to be fully briefed so as to be comfortable signing the certification, which requires the secretary to certify that the changes needed to implement repeal are "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces."

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon responded immediately to request for comment on whether either entity expects certification to fall to Panetta, assuming his confirmation.

From this morning's off-camera press gaggle with White House press secretary Jay Carney:

     QUESTION:  A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.  Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House.  Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA.  Eric Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation.  In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best.  That criticism I think was very misplaced.”  And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  Does the President share Eric Holder’s views on this?

      MR. CARNEY:  We do share Eric Holder’s views on this.  We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments.

On Tuesday, April 26, according to a report from Politico's Josh Gerstein, Holder spoke with reporters about criticism of Clement's representation of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. From Politico:

"Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation — representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we're at our best," Holder said during a roundtable with reporters at the Justice Department. "That criticism, I think, was very misplaced."

Holder also compared the criticism of Clement to the attacks on Justice Department lawyers for their past work for detainees at Guantanamo. "It was something we dealt with here in the Department of Justice ...The people who criticized our people here at the Justice Department were wrong then, as are people who criticized Paul Clement for the representation that he's going to continue," Holder added.

Holder said he wasn't laying blame for Clement's disagreement with King & Spalding or disputing the firm's claim it withdrew due to improper vetting of the agreement to represent the House of Representatives ....

The Human Rights Campaign has pushed the story that its public protestations and threatened in-person protests led to the decision by Atlanta-based King & Spalding to seek to withdraw as counsel for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in its defense of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Then, in a report relying heavily on HRC's account, Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler also reported -- with no on-the-record confirmation -- that Atlanta-based Coca-Cola complained directly to King & Spalding about the contract. The extent or specifics of any rumored intervention by Coca-Cola are unknown, and TPM, besides the stray mention, provides no further elucidation of the intervention.

Other groups, like Get Equal, also pushed back, urging members to call the firm in a "Dial-in to Defeat DOMA" event to urge King & Spalding to drop its defense of the 1996 law. Blogs were afire with criticism of King and Spalding's defense, and Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) raised questions about the specifics of the firm's retention.

All of this does suggest that much of public opinion was harshly pointed against King & Spalding's representation in defense of DOMA.

It does not, however, mean political or policy preferences or fears of protests are why King & Spalding stopped the BLAG representation. And, although good for HRC's reputation among its base, this emerging narrative paints King & Spalding -- a major law firm -- in a rather unflattering or even unprofessional light.

More problematic than those perceptions, though, is that this narrative discounts or even ignores what actually has been written and said by King & Spalding about the decision.

King & Spalding chairman Robert D. Hays Jr., said in a statement of the decision to drop its representation of the BLAG, "In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate."

Then, as reported on April 25 at Metro Weekly, there was the actual motion to withdraw that was filed by the chairman of the firm's ethics committee, Richard A. Cirillo. Cirillo filed -- in a sworn declaration to the U.S. District Court to the Southern District of New York -- a statement that, under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, he believed that the court should allow King & Spalding to withdraw because "the lawyer believes in good faith, in a matter pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal."

As reported at Metro Weekly:

Cirillo did not specify what "good cause" King & Spalding had determined the court would find for its withdrawal.

Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, had, however, spoken with Metro Weekly on April 20 about the contract King & Spalding had signed with House General Counsel Kerry Kircher. Davidson raised questions about the legality of one provision in the contract that would prohibit King & Spalding's employees – lawyers and non-lawyers – from advocating for the Respect for Marriage Act – the bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act – in the 112th Congress.

Davidson specifically pointed to California, where King & Spalding has two offices, in which Labor Code Section 1101 states that "[n]o employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy ... [f]orbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics ...."

Good cause, in legal terminology, means that there is a legally adequate or other substantial grounds for whatever action is being considered.

If King & Spalding told a court that it determined that "good cause" exists for it to withdraw, one of two things are true: (1) the firm's ethics committee chairman, Cirillo, told the court the truth and the firm believes there is a legally adequate reason for withdrawal or (2) the firm doesn't believe their own filing and, as Jennifer Rubin wrote at The Washington Post, they "fold[ed] like a cheap suitcase when their clients become unpopular."

And the latter scenario is what Rubin's column -- and HRC's narrative -- suggests. It also is the motivating principle behind the good will being heaped upon now-resigned attorney Paul Clement, who moved to a new firm in D.C. so that he could continue to represent the BLAG. None less than former Clinton administration solicitor general Seth Waxman is praising Clement's move [as is Attorney General Eric Holder, per Politico's Josh Gerstein] -- not to mention all of those organizations on the far right who enjoy nothing more than portraying themselves as victims of progressive ideologies.

[UPDATE @ 9:15 PM: There is a third possibility: King & Spalding believes there is a valid reason to withdraw but that political pressure and considerations actually led the firm to withdraw. This, like a purely political decision, would create criticism for King & Spalding, but it also is the scenario least likely to be proven (or disproven) in the absense of some definitive email or other recorded proof.]

In high-profile cases involving a hot-button political dispute like same-sex marriage, it's obvious that political entities are going to be advancing political narratives.

It is, however, precisely at those times when facts matter most.

Here, the facts remain that Clement signed the initial contract on behalf of King & Spalding, questions were raised about the content of that contract, the ethics committee chairman moved to withdraw the firm from representation and Clement left the firm.

[UPDATE @ 9:15 PM: After discussions with several people about this post, I would like to note explicitly what is implicit throughout: What happened is not publicly known. The primary purpose of this analysis, then, is to provide a sort of Occam's razor explanation based on the two most trustworthy documents available: the signed contract between Kircher and Clement and the declaration filed by Cirillo.]

Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel, Prince George's), the lead sponsor of a bill that would have provided some protections to transgender Marylanders had it not been shelved during the 2011 legislative session, addressed her colleagues in an open letter, regarding the recent attack of a transgender woman and candlelight vigil which has been scheduled for tonight.

"Incidents such as this illustrate why the transgender community in Maryland and elsewhere needs to be protected through antidiscrimination legislation," Pena-Melnyk, writes.

Pena-Melnyk's comments refer to Chrissy Lee Polis, 22, who was physically attacked at the McDonald's at 6315 Kenwood Ave. in Rosedale, Baltimore, by a 14-year-old woman and an 18-year-old woman, after trying to use a bathroom there. The incident was recorded on a portable phone by a McDonald's employee who was fired on Saturday. A candlelight vigil is scheduled to take place outside the restaurant at 7 p.m., on Monday, April 25.

The vigil is being planned Trans-United, TransMaryland, the Baltimore County for Equality, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Baltimore and other allies.

"Supporters of House Bill 235 in this past legislative session recognized this need and stood up for the rights of this community," Pena-Melnyk says.

"While HB235 did not include protection from discrimination in public accommodations due to the intense pressure opponents placed on the bill’s supporters, the bill would have raised public awareness of the issue and paved the way for complete protection for Maryland’s transgender population."  

"Contrary to statements made by those who should be leading the fight for civil rights in Maryland, this was not an anti-family bill, but a basic civil rights bill.  The failure of this bill goes against Maryland’s long history of being in the forefront of civil rights movements.   This attack, which took place in District 8, has been broadcast all over the national news, and the video has gone viral, bringing shame to the State of Maryland for allowing such things to take place.  I challenge each of the Senators who voted to recommit HB235 on sine die to serve as primary sponsors of a stronger version of HB235 in the 2012 legislative session."

"It is time to rectify the wrong that has been done to transgender citizens of our State."

[UPDATE: Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz issued a statement to Metro Weekly on Monday afternoon, calling the attack "vicious" and a "wake up call."

"Last week's beating of Chrissy Lee Polis in Rosedale once again reminds us of our responsibility as citizens to do all that we can to ensure that our neighborhoods provide a safe and welcoming environment for residents and visitors," he says.

"Although this vicious attack was an isolated incident and in no way reflects on the Baltimore County or Rosedale communities, it does serve as a wake up call that we all have a role to play in moving society forward. It is the conversations around our dinner tables and the casual chatter among friends that develop patterns of behavior."

"Each and every one of us plays a role in deciding what kind of a society we deserve and what kind of a society we will help create. I have every confidence that Police Chief Jim Johnson and State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger will address this matter professionally, as they address all issues of public safety in Baltimore County. But it is not only their responsibility to make us safe and secure. That responsibility is shared by each of us who call Baltimore County home."]

Maryland activist Cathy Brennan, who is also a spokesperson for Baltimore County for Equality, a organization formed recently in an effort to work to amend the county anti-discrimination ordinance, plans to attend the vigil. Reacting to Kamenetz's comments, Brennan said she is hoping the organization can collaborate with him in the future.

"We look forward to working with the county executive to help Baltimore County move forward and adopt these important civil rights protections to ban discrimination based on gender identity," she said.

"As members of a civil society, it is our duty to stand up and send a clear message that all Marylanders, including our transgender brothers and sisters, are worthy of equal protection under the law."

[Photo: Pena-Melnyk, by Yusef Najafi]

Today, the law firm of King & Spalding announced -- only 11 days after taking on the representation of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in its defense of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- that it was dropping its representation because the vetting process had been "inadequate." The move prompted the lead King & Spalding lawyer in the case, Paul Clement, to resign from his position at King & Spalding, according to a letter obtained by Politico's Josh Gerstein.

Robert D. Hays, Jr., the firm's chairman, said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly, "Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act." 

Saying that the firm worked "diligently through the process required for withdrawal" over the course of this past week, Hays said, "In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created."

Drew Hammill, spokesman for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told Metro Weekly in an email, "Leader Pelosi shares Mr. Hays' apparent concerns with the lack of transparency and accountability in the way this contract was signed."

In a filing today in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Richard A. Cirillo, a partner in the New York office of King & Spalding, filed a "Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance" in Edith Windsor's challenge to Section 3 of DOMA. Just one week ago, the firm filed a motion on behalf of the BLAG to intervene in the case.

Cirillo, according to his firm biography, serves as chair of the firm's "Business Review (Ethics) Committee." The earlier filing to intervene was filed by Clement, the now-resigned partner in the Washington, D.C., office of King & Spalding and a former solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration.

In Cirillo's declaration made in support of the filing to withdraw as the BLAG's counsel in Windsor v. United States, he stated that King & Spalding is "entitled to withdraw as attorneys of record with this court's consent." Citing provisions of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct that allow an attorney to withdraw from representing a client when "withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client" or when "the lawyer believes in good faith, in a matter pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal." Cirillo did not specify what "good cause" King & Spalding had determined the court would find for its withdrawal.

Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, had, however, spoken with Metro Weekly on April 20 about the contract King & Spalding had signed with House General Counsel Kerry Kircher. Davidson raised questions about the legality of one provision in the contract that would prohibit King & Spalding's employees – lawyers and non-lawyers – from advocating for the Respect for Marriage Act – the bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act – in the 112th Congress.

Davidson specifically pointed to California, where King & Spalding has two offices, in which Labor Code Section 1101 states that "[n]o employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy ... [f]orbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics ...."

The one development of this withdrawal that is likely to displease counsel for Windsor is Cirillo's request that the judge delay proceeding in the case so that the BLAG can secure new counsel. In the filing, Cirillo "requests the Court to adjust the schedule for filings with respect to the Bipartisan Group's motion for leave to intervene and otherwise in order to allow time for successor counsel for the Bipartisan Group to appear in the action."

Clement, however, writes in his resignation letter that he intends to "see this representation through with [his] new colleagues at Bancroft PLLC." If Clement continues to represent the BLAG at his new firm, which was founded by former George W. Bush administration Department of Justice attorney Viet Dinh, the delay could be minimal.

[UPDATE @ 12:55 PM: A statement received by The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel suggests that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), does believe that Clement's representation can continue unimpeded.

Boehner's spokesman, Brendan Buck, told Terkel in a statement, "The Speaker is disappointed in the firm's decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter. At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House. This move will ensure the constitutionality of this law is appropriately determined by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally."

Buck confirmed this, telling Metro Weekly in an email, "BLAG directed the House general counsel to retain representation, not which firm. House counsel's office will be drafting a new contract, with the same terms as before."]

The Human Rights Campaign celebrated King & Spalding's move, with HRC president Joe Solmonese saying in a statement, "King & Spalding has rightly chosen to put principle above politics in dropping its involvement in the defense of this discriminatory and patently unconstitutional law. We are pleased to see the firm has decided to stand on the right side of history and remain true to its core values."

Hammill also continued, however, to push Pelosi's earlier expressed concerns about the representation, telling Metro Weekly, "She also vigorously opposes using half a million taxpayer dollars or any taxpayer resources to defend discrimination, at a time when Republicans in Congress are cutting critical initiatives like education and infrastructure.  It is now more critical than ever that Speaker Boehner fully account for his decision to sign this half million dollar contract to defend this indefensible statute."

