[Photo: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) talks to reporters on Nov. 29, 2011, one day after announcing his retirement from Congress. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

One day after announcing that he would not be seeking re-election to Congress, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told reporters today that pro-LGBT legislation can only be passed under Democratic control.

"The only way you can get any law passed that fights discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is if you have a Democratic president, House and Senate," Frank told reporters at the Capitol Visitor Center today. "Now, people don't realize how rarely we have had that. We've had a Democratic president, House and Senate for four years out of the 32 I've been in Congress," referring to the two years Democrats achieved that status during President Clinton's first term and the first two years of President Obama's presidency.

Asked by Metro Weekly about the fact that he would be leaving Congress before the Employment Non-Discrimination Act became law, Frank talked about those conditions and then said of the 111th Congress, in which Democrats did control both chambers with Obama in the White House, saying, "We have several things on the agenda. We got two of the three that were doable. We got the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and we got the transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill."

Regarding ENDA, specifically, he said, "There were two problems. First of all, there was a crowded agenda. ... And then there was this issue of transgender inclusion. My own state of Massachusetts ... showed a way to break thorough that. Now, I might get an argument with some of my allies and friends here about the dimensions of that. The Massachusetts legislature just passed and the governor signed a bill that prohibits discrimination against people based on gender identity -- they already had one about sexual orientation -- but it's about employment, it does not include public accommodations. It avoids the whole issue of what happens in locker rooms and bathrooms."

He concluded: "The next time we have a Democratic president, House and Senate, I think you could get that type of Massachusetts bill through."

A day earlier, upon hearing news of Frank's retirement, GOProud board chairman Chris Barron suggested a different partisan dynamic, writing on Twitter, "Barney Frank was and is a total embarrassment to average gay people. He won't be missed." He added that Frank "consistently put partisan politics above what was in the best interest of all Americans – esp[ecially] gay Americans," noting Frank's opposition to the "Fair Tax, death tax repeal, [Social] Security personal savings [accounts], & free [market health care] reform."

For their part, Log Cabin Republicans deputy executive director Christian Berle noted, "The fight for gay rights is not just an election day issue, and if Congressman Frank doesn't want to reach across the aisle, Log Cabin will gladly pick up the slack."

LCR executive director R. Clarke Cooper added of Frank's contention that Democrats are needed to advance LGBT equality measures, "Not true. For example, the Ryan White Care Act became a reality under a Republican president and grew under Republican leadership in Congress, while the Employment Non-Discrimination Act went nowhere under a Democrat President and Congress. On the state level, we won marriage equality in New York with a Republican majority state senate. Successful passage of legislation requires bi-partisan support, and our movement is actually hurt when Democrats take our votes for granted."

Asked by Metro Weekly about the importance of out LGBT members of Congress, Frank today noted, "Legislating is the most personal form of governing. ... Voting in the abstract on an issue is one thing; telling someone with whom you have had good personal relations that you think she's inferior, that's harder. There also is the knowledge base we bring.

"If you believe that we should be finishing the fight against discrimination, legal discrimination, based on sexual orientation and gender, then it's important to have people who are gay, or transgender, or lesbian in the mix."

Watch:

Thanks to Think Progress's Igor Volsky for pulling the clip.

Today's announcement by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that he will not be seeking re-election in 2012 will have an impact on the character of the out LGBT representation in the House of Representatives -- which already is due to lose its sole out lesbian member -- and his out colleagues responded with their thoughts this afternoon.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and would be the first out LGBT senator should she win election to the seat, noted, "With the retirement of Congressman Barney Frank, the House will lose one of its smartest, wittiest, and most progressive voices. In a time of deep economic turmoil and unscrupulous financial practices, Barney led the Financial Services Committee and the House to restore much-needed consumer protections and corporate regulation."

Of their founding of the LGBT Equality Caucus, Baldwin added, "For LGBT Americans, Barney has had an immeasurable impact both symbolically and substantively.  He has written and fought for laws that are leading us toward full equality. He co-founded with me the first Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus which now boasts a bipartisan membership of nearly 100. He has been a role model for LGBT youth in and out of government.  For me, he also has been a valued mentor and friend. For all of us committed to social justice, Barney leaves an enduring legacy."

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who will become the senior out LGBT House lawmaker in January 2013 should he win re-eleciton, issued a statement noting, "Barney Frank was a groundbreaking pioneer and one of the most insightful, knowledgeable and humorous people ever to grace the halls of Congress. We will miss his leadership on a wide range of issues -- from fighting to reign in Wall Street's excesses and working to stabilize our economy to standing up for equal rights for LGBT Americans and curtailing runaway Pentagon spending. Congressman Frank championed the rights of all Americans, the economic security of all of our families, and a politics of inclusion and hope.