[UPDATE @ 1:25 PM: Metro Weekly obtained a joint statement issued by four of the sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA. Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) said in the statement, "King & Spalding's withdrawal from their representation of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives is yet another blow to House Republican Leaders' efforts to defend DOMA in court.

"Whatever the firm's reasoning -- whether they now agree with the President and Attorney General that the law is legally and factually indefensible or have decided that defending DOMA is unacceptable to many of their partners and employees -- their withdrawal confirms what is increasingly obvious: it is patently wrong to defend this harmful law. Congress should pass the Respect for Marriage Act and repeal DOMA once and for all."]

[UPDATE @ 2 PM: In his King and Spalding resignation letter, Clement wrote, "Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high. Efforts to delegitimze any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law."

Greg Sargent talked to Equality Matters president Richard Socarides about Clement's explanation, and Socarides said, "[Clement] tries to make the case that lawyers should represent unpopular causes — but this is not merely an unpopular cause, this is an un-American cause. If a lawyer represents an unpopular client who’s defending an important principle, that is what the legal system is about. If the client is unpopular but the principle is important, then it's important to do. But this is not an important principle. The only principle he wishes to defend is discrimination and second class citizenship for gay Americans."]

READ:

• The firm's Windsor case motion to withdraw: 14-main.pdf
• Cirillo's declaration in the Windsor case in support of withdrawal: cirillo.pdf
• Clement's resignation letter here (via Politico)

[Photo: Clement (Photo courtesy the DOJ website.)]

[See Metro Weekly's full report from Chris Geidner: "King and Spalding Files Motion to Withdraw From DOMA Defense, Prompting Clement's Resignation."]

King and Spalding, the international law firm that had contracted with the House of Representatives Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court challenges, announced this morning that the firm plans to withdraw from the case.

Robert D. Hays, Jr., chairman of King & Spalding, said in a statement to Metro Weekly:

“Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.

“In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate.  Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

A candlelight vigil is scheduled to take place at the McDonald's at 6315 Kenwood Ave. in Rosedale, Baltimore, at 7 p.m. on Monday night where on April 18 a transgender woman was physically attacked, before appearing to have a seizure, in an incident recorded on a portable phone by a McDonald's employee.

The Baltimore Sun spoke to the victim, 22-year-old Chrissy Lee Polis, who told the paper she identifies as transgender. 

"They said, 'That's a dude, that's a dude and she's in the female bathroom,' " Lee tells the Sun about the incident which began when she tried to use the restaurant's bathroom. "They spit in my face."

The vigil is being planned Trans-United, TransMaryland, the Baltimore County for Equality, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Baltimore and other allies.

“Our primary concern is for Ms. Polis’ well being. We will support her through this difficult time and we ask that the legal process be unhampered and thorough,” TransMaryland spokeswoman Jenna Fischetti says in a press release issued on April 24.

“This is precisely the kind of hatred and bigotry that transgender women and men deal with on a daily basis,” adds Caroline Temmerand of the GLCCB, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center of Baltimore and Central Maryland. “We as a society have failed if we cannot do more to protect all Marylanders from this kind of brutality.”

Polis told the Sun that she plans to take legal action against the restaurant.

"Anyone in my predicament should not be afraid to walk the streets," she said.

"They should not have to go into a restaurant and get gawked at and made fun of. They shouldn't be afraid to leave the house. It's just wrong."

According to the Sun, one of the attackers is 14, and has been charged as a juvenile, while charges against the other attacker, who is 18, are pending.

The Sun also reports that Scott Shellenberger, the state's attorney for Baltimore County, said his office has not yet received the file and has not interviewed the victim because the charges were filed late in the week, and that owner of the Rosedale McDonald's announced Saturday afternoon that the employee who taped the beating had been fired.

[Photo: Polis]

A video that has garnered attention within the LGBT community appears to show a Baltimore County transgender woman being assaulted physically by two patrons of McDonalds on Monday, April 18, as employees from the restaurant stood by, one of them recording the incident on a portable phone.

The Bilerico Project reported on the video today, which shows the woman battered after being kicked, punched and dragged on the floor. The video of the incident was posted by the McDonald's employee on a web site called "World Star hip Hop.com."

Local transgender activist Dana Beyer expressed outrage about the incident, noting one immediate impact of the departure earlier today of Equality Maryland's executive director, Morgan Meneses-Sheets.

"The problem is that there is no executive director to deal with this," she says. "There's no one to go to. There's certainly no functional leader in the LGBT [Maryland] community. That's problematic because this is what the organization is supposed to be dealing with."

According to Bilerico, the attack occured at the McDonald's in Rosedale, in the 6300 block of Kenwood Ave. in Baltimore County.

Bill Browning at Bilerico wrote, "While you can see the manager yelling stop at the two women attacking the customer, none of the other employees even try to intervene or keep the women from dragging the victim across the restaurant floor. Instead, it's the elderly female customer that seems to do the most to help. The manager and employees simply watch as the victim starts to have a seizure and offer no help whatsoever."

[UPDATE: In a statement issued to Metro Weekly, Equality Maryland's board president Chuck Butler said the organization is saddened by the "senseless violence."

"No person ever deserves to be a victim of violence regardless of their gender identity or presentation," he said.  

"We encourage the State's Attorney General to investigate this as a hate crime based on gender identity.  We are encouraged that McDonald's is working with local police to investigate this incident, and hope that the company will follow-up with appropriate disciplinary action against any employees involved.  We remain committed to advancing gender identity protections for the entire state of Maryland and will continue to work with local organizations and legislators to advance these protections."

"Equality Maryland, with the Transgender Education Project will work to empower the transgender community as the educational voice of their community and develop trainings and support programs in coalition with state and national transgender organizations on a broad range of topics that include support and resource information for transgender Marylanders. The project will continue to hold educational forums for the population at large." ]

Shortly after Morgan Meneses-Sheets released a statement announcing her departure from Equality Maryland and that it was not her choice to leave, the organization's director of development Matt Thorn released a statement announcing that Meneses-Sheets was fired after a closed board meeting and that he is now leaving the organization in protest.

Today, it is with great sadness that I resign as Director of Development of Equality Maryland.  Over the past few months, I have given tireless energy to see the success of the organization and it has been made apparent in these last few days that the organization, lead by the Board of Directors wishes to see the organization to move in a different direction.  

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Marylanders have found a true champion in Morgan Meneses-Sheets.  Not only has she committed time and energy away from her wife and her five month old daughter, but she had the tenacity to keep fighting in Annapolis, even when all others had given up.  Giving up just isn't in her vocabulary.  

This past Sunday, the Board of Directors of Equality Maryland, in executive session voted to remove her from her position, essentially telling the organization's staff, volunteers, supporters, funders, and general community that the organization will now move in a different direction.

I fear that the direction that the board seeks to take is one that will not be a beneficial path for the community, for the organization, for the staff, and especially the organization's funders, and that is why, effective today, I am resigning from my position as Director of Development of Equality Maryland. I wish nothing but the best to the staff and the community and hope that we can overcome these obstacles to continue to fight for our full equality.

[Photo by Todd Franson]

Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, announced today, April 22, that she is it no longer with the organization. Shortly after her announcement, Equality Maryland's Director of Development Matt Thorn released a statement saying that Meneses-Sheets was fired after a vote by the Equality Maryland board, and that he is leaving the organization in protest.

Meneses-Sheet's statement comes a few weeks after she told Metro Weekly she has no plans of leaving the organization before marriage legislation and gender identity protections are signed into Maryland law.

When asked by Metro Weekly on April 4, 2011, if she would be present for the 2012 legislative session, Meneses-Sheets said:

"Yes, I will definitely be here. When I started this – knowing how close we were to these two equally important pieces of legislation – in my mind and in my heart I wasn't going to leave until we at least saw those two pieces through.

There are many other needs. These are not the silver bullets that solve all problems for LGBT Marylanders by any stretch of the imagination, but they are the next two big pieces that make a critical difference, and so I will see those through."

Meneses-Sheet's full statement is below:

It is with a heavy heart that I share that today will be my last day as the Executive Director of Equality Maryland. While it is not my choice to leave, it is my choice to make my voice heard as I exit.

I've spent the last eighteen months at the helm of EQMD and this time has held some of the most rewarding moments of my career, but it has also been extremely difficult. In particular the past few months have been tough to bear. Not because of the hard work which I welcome and felt honored to be part of, but because of the forces within the organization and external politics that created additional and unnecessary obstacles to our forward movement and success.

As I move on, I will not focus on the negative or destructive forces that created this untenable situation, instead I will look back at the many proud moments along the way.

During my first months, Equality Maryland lead the successful efforts to protect the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration’s policy providing transgender Marylanders the opportunity to update their driver’s license to appropriately reflect their gender. This policy undeniably makes a difference in people’s lives. When you go to a grocery store and pay with a check or buy a glass of wine, you are asked for identification, and to have it match how you present yourself to the world protects you against discrimination and violence. I am proud of this success.

I am proud that we have built a strong grassroots network throughout the state. I am proud that we identified new supporters, had more young people involved and created a diverse, thriving volunteer program. I am proud of our efforts during the 2010 elections, in particular our work to protect pro-equality Delegate Kris Valderrama and to oust Senator Alex Mooney who had a 0% voting record on LGBT issues.

I am also extremely proud that together with the staff, our volunteers, our partners and many passionate and dedicated legislative allies that this year we got further than ever before in the goals to amend our state’s anti-discrimination laws to include protections on the basis of gender identity and to enacting full marriage equality. These are what many people call the “civil rights causes of our day” and it has been a privilege to be part of the movement to realize these incredibly important goals.

I know that many in our community, myself included, were disappointed that we did not get to the finish line, but having done this work for many years I know that progress can take time. We created a strong foundation for future efforts. I look forward to celebrating continued success in Maryland’s fight for equality.

Looking back, there are things that I could do differently, but lessons I learned I will always have with me. Know that I worked hard and I did my best with the tremendous staff alongside me. Together, we were able to move the organization further legislatively than ever before.

I am sad that I will not be part of the team advancing critical protections for jobs, housing, credit and public accommodations for transgender Marylanders. I am disappointed that I was not provided the opportunity to continue to build and enhance the efforts to end the exclusion of loving and committed gay and lesbian couples from marriage.

As a Marylander, as a lesbian, as a parent, as someone with many loved ones who are transgender, and as someone who believes in social justice I sincerely hope that Equality Maryland will succeed in their future endeavors to ensure that our state lives up to the promise of equality for all of its citizens. This will require significant changes, but it is possible. I hope that those who worked hard with my team will continue to be part of these endeavors so that we may also see a better future.

I am excited to spend more time with my family as I have given up many precious hours with them to wage this battle. I am also excited for the opportunities that lay ahead for me.

I thank those who stood by my side. I am grateful to have met and worked with so many incredible people, many who I will continue to count as friends as I take the next steps in my journey.

[Photo by Todd Franson]

If a picture says a thousand words, what does this video of President Barack Obama responding to an audience member at an event on April 20 in San Francisco crying out "gay marriage" by responding that "our work is not finished" mean?

Let the wild speculation begin.

On Monday, April 18, news broke that King & Spalding partner Paul Clement would be the lead outside counsel representing the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in litigation challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- the House Republican leadership's response to the Department of Justice's Feb. 23 decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA. On April 19, the contract was made public and it was learned that a $500,000 "cap" was placed on King & Spalding's representation -- although the cap could be "raised by written agreement between the parties with the approval of the [House] Committee [on Administration]."

Although some on the left like The American Prospect's Gabriel Arana defended the $500,000 fee and said that others' attacks on House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on "fiscal security" grounds were misplaced, others like Lane Hudson at The Huffington Post pushed back by dismissing the $500,000 figure as fantasy and concluding, "The Speaker of the House lies about the cost of this case."

Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took a similar position, but asked Boehner questions rather than drawing conclusions. In a letter sent on April 20, Pelosi questioned several aspects of the decision, but two questions are key here:

• Was there a determination that $500,000 would be sufficient to pay for the complete legal representation in the 12 pending cases, and if so, who made that determination and how?
• Is it anticipated that King and Spalding will represent the House in all 12 pending DOMA cases from the trial stage through any and all appeals?

These questions are important to understanding the significance of King & Spalding's work and the extent to which Boehner's "cap" is or is not "sufficient" to complete the litigation, particularly in light of the number and complexity of the cases. Additionally, as Pelosi's finial question above illustrates, the King & Spalding contract -- despite some very restrictive terms as to what King & Spalding attorneys can do -- is very vague as to what work it will perform.

In addition to the Windsor v. United States case in which King & Spalding attorney Paul Clement already has filed a motion on behalf of the BLAG seeking to intervene in the case, two appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States), a case at the trial court level in Connecticut (Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management) and federal court employee Karen Golinski's attempt in a federal court in California to get health benefits for her wife (Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management) are ongoing, there also are six other cases listed by the Department of Justice in a Feb. 25 memorandum sent by Assistant Attorney General Robert Weich to Boehner as being impacted by the DOJ DOMA decision. 

Compare this long list of cases with the IRS 990 (pdf) filed for the period of April 23, 2009, through March 31, 2010, by the American Foundation for Equal Rights -- the nonprofit organization funding the federal court challenge to Proposition 8. Michael Petrelis looked into the filing, as he does for many LGBT nonprofits, on April 20.

AFER reported paying lead attorney Ted Olson's firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP a total of $1,691,714 for legal expenses related to the then-named Perry v. Schwarzenegger case (now, Perry v. Brown). Although the case included a grand presentation with a three-week trial and several expert witnesses, it is not uncommon to have such lengthy litigation as a part of constitutional challenges. A similar trial was, in fact, held later in 2010 in the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States challenge to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

In sum, a portion of one case cost more than three times more money than Boehner, through House General Counsel Kelly Kircher, set as a "cap" in the undefined number of DOMA, Section 3, challenges that King & Spalding will be handling, all at different stages of litigation -- including many still at the trial court level.

What's more, according to an earlier Pelosi letter to Boehner, the decisions about the initial contract were made without consultation of the Democrats on either the BLAG or the House Committee on Administration.

In light of the ease and secrecy with which the initial contract was reached and, thus, could be altered, it would appear that not only is the King & Spalding $500,000 "cap" no cap at all but that it also is based on a number that was in no way intended to represent a good-faith estimate of the actual, final cost of defending Section 3 of DOMA against the multitude of challenges it faces in court.

[Photo: Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking at a Victory Fund event in 2010. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal leader who lost his re-election bid to Rep. Mike Fitpatrick (R-Pa.) in 2010, will not be seeking back his seat in Congress. He will, however, be asking voters across Pennsylvania to elect him attorney general in 2012.

Current Attorney General William H. Ryan Jr., served as the First Deputy Attorney General to now-Gov. Tom Corbett (R-Pa.), and ascended to the office by statute. According to a news release in January, "Under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, Ryan - who has served as First Deputy Attorney General - assumes all of the powers and duties of the Attorney General upon a vacancy in the office."

According to a news release today announcing his run for the attorney general's office, Murphy said, "I've spent my entire life protecting American families. I'm running for Attorney General because I want to continue that important work and make sure that the people of Pennsylvania have an advocate who will fight crime wherever it is – on the streets, in corporate boardrooms, or in Harrisburg."

He continued: "Working families across the state are struggling. They deserve an Attorney General who will stand up for them. That means rooting out corruption and fighting against powerful special interests to protect hard-working taxpayers. As an Iraq war veteran, I prosecuted terrorists bent on killing Americans. I won’t back down from the challenges that face our Commonwealth."

Murphy was the lead sponsor of the legislation in the House aimed at repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The legislation was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2010.

Speaking with Metro Weekly on Dec. 21, 2010, as his time in Congress came to a close, Murphy talked about about what he viewed as the importance of his work on DADT repeal.

''I took my oath seriously when I was in the military and when I'm a member of Congress, and I didn't come here to just get re-elected. I came here to fight for my country and to make it even better,'' Murphy said. ''I know that when my two little kids are in college in 20 years, they're going to be proud of what their daddy stood for when he had the chance to serve his country in the Congress of the United States.''

[Photo: Murphy (Photo by Chris Geidner/Metro Weekly.)]

The Murphy release is available below the jump.

The contract between House General Counsel Kerry Kircher and attorney Paul Clement, on behalf of King & Spalding, to "represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group as a party or as an amicus" in "one or more civil actions" relating to "the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act" has been released. The news of the agreement became public on April 18.

Kircher was authorized to pursue such an agreement by the BLAG on March 9. The contract also was signed by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), who is the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the approval of which the contract states is required for the contract to be effective.

The contract, which was signed on April 14, states that Clement "will be principally responsible" for the litigation and that Daryl L. Joseffer and Jeffrey S. Bucholtz will "personally perform a substantial portion" of the litigation. Bucholtz's name was on the brief filed on April 18 seeking intervention in the Windsor v. United States case brought by the widow of Thea Spyer, Edith Windsor, who had to pay a $350,000 estate tax that she would not have had to pay had Windsor and Spyer's marriage been recognized by the federal government.

Clement, a partner at King & Spalding (bio), served as the solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, which is the top appellate litigator in the government. He has argued more than 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh told Metro Weekly that Clement is "one of the leading appellate advocates of his generation." Clement earlier clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and, before that, Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Bucholtz, a partner at King & Spalding (bio), clerked for now-Justice Samuel Alito when Alito served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and worked in the Justice Department's Civil Division throughout most of the George W. Bush administration, including for six months as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division. Joseffer, also a partner at King & Spalding (bio), argued 11 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court while working in the Solicitor General's Office in the George W. Bush administration and earlier had clerked for Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

There is a "cap" set on the services at $500,000, but the contract contemplates the possibility that such a cap could be raised. A "blended rate" of $520 has been set for attorneys' hourly services, with non-attorney services to be billed at "75 percent of [King & Spalding's] usual and customary rates" for such services. The blended rate means that Clement will be working at a far lower rate than he usually commands, but that more junior associates will have their services billed out at a higher rate than they would usually be billed. This is not uncommon in government outside counsel contracts.

No experts can be retained, per the contract, without the prior consent of the House General Counsel, Kircher, who has worked in the House General Counsel's office since 1995.

It also is notable that the nondiscrimination clause in the contract states that King & Spalding "will not discriminate in its performance of this Agreement because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or any other prohibited basis." Neither sexual orientation nor gender identity are included. This despite the fact that the firm clearly does include such categories in its own nondiscrimination policy.

Talking about how it is "committed to having the brightest and most diverse lawyers it can find, including members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community," the firm notes, "The firm's non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Further, domestic partner benefits are offered for same-sex couples."

Read the contract: ClementContract.pdf

[Photo: Clement (Photo courtesy of the Department of Justice.)]

Today, the House of Representatives Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, through Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), announced that it would be intervening in cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act's constitutionality, a move authorized earlier this year by the Republican members of the BLAG. Word then came that former Solicitor General Paul Clement -- the top appellate litigator during part of the George W. Bush administration -- will be serving as the outside counsel to the House BLAG in its DOMA defense, news that preceded a court filing by Clement seeking to allow the BLAG to intervene in a DOMA challenge.

Boehner, in a letter to Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) referencing the Feb. 23 decision by the Justice Department that it would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in court, wrote, "The burden of defending DOMA, and the resulting costs associated with any litigation that would have otherwise been born by DOJ, has fallen to the House."

Pelosi, however, shot back, writing, "Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel. Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged."

She also noted, "According to reports, a contract engaging Paul D. Clement to serve as the outside counsel reportedly was forwarded to the Committee on House Administration, although not to the Democratic members or staff of the Committee. ... I would like to know when the contract with Mr. Clement was signed, and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee."

Clement, a partner at King & Spalding (bio), will be defending the 1996 law in the litigation -- which currently entails two federal appellate cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and several federal trial court cases at this time.

[For further information about the King & Spalding lawyers and the contract under which they are defending DOMA, see "Looking Into the DOMA Defense Contract."]

In a news release, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese noted, "The firm of King & Spalding has brought a shameful stain on its reputation in arguing for discrimination against loving, married couples. No amount of taxpayer money they rake in will mitigate this blemish on the King & Spalding name."

Tom Goldstein, a prominent Supreme Court advocate who runs SCOTUSblog, disagreed, telling Metro Weekly, "I hope he loses, and I think that side of the case is on the wrong side of history. But I think the criticism of him and King and Spaulding is completely misguided. 

"It's absolutely a reasonable position, and our system of government calls for the House to be able to defend a law enacted by Congress. The rule of law functions when good advocates put the best arguments before a Court, and Paul is a great and deeply respected and immensely thoughtful advocate."

University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Tobias Barrington Wolff, however, countered in an email to Metro Weekly, "Lawyers choose the cases that they take.  For a private lawyer -- as opposed to a government lawyer -- there is no obligation to accept cases that run contrary to one's convictions. Indeed, lawyers define their convictions in part by the cases they select.

"Federal courts require a full and adversarial presentation of the issues when deciding cases.  That principle is important," Wolff wrote. "But Mr. Clement will still be responsible for the arguments he makes in defending this odious statute.  If he argues that antigay discrimination is presumptively valid and can be justified by sheer moral disapproval, or perpetuates unscientific claims about the capacity of gay couples to be successful parents to their children -- as Speaker Boehner's public comments have suggested -- then that will be cause for criticism."

Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe -- who testified against DOMA before Congress in 1996 -- suggested that Clement's presence might be less important than the law that Clement is defending, writing to Metro Weekly, "Paul is very talented and I'm sure DOMA will be well defended, but I believe it is unconstitutional and think it should be struck down despite the best defense."

Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry who was a lawyer on the Hawaii lawsuit that led congressional Republicans to pass DOMA in 1996, took a more directly political tack, writing, "In the midst of an unprecedented feeding-frenzy of spending cuts weighing heaviest on the middle class and most vulnerable, it's appalling to see Republican House leaders spending even one red cent of our taxpayer dollars -- let alone huge high-priced lawyer fees -- defending a discriminatory, invasive law that a federal judge appointed by Nixon, Paul Clement's Republican predecessor as Solicitor General, and the Department of Justice, among many others, all agree is indefensible under the Constitution."

The Nixon judge, Joseph Tauro found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional at the trial court level in July 2010 in the two cases currently before the First Circuit. Clement's predecessor is Ted Olson, the attorney who is leading the challenge to California's Proposition 8.

In the letter to Pelosi, however, Boehner discussed how he expected those fees to be paid, writing, "Obviously, DOJ's decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA. It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA."

Asked if DOJ should lose the funding that goes to the House BLAG's defense of DOMA, as Boehner suggested he would like to see happen today, Tribe told Metro Weekly, "Of course not."

HRC also criticized that tack earlier today, with Solmonese saying in a statement, "The House Republican Leadership continues to show that they're more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems. ... To add insult to injury, he's now signed on to a right-wing plan to cut funding for the Department of Justice."

[Photo, top: Boehner (Photo courtesy House website.) Photo, bottom: Wolff (Photo courtesy Penn website.)]

[EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this story was posted at 6:12 PM.]

Without opposition from either the Department of Justice attorneys representing the Obama administration or the lawyers representing Edith Windsor in her challenge to the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. House of Representatives filed a motion to intervene in Windsor v. United States "for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III of [DOMA]."

The move, which had to happen by today per the judge's order in the case, was signaled earlier in the day in a series of letters between House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- two of the five members of the BLAG. The intervention has been opposed by Pelosi, as well as the other Democratic member of the BLAG, which was noted in the Windsor filing this evening.

Roberta Kaplan, Windsor's lawyer, responded to the filing in a statement by noting, "We are determined to move forward with Edie's case as expeditiously as possible so that the court can rule that all marriages are equal under the law and that DOMA is unconstitutional. Our client, who is not getting any younger, filed her case more than five months ago and it is clearly time for her to have her day in court."

As to the DOJ's position, the filing notes that "the United States does not oppose this motion to intervene for purposes of presenting arguments in support of the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, but will be filing a response to explain its position."

Attorney Paul Clement -- the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush and a partner at King & Spalding -- signed the filing to intervene in the case, following reports earlier today that he had been retained for the job by the Republican members of the BLAG.

Read the filing: Windsor-BLAGIntervention.pdf

The Human Rights Campaign released a statement today, April 18, criticizing Speaker John Boehner for "endorsing a right-wing plan to defund part of the Department of Justice because of the Obama Administration's thoughtful analysis that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.": 

The Speaker made his position known in response to a letter from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who had originally questioned the cost of the House's intervention in the cases. Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese issued the following statement:

"The House Republican Leadership continues to show that they're more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems. As Americans across the country continue to struggle, Speaker Boehner's prescription has been to keep families he doesn't like from accessing needed protections. To add insult to injury, he's now signed on to a right-wing plan to cut funding for the Department of Justice.

"A far right fringe may be calling for a defense of DOMA, but doing so is sure to turn off independent voters. If the Speaker wants to make the lives of Americans better, he should spearhead repeal of DOMA, not waste time and resources defending it."

It is also expected that the House Republican Leadership will officially seek to intervene today in a New York case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.