"It's a great loss for the Congress but Barney leaves behind an enviable record of accomplishment. I will miss his presence every day."

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who is serving his first term in Congress and appears likely to face a tough re-election battle, said in a statement provided to Metro Weekly, "Since his first election to Congress in 1980, Barney has never stopped working to improve the lives of all Americans, particularly those of his constituents in Massachusetts.   

"As a major force behind some of the biggest banking and financial reform, and the strongest legislation to protect consumers since the Great Depression, Barney has had a long and distinguished career in Congress," Cicilline said. "His sharp intellect, wit and political skill have made him an iconic figure and one who won’t soon be forgotten. Although he will be sorely missed on the Hill, the work he has done will continue to benefit Americans for many years to come."

Also, in remarks made to WPRI's Tim White, Cicilline discussed one of the reasons Frank said he was leaving Congress: the difficulty of accomplishing things in Washington.

Cicilline told White, "I'm sure for people who have been there for a very long time who remember a different time when people worked together in a collaborative way, that [Washington] has become a less productive place to work."

[NOTE: This post was later updated to include comments provided by Cicilline.]

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) will not be seeking re-election to the House of Representatives, putting an end date on his more than 30 years in Congress, where he was the longest-serving out LGBT member and rose to the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee.

According to a statement put out by his office this morning, Frank will hold a news conference in Newton, Mass. at 1 p.m. today "to formally announce and answer questions about his decision not to run for re-election in 2012."

[READ Metro Weekly's full report, "Frank Departure," for more details on today's news.]

The statement also notes that Frank will hold a meeting in D.C. on Tuesday, Nov. 29, "in order to answer questions from Washington reporters."

Frank first won election to Congress the same year Ronald Reagan was elected president. After his 1980 election, Frank served without being out until his association with Steve Gobie, who ran an escort business out of Frank's D.C. apartment, became public. Although his received a reprimand from the House in 1990 for actions he took and statements he made relating to Gobie, he was easily re-elected during those years and served as an outspoken gay member of Congress since then.

In a statement regarding Frank's decision, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said, "Barney Frank has exemplified true leadership over his more than 30 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. As one of the first openly gay members of Congress, Barney defied stereotypes and kicked doors open for LGBT Americans."

Chuck Wolfe, the president of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, issued a statement, saying, "Barney Frank's political career may be coming to an end, but his legacy will outlive us all. His decision to come out as gay more than two decades ago gave LGBT Americans an authentic voice and a persistent champion in Washington. He has used that voice loudly and often, speaking personally, humorously and effectively about the hopes and challenges of Americans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender."

Wolfe also noted Frank's specific impact on the work of the Victory Fund, which advocates for and supports out LGBT candidates and elected officials, saying, "The good news is that Congressman Frank has also inspired a new generation of LGBT leaders who are following in his footsteps and choosing to serve in public office openly, honestly and unafraid to be themselves. More than simply inspiring them, he has helped them run and win, and he has been an enormously supportive and generous friend to the Victory Fund."

Solmonese, who worked on one of Frank's early campaigns, went on to note, "Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act would never have happened without his leadership. But it goes beyond that. His service as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee during a time of great economic upheaval made a gay man one of the most powerful people in the country and he used that power for great good. America, Massachusetts and LGBT people are better off for Barney Frank's service."

The importance of Frank's decision was clear when viewed through the prism of social media, with "Barney Frank" being one of the 10 highest "Trending Topics" on Twitter by 11:40 a.m. Above Frank was movie star Anne Hathaway, who was in the news for getting engaged to her longtime boyfriend, Adam Shulman.

In September 2007, Frank made a decision that put him at odds with transgender leaders and advocates of a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that prohibited both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Frank announced that moving forward with such legislation at the time would be a "mistake" and instead urged a path that would allow for a vote on a sexual orientation-only version of ENDA and allow LGBT leaders "to continue the educational process that [he] believe[d] will ultimately lead to our being able to add transgender protections" through consideration of a second ENDA bill that would have included gender identity protections.

In the years since, Frank has been a strong advocate of what has become known as "an inclusive ENDA" that would contain both types of protections, although he has maintained that work remains to be done on transgender issues before Congress will be ready to pass such legislation. In introducing the legislation in the 112th Congress this March, Frank told Metro Weekly, "[W]e have work still to do and we have overwhelming -- over 90 percent -- support on the Democratic side for ENDA based on sexual orientation and we had, in the last Congress, about 30 Republicans that way. Unfortunately, there's a drop-off from that number to transgender, and this is a chance to work hard to sway those who are committed to ENDA to support the full transgender inclusion as well."

In 2010, however, it was work outside of LGBT issues in his role as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for which he may be most well known in the broader political world. Working with his Senate counterpart, then-Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the two worked to address the ongoing financial crisis through passage of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was signed into law in July 2010.