Today, President Barack Obama signed the budget bill that averted the government shutdown a week ago. In doing so, he issued a signing statement noting issues with three provisions -- two relating to transfer of detainees at Guantanamo and one that defunded four of the Obama "czars." Obama's statement did not, however, reference the District-related provisions that led to a protest and the arrest of D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) and 40 others on April 11.

Of the defunded executive positions, Obama took a strong position, writing, "Section 2262 of the Act would prohibit the use of funds for several positions that involve providing advice directly to the President.

"Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President's ability to exercise his supervisory [authority] violate the separation of powers .... Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives."

In other words, the administration will not abide by the provision because they view it as unconstitutional.

As to the Guantanamo detainee transfer provisions, however, Obama said that he opposes but will enforce the provisions.

"Despite my continued strong objection to these provisions, I have signed this Act because of the importance of avoiding a lapse in appropriations for the Federal Government, including our military activities, for the remainder of fiscal year 2011," he wrote. "Nevertheless, my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future."

Obama has, in the past, expressed his support for D.C. home rule, but he did not mention the two provisions that led to the protest and arrest of Gray, several D.C. City Council members and many others at the beginning of this week -- one "rider," as they are known, prohibiting District-raised tax money from being used to provide abortion services and another regarding the private school voucher program in the District.

In the past, such riders restricted District needle-exchange efforts and the District's domestic-partner registry. District Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) has been a staunch advocate of eliminating riders from the budget. Although there was some concern that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) or another conservative member might try to add a rider to impact D.C. marriage equality, no such effort ever materialized -- let alone succeeded.

On April 12, asked about the protests and arrests, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "The President did not get everything he wanted. He would not have supported this, does not support the provision that concerns the mayor. And he is a firm supporter of D.C. home rule."

The White House did not immediately respond this evening as to why the riders were not mentioned in the signing statement, but a White House aide did confirm that there have been staff-to-staff communications between the White House and the Mayor's office since Gray's arrest.

[Photo: Gray (Photo by Ward Morrison/Metro Weekly.)]

Read the full signing statement below the jump.

Today, the House Judiciary Submcommittee on the Constitution held its scheduled hearing on "Defending Marriage," featuring testimony from the National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher, Ed Whelan of the National Review and Ethics and Public Policy Center and Rutgers Law professor Carlos Ball.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the subcommittee, opened the hearing with a discussion of the Feb. 23 decision by the Obama administration to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of Justice decision, he says, is the purpose of the hearing.

The only problem -- for opponents of same-sex marriage -- was that none of the Republicans on the subcommittee, save for Franks, bothered to show. None of the offices of the five absent Republicans -- vice chairman Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) and Reps. Steve Chabot (Ohio), Randy Forbes (Va.), Steve King (Iowa) and Jim Jordan (Ohio) -- responded to inquiries regarding the reasons for their absences from Metro Weekly.

All of the Democrats on the committee -- ranking minority member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Reps. Mike Quigley (Ill.), John Conyers (Mich.) and Bobby Scott (Va.) -- were in attendance.

Nadler opened the Democratic side by noting, "What we ought to be exploring in this hearing, and before the House of Representatives engages in time-consuming and costly litigation, is how anyone can justify prolonging the life of this harmful law."

The first sharp partisan dispute to break out in the hearing came when Conyers began his opening statement by stating, "The thing that bothers me ... is that the Department of Justice is not here and, I understand, was not invited."

Franks responded by stating that a DOJ oversight hearing would be held in May, and that these issues could be raised to DOJ at that time. Both Conyers and Nadler took issue with that, with Conyers saying he was "not pleased" with the decision to hold this hearing before the DOJ oversight hearing.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), joined the hearing for a few minutes, alerting the crowd to the fact, in his words, that if we change marriage by allowing same-sex couples to marry, "harmful, unintended consequences could follow." By refusing to defend DOMA, Smith said, "the president has invited courts to override that popular law."

Gallagher, true to form, highlighted that marriages of one man and one woman "are the only unions that can create new life." She said, "This is the public reason why government gets involved ..."

Gallagher, going over the five minutes allotted to her for her opening statement, says there would be "profound consequences" of treating same-sex couples like interracial couples.

Ball, going second, spoke about the history of cases in which the executive refused to defend a law and the argument for the unconstitutionality of DOMA. He concluded by discussing the case of Edith Windsor, currently before the Southern District of New York and one of the two cases in trial courts in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that led DOJ to send the Feb. 23 memorandum. "In the end," Ball said, "there is no rational reason to impose a huge tax burden on Edie."

Whelan went off most clearly in attacking the DOJ, saying the Department had never truly defended the law, but rather made a "charade of pretending to defend DOMA." House intervention, Whelan said, should be supported by all House members, regardless of their view of the constitutionality of DOMA, "as a matter of principle."

[NOTE: This post was updated throughout the hearing and day.]

The Think Progress highlight reel:

On Friday, April 15, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will take a look at "Defending Marriage" in a hearing called by the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). The hearing is set to take place at 10 a.m. in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building and is slated to feature three witnesses, six Republican members and four Democratic members.

This baker's dozen of folks could lead to quite the hearing.

Maggie Gallagher, the chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, is to be joined by Edward Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, as the Republican-picked witnesses. The Democratic-picked witness is professor Carlos Ball, a law professor at Rutgers School of Law (bio) and the author of a new book, The Right to be Parents: How LGBT Mothers and Fathers Have Revolutionized Family Law.

In addition to Franks, the Republicans on the subcommittee include vice chairman Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) and Reps. Steve Chabot (Ohio), Randy Forbes (Va.), Steve King (Iowa) and Jim Jordan (Ohio).

The Democrats include ranking minority member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) -- coming off today's introduction of the Uniting American Families Act and his role as the lead sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act -- and Reps. Mike Quigley (Ill.), John Conyers (Mich.) and Bobby Scott (Va.).

The Republicans likely will be focusing their energy on the Department of Justice's Feb. 23 decision to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. On the day of the decision, Whelan wrote at National Review Online, "Attorney General Holder has the gall to claim to be acting consistent with DOJ's 'longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.' There are lots of reasonable arguments in defense of DOMA. The Obama administration has abandoned those arguments for purely political reasons."

Also, expect Gallagher to place particular emphasis on the failure of any state to have advanced on marriage equality this year, from Rhode Island to Maryland and from New York to New Jersey. And, though the focus appears to be DOMA, Gallagher has spent significant time talking about the "right" of people to vote on marriage equality, particularly in the District. With Jordan, the leading member to support forcing a vote in the District, as a friendly member on the subcommittee, it seems likely that the topic could be raised by one or both of them.

One thing that will be interesting to watch from the Democratic side is if and how Tax Day, on April 18 this year but traditionally associated on April 15, will be used by members to discuss the discrimination that same-sex couples face. Additionally, the April 15 hearing coincides with the Day of Silence, an annual event organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Another interesting question is if or how the topic of Louis Marinelli -- the former NOM employee who was the director of the "Summer for Marriage" bus tour -- is broached. On April 8, Good As You's Jeremy Hooper, in an extensive interview with Marinelli, announced that Marinelli had changed his mind and now supports marriage equality for same-sex couples.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell addressed Marinelli's change of heart earlier this week:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Image: Gallagher at a Cato Institute forum in 2010.]

In an email sent from the board of directors of The Trevor Project, it was announced that Charles Robbins, the executive director of The Trevor Project, resigned on April 8.

The email says nothing about the reasons for Robbins's departure, and the board notes it "appreciates Charles' years of service and wishes him well in his future endeavors."

Already, however, The Trevor Project website details that David McFarland is serving as the interim executive director and chief executive officer.

According to his now-removed biography on the site, still available via Google cache, in Robbins's "four-year tenure at The Trevor Project, the full-time staff has grown from five to 24 and the annual budget has quadrupled to $4 million."

In the midst of this past fall's attention on LGBT youth suicide, The Trevor Project received significant media attention. In October 2010, Metro Weekly profiled Robbins, and in a wide-ranging interview he said that what drew him to The Trevor Project was "at the core ... the mission, and the fact that it's the only organization working on suicide-prevention efforts for gay youth."

According to The Trevor Project site, McFarland "has been instrumental in directing national and regional strategy for MTV Networks and Lifetime Television, and helping to launch the first education, fitness and youth-focused On-Demand networks, Studio 4." His involvement with The Trevor Project has included service as a Trevor Lifeline counselor, vice chair of the board of directors and chair of the board of directors.

It was not immediately known why the news of resignation, which happened this past week, was just released tonight.

The full text of the email is below:

Dear Friends,

The Trevor Project, the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to LGBTQ youth announces Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Charles Robbins resigned his post April 8, 2011. The organization appreciates Charles' years of service and wishes him well in his future endeavors.

As the Board begins a national search for a replacement, Chair of the Board of Directors David McFarland has assumed the role of Executive Director on an interim basis. Board Vice Chair Ricky Strauss is the acting interim Chair of the Board. David has served in a national leadership capacity at a number of Fortune 100 corporations in the entertainment and financial management arenas, bringing extensive operational, creative and executive leadership experience to this interim role, along with experience as a Trevor Lifeline Counselor, Vice Chair of the Board and Chair of the Board. We are excited to engage his leadership through this transition period.

The Trevor Project Board of Directors and staff will continue the organization's work to end suicide among LGBTQ youth by providing life-saving and life-affirming resources including our nationwide, 24/7 crisis intervention lifeline, digital community and advocacy/educational programs that create a safe, supportive and positive environment for everyone. Thank you for your continued support through this new and exciting stage of The Trevor Project's growth.

All the best,

The Trevor Project Board of Directors

Metro Weekly will have more information as the story develops. McFarland was not available for comment at this late hour, although an email request for information was sent to him.

[Photo: Robbins]

On April 20-21, the Virginia State Board of Social Services will meet to consider "adopting new standards for licensed private child-placing agencies," which would allow same-sex couples to adopt children in the state for the first time.

According to the Family Equality Council, this change could be helpful for Virginia children because of the state’s poor record in the area of adoption. According to the organization, "Virginia has the unique distinction of ranking first among the states in the percentage of youth who age out of foster care each year (32%)."

The regulations, which were supported by former Gov. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), now face tentative opposition from Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.). Following the close of the public comment period for the regulations on April 1, which garnered more than 1,000 comments, McDonnell on April 5 said in a Washington Post report, "I know I had said during the campaign that I would essentially keep our adoption laws -- which I think are good -- the way they are now. I think the current regulations that are in place seem to be working well.

"I don't think we ought to force Catholic Charities to make that part of their policy or other similar situated groups. Many of our adoption agencies are faith-based groups that ought to be able to establish what their own policies are," McDonnell said, according to the Post account. "Current regulations that say you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin I think are proper. I think previous efforts to expand that to a number of other classes are going to have very strict scrutiny to make sure that we don’t inhibit the very fine work some faith-based organizations are doing."

McDonnell has until April 16 to offer his formal recommendation to the Board, which is a nine-member body of appointees who serve four-year terms. According to the Post, a majority of the Board is made up of Kaine appointees.

The governor's approaching deadline and the upcoming Board meeting have led LGBT organizations to begin campaigns urging that the regulations be allowed to go into effect.

The Human Rights Campaign planned two news conferences for Wednesday, April 13, with Equality Virginia and Adoptions Together to ask Governor McDonnell and the State Board of Social Services to "put the best interest of Virginia's children first by eliminating discrimination in the adoption process," according to a news release about the Richmond and Alexandria events. Virginia's sole out gay lawmaker, Del. Adam Ebbin (D-Arlington, Fairfax), who has spoken out on the floor of the House of Delegates in favor of the regulation change, is expected to attend.

Meanwhile, the Family Equality Council launched a web ad on April 12 that calls on supporters of the proposal to click and sign an online petition demanding that McDonnell and the Board enact the proposed regulations. On the website that contains the petition, the group states, "In 2009 there were 6700 kids in foster care in the state of Virginia. While 663 children from foster care were ultimately placed with adoptive families, by year's end 1,612 kids available for adoption were still waiting for permanent families of their own."

Watch the ad:

After being online for a week and a half, the Republican National Committee site, "Hope Isn't Hiring," has disappeared -- and with it several strong statements from the RNC opposing President Barack Obama's claimed advancements on LGBT equality.

The site, criticized by the Log Cabin Republicans and other LGBT groups, specifically took aim at President Barack Obama's efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and expand hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples, among other actions and positions. Entering the website's address into a browser now redirects the user to the RNC's main web page.

LCR executive director Clarke Cooper would not say whether he believed his group's complaints led to the site being taken down, but he did tell Metro Weekly in an email, "Log Cabin Republicans reached out to the Chairman and contacts at the RNC to make the case that some of the content on the Hope Isn't Hiring website ran counter to popular public opinion, was not helpful to the mission of increasing the party ranks and was a distraction from the 2010 voter mandate to focus on building the economy, creating jobs and reducing government spending."

The Human Rights Campaign, which also criticized the website noted the site's erasure in a news release earlier today.

HRC president Joe Solmonese said, "Hopefully the Republican Party leadership has come to their senses and realized that attacking LGBT families offends the great majority of Americans. Polling overwhelmingly shows that Americans support LGBT equality and the Republican Party would be foolish to campaign on a platform based on discrimination and ignorance."

Among the topics addressed on the site were "Despite It Being The Law Of The Land, Obama Refused To Continue To Defend The Defense Of Marriage Act In Court"; "Obama Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell While U.S. Troops Are Still On The Battlefield"; and "Obama Opposed California's Prop 8 And Has Expanded Government Recognition Of Same-Sex Couples."

The RNC press office did not provide any immediate explanation regarding why the site was taken down.

[Image: A screen capture from the "social issues" section of the now-defunct RNC website.]

Today, First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden launched their new initiative, Joining Forces, "to support and honor America's service members and their families." With President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden at their side, however, the event was being launched without the inclusion of any gay and lesbian families.

Asked why not, Kristina Schake, Michelle Obama's communications director, said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly, "The President has been crystal clear that the Administration is moving forward with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' quickly and efficiently. However, it still remains the law. The White House, including the First Lady and Dr. Biden, look forward to working with the families of gay and lesbian service members after certification occurs and repeal goes into effect."

More than an hour later, however, at the White House press briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he had "nothing" on the exclusion of gay and lesbian servicemembers' families from the initiative.

When pressed with the statement from the office of the First Lady and asked "how it's not a missed opportunity for you guys" to exclude gay and lesbian servicemembers' families, Carney only added, "Why don't we -- I think you're conflating, here, a couple of things, but why don't I take that and get back to you?"

Earlier today, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson stirred this pot, issuing a statement saying, "It is rather unfortunate that both East Wing and West Wing staff have refused to allow a representative of gay military families to even be in the room at an event that is supposed to honor their commitment and sacrifice."

It is that point -- the "representatives of gay military families" -- that raises questions about the DADT "still remains the law" reasoning given by the First Lady's office for gay and lesbian servicemembers' exclusion. Organizational representation need not be active-duty servicemembers and, thus, need not even involve people subject to DADT.

Nicholson continued: "We have been trying for nearly two weeks to get just one spot for one of our community's representatives at this event. The First Lady's office has used the continued enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' as an excuse to exclude us, even though they know that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' does not apply to the civilians who work at their advocacy and service organizations. Many straight organizational representatives have been invited to this event, including some with few or no military families in their constituencies. Yet our thousands of gay military families are shut out from being represented today because of nothing but lingering political homophobia. Gay and lesbian military families should not have to fight this hard just to stand in the back of the room in 2011."

[CLARIFICATION: In September 2010, Servicemembers United held what it described as the "first-ever meeting in Washington for military partners [in same-sex relationships] from around the country."]

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis, on the other hand, appeared to accept the statement from the First Lady's office, saying in a statement, "I have no doubt the First Lady shares the President's goal of seeing open military service a reality this year. Mrs. Obama, the President, and the service chiefs all recognize that gay and lesbian service members are serving today, and that they have families who should be recognized. In fact, the Comprehensive Review Working Group created an opportunity for their voices to be heard in a confidential manner. 

"Unfortunately, because 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is still the law, our LGB service members and their families will probably not be an official part of this week's public activities. However, the First Lady's welcomed visits to our military bases underscore why we need certification and repeal sooner rather than later, hopefully before the end of this quarter. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network looks forward to Mrs. Obama having the opportunity to sit down with LGB service members and their families later this year when Don't Ask is no longer the law. We believe the First Lady also looks forward to that opportunity once repeal is in place. In the interim, I remain confident that Mrs. Obama and the President value the unselfish contributions and sacrifices our LGB military families are making today and will find appropriate ways to acknowledge them this week."

[UPDATE @ 5:20 PM: The briefing transcript:

Q    Thanks.  Can you explain why, months after signing the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the White House didn’t allow representatives of gay military families to attend today’s event?  I mean, isn’t that a missed opportunity for the President to reaffirm his commitment to see through the repeal of the policy?

MR. CARNEY:  I actually don’t have anything for you on that.  I will take that question -- I’m not aware of it at all.

Q    Okay.  Well, I mean, the First Lady’s office put out a statement confirming it.  They said that it’s still the law of the land.  But I’m just wondering why -- how that’s not a missed opportunity for you guys to --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, wait.  If you want, I can take this question, but I think you’re conflating here a couple of things.  But why don’t I take that and get back to you.

Also, below the jump, please find the full list of "Business and Military Organization Leaders and Others Expected to Attend," which was provided to members of the media by the White House.]

The Palm Center, a think tank that has been dedicated to unparalleled research about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy over the course of the law's life, announced today that it would be merging with the Williams Institute. The merger folds together two of the most well known LGBT research entities in the nation.

Although both are think tanks that operate under the auspices of the University of California, Palm had operated out of the University of California, Santa Barbara, whereas Williams operates out of the University of California, Los Angeles.

In a statement from the Palm Center:

LOS ANGELES, CA -- April 11, 2011 -- The Palm Center is proud to announce its merger with the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.  As of today, Palm is to become a distinct center operating under the auspices of Williams.  Palm’s Director Aaron Belkin said that, “The Williams Institute brings the highest scholarly standards to its research, and it is an honor to become a part of the Williams family.”  Palm’s new web address is www.palmcenter.org, with corresponding email addresses (last name, at palmcenter.org) ....

This move makes sense in the aftermath of the December 2010 passage of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act, setting up an end to the underlying ban that has provided the basis for much of the research done by Palm.

Looking at Palm's description, it appears to be acknowledging this reality as well:

The Palm Center is a research institute committed to sponsoring state-of-the-art scholarship to enhance the quality of public dialogue about critical and controversial issues of the day. For the past decade, the Palm Center's research on sexual minorities in the military has been published in leading social scientific journals.

Williams, on the other hand, has a more broad-based body of work, that easily would be able to take a "Palm Center in post-DADT transition" under its auspices as Palm refocuses in the coming years.

The move comes in the week after the Williams Institute held a 10-year anniversary celebration and conference of its founding.

Sen. Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery), the only out LGBT member of the Maryland Senate, provided a statement to Metro Weekly regarding today's move by the Senate killing the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235.

Most notably, Madaleno said that, prior to the start of the 2012 session, he "will pre-file a new version of the Gender Identity Antidiscrimination Act that includes provisions for housing and employment, as well as public accommodations" with aim of "a full debate and vote in the Senate before the last day of the session."

The full statement:

I am extremely disappointed by the Senate's action today to send HB 235 back to the Judicial Proceedings Committee. The twisted and unfair process HB 235 had to go through to even make it to the Senate floor mars the Senate’s otherwise outstanding work this year. The Senate’s treatment of this legislation will be remembered for a long time by the LGBT community and Marylanders who believe in equal rights for all.

After an overwhelming vote in favor of HB 235 by the House of Delegates, this bill was inappropriately referred to the Senate Rules Committee, which delayed action for nearly a week. After successful votes in the Rules Committee and Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, the full Senate never had an opportunity to debate this issue because of today’s vote to recommit.

The Senate's action today means that transgender individuals in Maryland will continue to be denied housing on the basis of their gender identity. Every homeless transgender person that dies on the street will do so because of the Senate’s failure to pass HB 235. Every transgender individual who cannot provide for themselves or their family because they are denied employment based on their gender identity will do so because of the Senate's failure to pass HB 235.

I remain firmly committed to seeing this landmark civil rights legislation pass the Maryland General Assembly. Before next session, I will pre-file a new version of the Gender Identity Antidiscrimination Act that includes provisions for housing and employment, as well as public accommodations in the hope it can receive a full debate and vote in the Senate before the last day of the session.

Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, said the organization was "shocked and appalled" today, April 11 -- during the last day of Maryland's legislative session -- by the 27 votes in favor of the sending the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, back to committee. That move killed the bill this year, and according to Meneses-Sheets raises the question of which supporters backed out of their commitment. 

Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Carroll and Howard Counties) was the sole Republican in the Senate who had committed to voting for passage of H.B. 235, and he kept that promise -- voting today against sending the bill back to committee. 

Out of the 27 votes to send the bill back to the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee in 2012, 16 came from Democrats in the Senate. They were: Senate President Thomas Miller (D-Calvert & Prince George's Counties) and Sens. John C. Astle (D-Anne Arundel), Joanne Claybon Benson (D-Prince George's), Ulysses Currie (D-Prince George's), James E. DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel), Roy Dyson (D-Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's Counties), Edward Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore and Howard), Katherine Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County), James Mathias (D-Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester), Nathaniel McFadden (D-Baltimore City), Thomas Middleton (D-Charles), C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), Douglas Peters (D-Prince George's), James Robey (D-Howard), Norman Stone (D-Baltimore County) and Robert Zirkin (D-Baltimore County).

According to Equality Maryland, the senators who went back on their word to support H.B. 235 were Sens. Benson, Kasemeyer, Klausmeier, McFadden, Middleton, Robey and Zirkin.

The Maryland Senate this afternoon sent the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, back to the Judicial Proceedings Committee during the bill's second reading, 27-20, killing the bill in this year's legislative session. The vote happened after Sen. James DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel), who was expected to vote against the measure, asked for the bill to be recommitted to committee. 

Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, said the organization is "shocked and appalled" by the 27 votes in favor of the sending the bill back to committee. 

"This means that we really need to examine our steps moving forward," she said, talking to reporters after the vote. "I must emphasize that we got so far this year, and we are so thankful to every legislator that did do the right thing, and every constituent who made a phone call or wrote a letter, and especially to the transgender people of Maryland who came out and told their stories and shared their very personal need for job and housing protections."

"We will continue to fight, but we are shocked and frankly appalled by this action today. As recently as this morning we have been doing the work to secure the votes so clearly this is shocking."

In a statement issued to Metro Weekly, Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality said: "LGBT people need to understand that Senators Miller and Frosh are not yet pro-equality, and the Senators need to understand that we will not stop until this bill passes and transgender people can safely and securely work in Maryland like everyone else."

The development comes two days after supporters of the legislation were relieved when the bill passed favorably in the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee on April 9, with a 7-4 vote with only one amendment from Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery), which according to Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, was non-substantial. 

Frosh's amendment changed the wording of the bill to take out "appearance, expression or behavior" from the list of protections, and instead added "the manifestation of that identity in gender-related appearance, characteristics and mannerisms." The amendment also stated gender identity must be "persistent" and "bona fide."

Opponents of the legislation included members of the LGBT community, including the organizations Trans Maryland and Trans United, who argued that the bill is inadequate because it provides some, not all, protections by leaving out "public accommodations," and that it would be difficult to amend the legislation later if it were to pass. 

Local transgender advocate Dana Beyer said opponents should not be celebrating today's development. 

"None of us were happy that public accommodations was not in this bill as it moved through the assembly, celebrating this defeat is rather silly because the message it will send is that we couldn't even accomplish this. We have a lot of work ahead of us and I hope they will join us in this fight, whether we push a comprehensive bill or not, I expect we will in the future but we have a long road ahead of us. [First] we need to find out which of our friends backed out on us."

According to Beyer, nine Senators backed out of their commitment to support H.B. 235. 

"I had hoped we would get our either up or down vote," she said, talking to Metro Weekly. "This was sort of a back-handed way of giving it to us. The Senate President had promised us a vote, and this wasn't exactly the fairest way of giving it to us. We need to find out which of our supporters caved in to this maneuver to kill the bill." 

[Photo: Meneses-Sheets (Photo by Todd Franson.)]

The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, is on the schedule to be discussed and expectedly voted upon today, April 11, in the Maryland Senate on what is the last day of the state's legislative session.

The bill passed favorably in the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee on April 9, with a 7-4 vote and an amendment from Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery), which takes out protections against discrimination based on "appearance, expression or behavior" and instead adding "the manifestation of that identity in gender-related appearance, characteristics and mannerisms." The amendment also states gender identity must be  "persistent" and "bona fide."

If the H.B. 235 passes the full Senate today, it is expected to go back to the House, on a "concurrence calendar," which according to Equality Maryland executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets is a quick vote, also expected today. The House voted 86-52 in passage of the original bill on March 26.

For live coverage of today's Senate proceedings, follow Yusef Najafi on Twitter, with full coverage to follow on metroweekly.com.

The Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted today, April 9, 7-4 in favor of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235. The legislation passed with an amendment, from Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery) to take out protections against discrimination based on "appearance, expression or behavior" and instead adding "the manifestation of that identity in gender-related appearance, characteristics and mannerisms."