[Photo, above: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) speaks at a memorial service for Frank Kameny held on Nov. 15 in the Cannon House Office Building. (Photo by Ward Morrison.) Photo, below right: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) speaks at a news conference announcing the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in March. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

This morning, Richard Socarides, the president of Equality Matters over the past year since Media Matters announced its creation, announced that he is leaving the organization, as is former Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld.

In a statement, Socarides said, "I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to lead Equality Matters during its first year. I've decided to return full time to New York and my law practice and activism there, at the end of the year, This has been an amazing year for our communities and LGBT rights. We have accomplished a lot this year, but have so much more to do. I look forward to being a part of it."

Eleveld, the former Washington correspondent for The Advocate during the first two years of the Obama administration, said that she was going to be working on a book in the new year.

"I'm particularly proud of the work I’ve done during my fellowship at Equality Matters. I am grateful that I was given the chance to focus on in-depth reporting about serious issues affecting the LGBT community -- and also to publish in places like The Washington Post, The Atlantic and The Daily Beast," she said in a statement. "In the New Year, I look forward to working full time on a book about the past several years in LGBT history.”

Media Matters, which had earlier tapped former Servicemembers Legal Defense Network spokesman Trevor Thomas as the Equality Matters programs director, already had moved him into a role with responsibilities outside of Equality Matters.

In a statement, David Brock thanked Socarides for his work over the past year and said, "When we launched our Equality Matters initiative at the end of 2010, we were convinced that additional and focused resources in our core expertise areas -- correcting conservative misinformation plus training and communications -- could be put to use to help take advantage of a potentially historic and transformative moment in gay rights. One year later, we know we were right.

"We are proud of what we have accomplished in our first year and remain firmly committed to continuing this effort next year and beyond."

It was not clear immediately what steps the organization would be taking to do so.

* * *

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's new Gay Voices section, which had been edited by Noah Michelson, is gaining another voice with the announcement that Michelangelo Signorile is the section's new editor-at-large.

In an opening post at the site, Signorile writes, "I honestly can't count the reasons why I'm thrilled to begin today as Editor-at-Large of HuffPost Gay Voices. This is a pivotal, exciting time for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. ... To be able to help guide that discussion here at The Huffington Post is something most journalists and commentators would relish. But for someone like me, who has passionately covered gay culture and politics for just about two decades, it's truly a great privilege."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will be deciding the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional alongside the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge James Ware's ruling denying the Proposition 8 proponents' attempt to have Walker's ruling vacated because they argued he was biased because he is gay and has a partner.

The decision was announced in a one-sentence order issued this afternoon in granting a request from the proponents that the matters be consolidated.

On June 14, Ware ruled that the Aug. 4, 2010, decision by now-retired Judge Walker could not be vacated -- as the proponents of Proposition 8 argued in court on June 13 -- because Walker is gay and has a partner.

This past week, an opinion by the California Supreme Court asserting that the proponents of an initiative have the authority under state law to bring an appeal when state officials fail to do so put the underlying appeal of Walker's decision back in the hands of the Ninth Circuit. Although the federal appeals court is yet to decide whether the proponents have standing to bring their appeal and have called for additional briefing on the matter due by Dec. 2, lawyers for the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 say the appeals judges are likely to find the proponents have federal standing in light of the state court's opinion.

With today's order, all of the questions relating to the validity and merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 could be decided by the Ninth Circuit in one decision, allowing for the most clean appeal possible to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The only ancillary matter still unconsolidated is the question of whether the tapes of the Proposition 8 trial conducted by Walker in January 2010 and concluded that June can be released to the media and public. The Ninth Circuit oral arguments on the appeal of that question will be held at 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time Dec. 8.

Read the order: order_consolidating_cases.pdf

Today, lawyers for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network took the next step in their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of unequal spousal benefits granted to servicemembers in same-sex marriages, arguing in federal court in Massachusetts that "American service members and their families are among [the Defense of Marriage Act]'s victims, and our national security may suffer as a result."

Telling the court that there are no facts in dispute in the case, SLDN lawyers argue that the court should rule on the legal issues in the case and decide those issues in SLDN's favor. On Friday, Nov. 18, however, the Republican leadership-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed a notice before the court announcing that, should the federal government decline to defend DOMA in this case as it has done in other cases challenging DOMA, BLAG stands ready to seek intervention to do so itself.

The lawsuit, which challenges the application of the Defense of Marriage Act to provisions of federal law that detail military benefits, was brought by SLDN on Oct. 27. In today's filing, SLDN's lawyers argue that the inability of LGB servicemembers to get spousal benefits for their same-sex spouses violates several constitutional mandates, including the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; limitations on congressional authority in Article I of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment; prohibitions on conditions placed on federal benefits; and prohibition on Bills of Attainder, which the lawsuit defines as "any law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial."