The amendment to the legislation means that it will need to go back to the House if it passes the full Senate before the end of the legislative session on April 11. Three other amendments -- some of which would have limited the scope of the protections in the bill -- were proposed, but rejected.

Morgan Meneses-Sheets, the executive director of Equality Maryland, says she is confident that the bill will make it through the Senate and the House because it is being placed on a "concurrence calendar," which Meneses-Sheets says means it will be voted upon quickly.

Meneses-Sheets adds that the support is there in the Senate and the House, which voted 86-52 in passage of the bill on March 26.

According to the Senate Judicial Proceeding Committee clerk's office, no further action on the bill is expected until Monday.

[UPDATE @ 2:10 PM:

Meneses-Sheets said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly, "We are grateful to the 7 Senators who stood up for fairness today by supporting House Bill 235. We commend Senator Frosh for his work and willingness to push this bill through committee and Senator Raskin for leading the charge. There is still work to be done. But with strong champions by our side, we are hopeful that job and housing protections will finally make it to the Governor's desk."]

[UPDATE @ 3:20 PM BY YUSEF NAJAFI:

Talking to Metro Weekly about Frosh's amendment, and the part that states gender identity must be  "persistent" and "bona fide," Meneses-Sheets said she is not concerned.

"There is nothing in there about proof, or documentation -- none of that," she said.

"It was not a substantive change, and there was no language added that people will have to have any kind of proof to be protected by the law." 

Other amendments presented during the committee vote hearing, which was closed to the public, included one presented by Del. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County), to take out housing from the list of protections, and one by Del. Christopher Shank (R-Washington County) to take out both housing and employment from the list of protections. The committee rejected both of those amendments.

In a statement released to Metro Weekly, Saturday, April 9, Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties), lead sponsor of the legislation, expressed gratitude to the committee for its favorable vote.

"I want to personally thank Chairman Frosh and Senator Raskin for their leadership on HB235.  Without their strong support, the bill would not have passed the Judicial Proceedings Committee. After many years of hard work and difficult compromises, the General Assembly is poised to send a clear message that discrimination against any Maryland citizen is not appropriate and will not be tolerated when applying for housing, employment, and credit. 

"I remain optimistic that the Senate will vote to send these very important protections to the Governor by Sine Die thanks to Chairman Frosh, Senator Raskin, and the Committee."]

Reporting in Annapolis by Yusef Najafi.

[Photo: Meneses-Sheets (Photo by Todd Franson.)]

Today, House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Chairman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) called for a hearing on "Defending Marriage," which is scheduled to take place on April 15.

The website for the House Judiciary Committee notes that the hearing will be held at 10 a.m. that day and is being held "By Direction of the Chairman."

Committee press secretary Charlotte Sellmyer told Metro Weekly in an email only that "[w]e release witness and background info one day prior to the hearing." She did not respond to a follow-up email asking why the chairman called for the hearing at this time.

On March 9, the House Republican leadership voted to direct the House general counsel to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, in the wake of the administration's Feb. 23 decision that it would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of marriage -- in court challenges to its constitutionality.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, "The Republican Party, and House Republicans in particular, seem to be fixated on beating up on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. The government is on the brink of shutting down, yet Republicans are still hell-bent on wasting tax-payer dollars fighting battles out of step with the American people's priorities."

The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 235, was put on hold today in the Maryland Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee by a request from Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R-Cecil & Harford Counties). The committee vote has been scheduled for Saturday, April 9. 

Jacobs expressed concern on April 7, during a hearing regarding the bill, saying that her problem with the legislation, which would provide housing, credit and employment protections for transgender Marylanders, stems from her belief that a person is not the same person once they have changed gender, and as an employer she would be uncomfortable with that.

"This is not the person I hired," she said. "That is where I'm struggling."

Jacobs said, for example, she runs a day-care center and if she were to hire a woman who would then transition to a male, "it's not who I hired."

Lisa Mottet, an attorney supporting the bill who works as the Transgender Civil Rights Project Director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, addressed Jacob's concern by saying that if her day-care center was designed to only hire women, and if that was something that was approved by the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, then men would be ineligible to work there and so she would be able to ask the transitioning person to retire. Mottet added that the bill does not apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

According to Equality Maryland, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director the "procedural hold" is not out of the norm, and is ordinarily introduced by opponents. 

"It's a procedural hold which happens quite often," Meneses-Sheets says.

"It's very typical, it was done by Sen. Jacobs, and Senator [Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery)] committted to bring it up for a vote tomorrow, so we're just going to keep doing exactly what we've been doing, working every second until Monday, April 11, at midnight until we get this through."

Meneses-Sheets says Jacobs asked for the hold to delay the bill, which she says is also common from opponents of legislation. Meneses-Sheets added that she is not concerned, and that Equality Maryland has seen a procedural hold in other instances in this legislative session. 

"It's very typical and it happened in each of the committee votes that we've had this year. Folks are anxious and excited and want to see this move and so we do we, but we just have to go through the process."

But local transgender activist Dana Beyer says she is "concerned" about the delay introduced today, adding that while she is not completely familiar with the legislative process she fears Frosh is giving in to slowing down the bill's movement before the end of session.

"The message it sends is that Frosh is messing with us again," Beyer says.  

The bill passed the House of Delegates with a favorable vote, 86-52, on Saturday, March 26. 

Frosh and Jacob's office did not immediately return a request for comment. If the committee votes favorably on the bill tomorrow, it will then go to the Senate chambers for a floor vote.

On April 7, Beyer told Metro Weekly that Senate President Thomas Miller (D-Calvert and Prince George's Counties) had told supporters of the measure that he would expedite the bill to a Senate vote if Equality Maryland could show him that there is support for the fill on the Senate floor. 

Both Delegate Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties), the lead sponsor of the bill, and Equality Maryland have stated publicly that they have secured commitments from a majority of the senators to vote for the bill.

[Photo: Jacobs]

Today, after a one-day delay from the original planned release on April 7, the State Department released the 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

The reports provide a trove of country-specific information that often includes details of any anti-LGBT discrimination prevalent in the given country.

From the introduction:

A third trend, and one that points in a negative direction, was the continuing escalation of violence, persecution, and official and societal discrimination of members of vulnerable groups, often racial, religious, or ethnic minorities or disempowered majorities. In many countries this pattern of discrimination extended to women; children; persons with disabilities; indigenous; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons; and members of other vulnerable groups who lacked the political power to defend their own interests. Often members of these groups were denied economic opportunity or the ability to abide by their social or cultural traditions or practices or were restricted in their ability to speak freely, to assemble peacefully, or to form associations or organizations.

In the report on Malawi, for example, the report notes:

Societal violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation occurred. The Center for Development of the People (CEDEP) reported that several cases of violence resulting in serious injury were perpetrated against gay men during the year. These attacks were not reported to police.

A 2008 study by CEDEP found that approximately 34 percent of gay men in the country had been blackmailed or denied services such as housing or healthcare due to their sexual orientation. Additionally, 8 percent of those surveyed said they had been beaten by police or other security forces due to their sexual orientation.

Despite this and other documented human rights abuses, on April 1, according to a release, "The U.S. Government's Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) today announced that it will sign a $350 million, five-year Compact with the Government of Malawi to invigorate the country’s power sector, spur private investment, and promote long-term, sustainable economic growth."

Review the full report.

The Maryland Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee held a hearing on House Bill 235, the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, today, April 7, taking testimony in favor of and against the bill. The committee did not, however, vote on the bill this afternoon.

The committee's clerk office confirmed that it could not establish whether a vote would occur tonight or tomorrow, although a vote is expected by tomorrow at the latest. According to transgender activist Dana Beyer, the vote's schedule is unpredictable. 

The bill passed the House of Delegates with a favorable vote, 86-52, on Saturday, March 26. If the committee votes favorably on its passage, the legislation would then move to the Senate chamber for a floor vote.

"There are five legislative sessions left," Beyer said, talking to Metro Weekly. "There will be two tomorrow, one Saturday and two on Monday. This committee will vote, as they're beginning now, on a whole sleuth of bills, we might be voted on tonight, we might be tomorrow morning.

"Senator Thomas Miller (D-Calvert and Prince George's Counties) told us that if Equality Maryland could show him the votes on the Senate floor, if we get out of this committee, he will expedite our Senate vote," Beyer said.

Both Delegate Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties), the lead sponsor of the bill, and Equality Maryland have stated publicly that they have secured commitments from a majority of the senators to vote for the bill.

Beyer noted, "So we could be on the Senate floor for second reading tomorrow during the afternoon session."

During the hearing, which began shortly after 2:20 p.m., Delegate Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties), the lead sponsor of the bill, addressed the committee, talking about the bill’s history and the struggle to get it thus far.

"House Bill 235 has been a bill that we have worked on for almost five years," she said. "We have made adjustments to the bill because of meetings with this committee."

"It's simply an anti-discrimination bill. What it says if you express yourself other than the sex you were born, you shouldn’t be discriminated against. It is not a bill about your moral values… [it's about] employment, housing and credit."

Pena-Melnyk said taking out public accommodations was a result of meetings with the Judicial Proceedings Committee.

"You will hear today from the opposition that the sky is going to fall, that men will go into the women’s bathroom and women will go in the men’s bathrooms .... It is not about that. We removed the public accommodations and we also exempted the church."

She added that the bill also does not apply to employers with less than 15 employees.

"All that is left is a bill that says do not discriminate against this group of people when looking for the basic necessities in life: housing, employment and credit."

Other supporters of the bill who testified included Catherine Shape, a biology teacher at American University who lost her transgender son to suicide last year.

"My son took his life last April and a couple of days before he did so he was weeping and railing against life because he felt like he had tried everything," she said.

"He had changed his name legally, he had taken hormones, he couldn’t go back to school, he dropped out ... because he couldn't take the harassment ... and he just didn’t know how to go forward with it.

"We cannot help the people who've gone," she added, "but we can help the people who are there now, and who are going to come along."

Those opposing the bill were broken down into two groups. One group of witnesses argued against transgender protections in the state, saying transgender people are "mentally ill" and that passing the bill would lead to confusion for children, lead to lawsuits, hurt businesses, and eventually lead to bathroom accommodations.

A second group opposing the legislation was comprised of LGBT people who argued that the bill was inadequate without public accommodations.

"It's difficult being put in the same waiting area as people who oppose the bill for different reasons than I am," Ashley Love, a transexual, transgender and intersex advocate from New York, told Metro Weekly before the hearing. 

"They're opposing it for ignorance, fear, and hate. I'm opposing it out of principle, meaning that this bill passing in its compromised form, in that it excludes public accommodations, will imply that transexual and transgender Marylanders are second class citizens and it can lead to a domino affect around the country." 

Jenna Fischetti from Laurel, Md., who is the media director of Trans Maryland, agrees with that assessment. 

"Never in the history of transgender-specific legislation has any state gone back and added a public accommodation only provision when there is already an existing law," she said, adding that public accommodations go beyond bathrooms to include hospitals and hotels.

"We believe that it needs to be a part of a comprehensive strategy in order to be able to get it, just like other states have done in the past." 

In a statement released following the hearing, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, said the organization will continue to fight for passage of the bill.  

"Equality Maryland remains committed to doing all that we can to move this critical legislation forward in time for full passage this year. With just a few days left we're in a difficult struggle for these important protections. HB 235 provides vital protections for 1 in 5 transgender Marylanders who lose employment because of discrimination."

"This legislation is long overdue in Maryland. Passage of this bill protects Maryland families from poverty, economic injustice, unfair discrimination, and will literally save lives. Every Marylander who believes in fairness and justice must call and email their legislator so that we can pass these important protections this legislative session."

[Photo: Gen. Peter Chairelli, vice chief of staff of the Army, testifies before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, April 7, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Following a little less than an hour of testimony and questions, the House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) adjourned his committee's hearing into the implementation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act so that members could proceed to a number of floor votes, leaving the service chiefs called to testify waiting in an anteroom.

The service chiefs, who had presented Congress with concerns about and even some opposition to repeal of DADT during testimony over the course of 2010, presented a far more optimistic outlook today.

Gen. Peter Chairelli, vice chief of staff of the Army, said of the training being implemented by the Army, "the process works." Chairelli said that Army commanders expressed "no issues" with repeal implementation just last week, but he maintained -- as Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey earlier testified -- that there is "moderate risk" to repeal.

Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marines Corps testified, "The Marine Corps is working diligently" to implement repeal. He also noted, "There's not been pushback ... or anxiety from the forces in the field." He said 41 percent of Marines have been trained and expect training to be complete by June 1.

Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, says Air Force training will be done on June 30. He maintained that there is moderate risk, adding, "but ... we are mitigating the risk in the way we are approaching it." He also said that he is more confident today than he was on Dec. 22 that repeal implementation will be successful.

Finally, Navy chief of operations Adm. Gary Roughead said, "Our sailors will continue to serve" with honor after DADT repeal is implemented. He added that "I'm very comfortable; I was very comfortable in December ..."

The most notable exchange in the first hour came when Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) asked whether the loss of the DADT law would prevent the military dealing with inappropriate behavior from out gay, lesbian or bisexual servicemembers.

Roughead responded, "The fact that someone is gay or lesbian doesn't really enter into a disruption to the mission," adding, "The same standards -- the same regulations and standards of conduct will apply .... It's not as if we're having to create new policies."

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis issued a statement at the break, saying, "We are within hours of a government shutdown which is going to have adverse and unintended consequences on our fighting men and women in uniform. And yet, repeal opponents felt the need this afternoon to spend precious time on how to prevent gays and lesbians from serving openly and honestly in our military.

"Mind you, we are talking about gay and lesbian service members already in Iraq and Afghanistan who could well give their lives or limbs for this country," he said. "I am compelled to ask: Have they no shame, no sense of priorities?"

[CORRECTION: The exchange that Rep. Akin had was with Adm. Roughead, not Schwartz.]

Today, the Senate Judicary Committee moved forward the nomination of J. Paul Oetken, who was nominated for a judgeship in the Southern District of New York by President Barack Obama in January.

A spokesperson for the judiciary committee, Erica Chabot said the nomination, along with three other district court nominees, will be "referred to the full Senate, where they will join the 12 other pending nominations."

The district court nominees -- who included Paul A. Engelmayer, Esther Salas and Ramona V. Manglona -- were approved by a voice vote in a hearing that largely focused on the nomination of Goodwin Liu, a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), held confirmation hearings on March 16 on the four district court nominees. 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).

Another of Obama's judicial nominees, Edward C. DuMont, has not seen such quick movement. His nomination did not progress in the 111th Congress, despite having been nominated initially in April 2010. Obama renominated DuMont, also an out gay attorney, 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.

Today, asked why the DuMont nomination had not progressed, Chabot said, "We are working with the committee Republicans to review the paperwork" so that both sides are comfortable scheduling a hearing.

She explained, "We try to work with committee Republicans" to reach agreement on scheduling nominations for hearings and committee votes, "and we are trying to do that with the DuMont nomination."

Pressed for more information about why the nomination has not moved forward, she added, "Senator Leahy and the other Democrats have been ready to move forward on the nomination since last year."

An spokesperson for the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee with Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) did not respond immediately for a request for comment.

This past week, Obama nominated a third out LGBT judge, Alison Nathan, also for the same Southern District of New York court to which Oetken has been nominated.

[Photo: Oetken, right, at his confirmation hearing. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

The Arkansas Supreme Court today, in an opinion published without dissent, struck down the state's 2008 ballot initiative that prohibited unmarried, cohabitating individuals from adopting. As same-sex marriage is illegal and not recognized in Arkansas, this initiative had the effect of prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting children.

From the court:

On November 4, 2008, a ballot initiative entitled “An Act Providing That an Individual Who is Cohabiting Outside of a Valid Marriage May Not Adopt or Be a Foster Parent of a Child Less Than Eighteen Years Old” was approved by fifty-seven percent of Arkansas voters. The ballot initiative is known as the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act of 2008 or “Act 1.” Act 1 went into effect on January 1, 2009, and is now codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 9-8-301 to -305.

The court noted:

We hold that a fundamental right to privacy is at issue in this case and that, under the Arkansas Constitution, sexual cohabitors have the right to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial intimacy in the privacy of their homes. We further hold that this right is jeopardized by Act 1 which precludes all sexual cohabitors, without exception, from eligibility for parenthood, whether by means of adoption or foster care. We quickly note that in certain instances, such as in custody, visitation, or dependency-neglect matters, the State and the circuit courts of this state have a duty to protect the best interest of the child. We will discuss this issue more fully below.

Then:

We strongly disagree with the State and FCAC’s conclusion that if this court finds that the categorical ban on adoption and fostering for sexual cohabitors put in place by Act 1 violates an individual’s fundamental right to sexual privacy in one’s home, state courts and DHS will be prohibited henceforth from considering and enforcing non-cohabitation agreements and orders in deciding child-custody and visitation cases as well as dependency- neglect cases. That simply is not the case. The overriding concern in all of these situations is the best interest of the child.

Finally:

Thus, Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of “opposite-sex and same-sex individuals” who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children, should they choose to cohabit with their sexual partner. The pressure on such couples to live apart, should they wish to foster or adopt children, is clearly significant. ...

Here Act 1 presents a pernicious choice for Cole. She can either give up her fundamental right to sexual intimacy in her home free from investigation by the State into her sexual practices in order to adopt or foster or forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering. We hold that the burden inflicted on her is direct and substantial.

The court, thus, concluded:

We conclude that the individualized assessments by DHS and our trial courts are effective in addressing issues such as relationship instability, abuse, lack of social support, and other factors that could potentially create a risk to the child or otherwise render the applicant unsuitable to be a foster or adoptive parent. These would be the least restrictive means for addressing the compelling state interest of protecting the welfare, safety, and best interest of Arkansas’s children. By imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, Act 1 removes the ability of the State and our courts to conduct these individualized assessments on these individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents. As a result, Act 1 fails to pass constitutional muster under a heightened-scrutiny analysis.

Read the opinion: ArkDeptHumanSrvcsCole.pdf

At the end of the 111th Congress, 203 members of the 435-member body had joined Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in co-sponsoring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The jobs protection bill, though only 14 members away from having a majority of the House as co-sponsors, never made it out of the House Education and Labor Committee chaired by ENDA co-sponsor Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).

Today, the bill, which would prohibit most employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation of gender identity, was reintroduced by Frank with only a few more than half that number -- 111 co-sponsors.

In the days before a news conference announcing that the bill would be reintroduced in the 112th Congress, Frank told Metro Weekly of the reintroduction, "It's an organizing tool. Obviously, with the Republicans in power, you're not going to get the bill even considered."

At the March 30 news conference, it was announced that ENDA would be introduced, but not on that day.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) -- not a supporter of ENDA -- is now the chair of the committee in the Republican-led House to which ENDA will be assigned, which is now called the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Today, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) made clear that the committee leadership isn't the only change this Congress. At an evening Immigration Equality event, she told Metro Weekly of ENDA, "It was introduced today, with 111 co-sponsors."

Frank communications director Harry Gural confirmed the bill's introduction and co-sponsorship number with Metro Weekly but said further information would be available on Thursday, April 7.

Gural added that the 111 co-sponsors was "[a] great number considering the heavy loss of Dem seats last election."

Republicans gained more than 70 seats in the House following the November 2010 elections, a result President Barack Obama referred to as a "shellacking."

The Human Rights Campaign's vice president of communications, Fred Sainz, told Metro Weekly this evening, "It's a start. The goal will be to work back up to a number that exceeds last session's number with a greater number of Republicans. We know that this is a building session, and frankly, I wouldn't measure success by the number of co-sponsors alone but by the amount of education and outreach we do to members."

Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said of the numbers, "This is about the same numbers as in the 111th Congress, and we know we have far fewer supporters in this Congress than the last time." In the 111th Congress, the bill had 117 co-sponsors at introduction.

"We know we lost more than 40 of our co-sponsors to the election, so this isn't especially distrubing that not everyone is signed on as co-sponsors yet," Keisling said. "It's not like today was some sort of a deadline. There will be more in the next couple of days. If you look through the list, you're going to find some obvious people who want to be and will be co-sponsors and just haven't gotten around to it yet."

Now retired, former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who presided of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial over the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, was asked if he is gay and -- now -- he's telling. Reporters, at that.

Reuters reports:

The talk to a handful of reporters was Walker's first public comments to reporters about presiding over the lawsuit challenging to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. Walker struck down the ban as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.

It was also the first time Walker publicly acknowledged his own sexual orientation. Walker said he has been in a relationship with the man for 10 years. "He is a physician," Walker said.

The San Francisco Chronicle had reported on the "biggest open secret in the landmark trial" way back in Feb 2010, following the close of the presentation of evidence at the Perry trial. As Metro Weekly reported in an article that detailed the many people to have heard rumors about but not reported on Walker's sexual orientation prior to the Chronicle column's publication:

Michael Triplett, a board member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, said in an interview on Thursday that The Reporter's weighing of the news value versus the privacy of the judge was the usual balancing that goes on with most mainstream media – and even some more established LGBT media – when considering whether to publish such information.

Walker found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on Aug. 4, 2010.

Walker also told the reporters today that he never thought about giving up the case because of his sexual orientation:

Former U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who retired from the bench at the end of February, said it would not be appropriate for any judge's sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender to stop them from presiding over a case.

"That's a very slippery slope," Walker said.

The National Organization for Marriage and some others had called for Walker's recusal.

On Thursday, April 7, the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to consider the nomination of J. Paul Oetken for a judicial nomination in the Southern District of New York. Oetken would be the first out gay male federal judge to serve, if confirmed by the Senate.

Following up on the March 31 letter that Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) sent to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seeking a stop on deportations of married, same-sex bi-national couples until a final judicial decision can be reached on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a significant group of senators joined the cause today.

Writing to both Attorney General Eric Holder and Napolitano, the 12 senators -- led by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) and including Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) -- ask the administration, among other steps, to put an abeyance policy in place that would halt the denial of green card applications for married same-sex foreign spouses who -- in the absence of DOMA -- would be eligible for a marriage-based green card based on sponsorship from the foreign spouse's U.S. citizen spouse.

In all, the senators ask for the administration to take three steps, writing:

[W]e ask the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to hold marriage-based immigration petitions in abeyance pending a legislative repeal or a final determination on DOMA litigation.  In addition, we ask DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion in commencing and prosecuting removal proceedings against married noncitizens that would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA.  We also call upon the Department of Justice to institute a moratorium on orders of removal issued by the immigration courts to married foreign nationals who would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA.

The lawmakers' letters come on the heels of a week of developments that left such couples, their advocates and journalists reacting to or reporting on different situations on each day of the week.

The other senators to sign the letter were Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

[UPDATE @ 5:50 PM: Asked whether DOJ agreed with the senators' suggestions, DOJ public affairs director Tracy Schmaler responded, "We're reviewing the letter and will respond." A DHS official said he was looking into the matter. [FURTHER UPDATE @ 6:30 PM: DHS spokesman Adam Fetcher writes, "The administration will respond to the members of Congress directly. Pursuant to the Attorney General's guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the Executive Branch, including DHS, will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it or there a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional."] The White House provided no comment on the letters other than to direct questions about them to the relevant agencies.

Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, told Metro Weekly, "Today's letter follows calls by several House Members -- including Representatives Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Jackie Speier and Jerrold Nadler -- urging the Administration to return to a policy of abeyance for spousal petitions filed by LGBT couples. Immigration Equality is hopeful that the Administration will respond positively, and quickly, to lawmakers before more families are forced apart. 

"We continue to believe that it is unconscionable to use a law DOJ believes is unconstitutional to separate couples. Today's letter is a reminder to DHS and DOJ that they have the ability to keep families together, and have the authority to hold adjudication of green card applications until DOMA's fate is settled by Congress or the courts," Ralls wrote. "The Senators' message is clear: USCIS had it right the first time.  We hope the Administration agrees."

Attorney Lavi Soloway, who has been litigating several of these cases and co-founded Immigration Equality, went further, telling Metro Weekly, "I am grateful to Senator Kerry and all twelve Senators for their aggressive response today. Gay and lesbian binational couples need executive branch action now. We must stop this government from tearing apart these families."

Soloway -- who started the "Stop the Deportations" project in 2010 -- continued, "It is vitally important that DOMA related deportation proceedings be terminated or adjourned, that a moratorium on removal orders be instituted and that no petitions or applications for permanent resident status filed by married gay and lesbian couples be denied because of this unconstitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice must move swiftly to develop policy in response to this letter to prevent imminent deportation in numerous pending cases."]

Read the senators' letter: DHS DOJ DOMA final.pdf

Read Holt's letter: Ltr to DHS re Velandia_001.pdf

On Monday, April 4, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) launched the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP) Open Season.

The program, which OPM director John Berry said in a release "gives enrollees security and peace of mind as they plan for the cost of long term care," is now open to same-sex domestic partners. This is the first "open season" period when same-sex partners have been eligible for the coverage.

Per the release:

During the FLTCIP Open Season, all current Federal and U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employees and active members of the uniformed services and their spouses will have the opportunity to apply for coverage with abbreviated underwriting, which means that a minimal number of health questions will be asked during the application process.  This is an option not offered during year-round enrollment.  In keeping with President Obama's June 17, 2009 memorandum Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination, same-sex domestic partners of Federal and USPS employees can also apply with abbreviated underwriting.

The details for same-sex domestic partners include a separate page on the FLTCIP to provide information about the specific requirements. The site notes:

Domestic partnership is defined as a committed relationship between two adults of the same sex in which the partners:

1. Are each other’s sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;
2. Have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement indefinitely;
3. Are at least 18 years of age;
4. Share responsibility for a significant measure of each other’s financial obligations;
5. Are not married to anyone else;
6. Are not a domestic partner of anyone else;
7. Are not related in a way that, if they were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; and
8. Will certify they understand that willful falsification of information within the documentation may lead to disciplinary action, loss of insurance coverage and/or the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification and may constitute a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

OPM notes that the open season will run from April 4 to June 24, 2011, which is the first FLTCIP Open Season since 2002.

Federal employees should review the FLTCIP site.

Read the full release from OPM below the jump.

Maryland Senator Katherine A. Klausmeier's (D-Baltimore County) office confirmed on Tuesday, April 5, that the Senate's Rules Committee is about to meet. The Rules Committee, according to multiple sources, is expected to take action today on House Bill 235, the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act.

[UPDATE @ 1:10 PM: According to Equality Maryland executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets [and later confirmed by Klausmeier's staff], the gender identity nondiscrimination bill has made it out of the Rules Committee. 

"It got sent out of the Rules Committee, so it will go to the Judicial Proceedings Committee. Certainly the leadership and the support of the LGBT caucus members has absolutely made a difference this entire week that we've been working on this," she says, "and we certainly are very thankful that they made that public statement."

Meneses-Sheets also commends the work of Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery) and, out gay Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery).

"We've literally had thousands of emails and hundreds of calls made to get it out of Rules...," she adds, "and we are very fortunate to have wonderful allies within the General Assembly who have been working on this. This was a very difficult hurdle, yet we also know there's been a lot of hard work here in Annapolis to continue to support this bill.

"There's still a lot of work to be done, but every single step should be celebrated -- especially this one -- since a lot of people counted us out and said it was dead. We're going to keep on fighting and keep it moving," she tells Metro Weekly.]

Advocates of the measure, including the bill's lead sponsor, Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel, Prince George's), have expressed frustration that the bill was sent to the Rules Committee and not the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee as expected and as had happened in past sessions.

Talking to Metro Weekly about the committee assignment, Pena-Melnyk said, "It is a tremendous, gross disrespect to the community because [Senate President Thomas "Mike" Miller is] marginalizing a group of people and basically saying, 'You don't matter, you don't count.'"

Earlier today, Metro Weekly reported on an open letter from the House's LGBT members to Miller regarding the bill's assignment to the Rules Committee. 

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.

In an open letter sent to Maryland Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George's), the seven LGBT members of Maryland's House of Delegates address House Bill 235's assignment to the Senate Rules Committee, instead of the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee:

We respectfully request that you allow HB 235, Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity – Antidiscrimination to be passed out of the Rules Committee to allow for a vote in the Judicial Proceedings Committee.  This bill received a supermajority vote of support in the House and was sent to the Senate before the crossover deadline.  Please allow it to have a fair hearing in the Senate.

We believe that this bill is absolutely necessary for the civil protections of a subset of Marylanders who are most vulnerable to discrimination and prejudices.  In that context, studies show that transgender individuals are victims of violent crimes, including murder, at a much higher rate than other groups.

This bill would offer limited protections with respect to employment, housing and financial security.   In the hearing in the Health and Government Operations Committee we learned the transgender community has double the national average rate of unemployment (14%) and 90% face discrimination or harassment at work. With regard to housing, 11% report having been evicted for being transgender and 10% have been homeless.

In the hearing, there was testimony about all manner of abuse based solely on the discomfort that others have with the appearance or mannerisms of transgender individuals. No one in this country should be subjected to these mistreatments, but this defined group of people experiences them frequently in their daily lives.

We are simply asking for full consideration of this bill on behalf of these Marylanders.  Please pass HB 235 out of the Rules Committee and into JPR for a hearing on this very important issue.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

The March 31 letter is signed by all seven LGBT members in the House: Dels. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City), Anne Kaiser (D-Montgomery), Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery), Peter Murphy (D-Charles County), Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery) and Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City).

On Monday, April 4, the lead sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act -- the bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act -- asked Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for a briefing on any House defense of DOMA.

On March 9, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee -- on a party-line 3-2 vote -- passed a resolution that called on the House counsel to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in court following the Obama administration's Feb. 23 decision that it would no longer defend DOMA in court.

Although Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has asked for information about that defense, the letter from Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) asks for an update on steps taken or that have been planned to be taken in that defense, as well as asking that Boehner "brief all interested Members" on those decisions.

In part, they ask:

Among other things, we are interested in a status report on who will be representing the House, estimates regarding the cost and length of proposed litigation efforts, the anticipated role of the House in litigation (i.e., intervenor or amicus curiae), and your assessment regarding the likelihood of success on the merits.  If you or House General Counsel already have arranged for representation by outside counsel, we would welcome and appreciate their participation in this briefing.

The particular prompt for this letter is an upcoming April 18 deadline in the Windsor v. United States case challenging Section 3 of DOMA in federal court in New York.

Read the letter: BLAG Letter - 040411.pdf

[Photo: Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) take questions at a news conference introducing the Respect for Marriage Act. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[Image, above: A screen capture from the top of the Republican National Committee's new website, "Hope Isn't Hiring," which takes aim at President Obama's record in office.]

With the launch of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, a response from the Republican National Committee was to be expected.

"Hope Isn't Hiring," a new site launched by the RNC includes a page of talking points on social issues, taking aim several times at Obama's record on LGBT equality.

Among the topics are "Despite It Being The Law Of The Land, Obama Refused To Continue To Defend The Defense Of Marriage Act In Court"; "Obama Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell While U.S. Troops Are Still On The Battlefield"; and "Obama Opposed California's Prop 8 And Has Expanded Government Recognition Of Same-Sex Couples."

Regarding the government recognition of same-sex couples, the RNC specifically targets hospital visitation rights, noting "Obama Issued An Executive Order Allowing Same Sex Couples Hospital Visitation Rights."

The RNC also claims in that section of the new site that "Obama Has Been Acting On Policy Recommendations From The Human Rights Campaign Since Taking Office."

HRC's president, Joe Solmonese, responded quickly, saying in a statement, "It's just mind-boggling that with all of the challenges that face us as Americans, the Republican Party apparatus would resort to this demeaning fundraising stunt so that the red-meat crowd will become energized. The garbage on this website makes it quite clear that the party continues to misread the priorities of the American people. Hate is never a winning strategy."

Clarke Cooper, the head of Log Cabin Republicans, has been saying that the Republican Party and its chairman, Reince Priebus, isn't going to focus on social issues, and yet almost every issue celebrated by LGBT organizations -- including LCR in almost all of those situations -- is being targeted by the RNC as examples of Obama's failings.

Christian Berle, deputy executive director of LCR, talked with Metro Weekly about this new RNC effort, saying, "This is not in line with the conversations we have had with the Chairman's office, who has very much indicated that he wants to work to reach out to gay and lesbian voters and work closely with Log Cabin, which is in juxtaposition to the position the RNC took today.

"This messaging is not a winner for the RNC either as a fundraising tool or as a means of getting out the vote," Berle added. "We're waiting to get a response from the Chairman's office."

[Image, below: A screen capture from one of the talking points of the Republican National Committee's new website, "Hope Isn't Hiring," which takes aim at President Obama's record in office. ]

Following up on this past week's largely uneventful House Armed Services Military Personnel Submcommittee hearing featuring Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley and director of the Joint Staff, Vice Adm. William Gortney, the full House Armed Services Committee (HASC) will be taking a crack at hearing from the service chiefs on Thursday, Apr. 7.

According to the HASC website, the hearing -- "Testimony on Repeal of Law and Policies Governing Service of Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members" -- is set for 1 p.m. Thursday and will feature testimony from:

• General Peter W. Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
• Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy
• General James F. Amos, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
• General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force

The HASC chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), was a strong opponent of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act, leading the floor opposition in December 2010.

It's notable that McKeon allowed the subcommittee to hear testimony from the Pentagon officials who had been supporters of the repeal efforts while having the full committee hear testimony this week from the service chiefs, who had been less supportive -- and, in cases, opposed -- specifics of repeal. In the Senate this past December, to compare, the Senate Armed Services Committee heard from the Pentagon leadership on Dec. 2, 2010, and the service chiefs on Dec. 3, 2010. This had set up a balance of viewpoints that McKeon's scheduling decision avoids, at least in the full House committee.

Following the announcement of this hearing, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson told Metro Weekly, "This second hearing on the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' by House Republicans is yet another example of some of these legislators contradicting their own principles.

"This issue has been settled, the Department of Defense has embraced this change, and trying to re-open this debate is a complete waste of both taxpayer money and the valuable time of these senior defense leaders in the midst of multiple overseas conflicts. The Joint Staff has made it clear that prior predictions of doom and gloom following repeal were misguided and that their respective services are more than capable of handling this change in policy."

In LGBT news from today's White House press briefing transcript:

Q:    One of the President's goals has been the passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which barred job discrimination against gay and transgender Americans.  That's going to be a challenge with Republicans in control of the House.  One idea that’s being proposed as an interim alternative is an executive order that would bar the federal government from doing businesses with companies that don’t have their own workplace protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  Would the President be open to issuing this executive order?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't want to speculate about what action he may or may not take.  His position is known.  And again, he does not shy away from obstacles when he approaches an issue that’s important to him.  But I don't have a -- I'm not going to speculate about what measure he might take.

Q:    In a similar vein, as you move forward with "don't ask, don't tell" repeal, is the President open to issuing an executive order to ensure that LGBT service members have legal recourse if they feel that they've experienced discrimination in the U.S. military?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't have -- I don't want to say what he may or may not be open to.  What I do know is that repeal is going along on schedule and successfully, and he is very closely monitoring that.  And -- but more than that I do not have.

Q:    But do you see any impediment -- legal, political, or otherwise -- to prevent the President from issuing either of these executive orders?

MR. CARNEY:  Those kinds of questions about legal impediments are best addressed to lawyers, and I am not one.

President Barack Obama filed the necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission today to begin his re-election campaign. Although expected, the move shifts the conversation and makes "Obama's re-election efforts" the prism through which much of the administration's upcoming moves will be viewed by the media.

The Washington Post's Dan Balz writes, "President Obama’s decision to launch his 2012 reelection campaign Monday is about much more than money. It is an acknowledgment by the president's team that the grass-roots army that helped propel Obama to the White House needs repair and rejuvenation."

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, meanwhile, didn't want to miss a chance to jump into this new dynamic, announcing today that the organization has sent letters to Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) and former Govs. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) and Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) regarding their support for efforts to, as SLDN put it in the Barbour letter, "repeal the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis wrote to Barbour:

You said that you wanted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" reenacted because an “amorous mindset” would interfere with critical decision making on the battlefield. I assume you also believe that the armed services should exclude heterosexual females because they might provoke an "amorous mindset" in their heterosexual male comrades. More important, such a comment is an insult to the men and women who volunteer and sacrifice to join our armed forces. As a U.S. Army veteran, I can tell you that American service members are professionals who do their jobs and who do not allow an "amorous mindset" to interfere with defending their country.

Download the letters:

• Letter to Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS)
• Letter to former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
• Letter to former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)

Meanwhile, the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky continues his in-their-face questioning of GOP presidential hopefuls, this time in New Hampshire, asking former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) about his support for the American Family Association.

Watch the Obama's re-election campaign's opening video ad:

[Photo: House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee members listen to testimony about the implementation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Today, testifying before the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley laid out a plan that could end the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy by September – although he would not giver a specific date.

Stanley also told the subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), that his assessment of the implementation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act is that there have been "no issues or problems with training, and all is going well."

The director of the Joint Staff, Vice Adm. William Gortney, concurred, saying, "Thus far, no surprises and we’re pretty pleased with where we are."

Stanley added that he "anticipate[s] the training will be completed by this summer." The Pentagon officials detailed that about 9 percent -- or 200,000 -- of servicemembers have been trained thus far. Gortney later clarified, noting, "We anticipate about mid-summer ... to get the recommendations from the service chiefs to the chairman."

Facing questions from antagonistic Republicans and supportive Democrats, the hearings featured some of the more extreme factions of both caucuses.

The most notable Republican question at the hearing came at the end, when Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) asked a line of questions that did not go as intended -- and led to only slightly muffled laughs from the mostly pro-repeal audience. (Incidentally, this was not Scott's first noted run-in with the Pentagon this week, with the first detailed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

Watch Scott's back-and-forth with Gortney ...