In today's filing, SLDN lawyers take aim at DOMA by applying the same principles to the now-LGB-inclusive Armed Forces that were long used by opponents of out LGB servicemembers to implement and then keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in place.

The lawyers write:

Any claim that DOMA, as applied to military spousal benefits, survives rational basis review is strained because paying unequal benefits to service members runs directly counter to the military values of uniformity, fairness and unit cohesion. While there was once a debate as to whether gay and lesbian service members should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces -- just as there were similar debates regarding integrating the military by race and then by gender -- there never has been any debate as to whether similarly situated service members who do the same work deserve the same benefits.

Among the benefits denied to same-sex couples currently and at issue in the lawsuit are medical and dental benefits, basic housing allowances, travel and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, military ID cards, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefit plans, and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries.

In arguing that "unit cohesion" is hampered by DOMA's limitation on equal spousal benefits, SLDN's lawyers write:

It is unfortunate that the United States has struggled with whether the admission of certain classes of its citizens into the military would threaten unit cohesion -- whether that involved race, gender or sexual orientation -- but there never has been any debate over the fact that unit cohesion would suffer if a class of citizens was allowed to serve but nonetheless was treated differently. Once admitted, all service members must be treated equally to maintain unit cohesion.

The defendants, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, are yet to file any defense in the case, and SLDN lawyers stated in the initial complaint that they did not expect the government to defend DOMA's restrictions.

Spokespersons from the Department of Justice and Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the government's position on the case.

SLDN's lawsuit, McLaughlin v. Panetta, was filed in the same federal court where Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA in a non-military context. That lawsuit, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, resulted in a decision at the district court that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and is cited throughout today's filing. A similar decision was reached in the court in a related case, Massachusetts v. United States, which was brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D). Those decisions are now on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where DOMA is being defended by BLAG.

Neither a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) nor the lead attorney hired to represent BLAG immediately responded to a request for comment about whether the government had informed them about the government's position on the case. As of the Nov. 18 filing by BLAG, the government had not informed BLAG of its position.

District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, who decided the Gill and Massachusetts lawsuits at trial, was initially assigned the McLaughlin case as well. On Nov. 9, according to the court docket, the case was reassigned to Judge Richard G. Stearns. No reason was given for the reassignment.

Read the SLDN filing in McLaughlin v. Panetta: 09514602225.pdf

Read the BLAG filing in McLaughlin v. Panetta: 09514599979.pdf

[UPDATE: This post was updated at 9 p.m. to include information about BLAG's Nov. 18 filing.]

[Photo: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis, left, speaks at a news conference on Oct. 27, 2011, announcing the organization's filing of a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, as several of the lawsuit's plaintiffs wait to speak. (Photo courtesy of SLDN.)]

The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, has told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the proponents of Proposition 8 do have the interest and authority to bring a post-election appeal as part of the state's initiative process. The Ninth Circuit will now take the appeal, Perry v. Brown, back under advisement and decide how it wishes to proceed on the question of whether the proponents have standing under federal law, although the scope of today's opinion makes it almost certain that the federal court will find standing.

The state court was asked by the Ninth Circuit whether the proponents have "particularized interests" in seeing the initiative upheld and whether California law itself allows the proponents to stand in the place of elected officials charged with defending the state constitution when those officials decline to do so.

Attorney Ted Olson, who is representing the plaintiffs who successfully challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at trial, said of today's decision in a conference call this afternoon with reporters, "This frees up the Ninth Circuit to decide the constitutional issues ... on the merits."

Asked whether the Ninth Circuit might, despite today's decision, find the proponents to lack federal standing, David Boies, Olson's co-counsel, said on the call, "I think the court of appeals ... when it certified this question indicated that it was inclined to accept whatever decision" the state court made.

Olson concurred, saying, "They've pretty much locked themselves in and agreed to accept whatever the [California Supreme Court] said."

Of the potential to raise the standing question again at the U.S. Supreme Court, Olson said the plaintiffs could do so: "The standing issue is still in the case."

The California Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was very clear about its answer:

[W]e respond to the question posed by the Ninth Circuit in the affirmative. In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.

The decision came about resulting from a request by the Ninth Circuit in the ongoing challenge to Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The case, in which the trial court judge struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional in August 2010, is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit appeals court sought to have the California Supreme Court assist it with the case by answering these questions about state law through the process of asking a certified question. The California Supreme Court accepted the invitation to answer the certified question and heard oral arguments on the question on Sept. 6.

As the California Supreme Court found the proponents to have a "particularized interest" and "the authority to assert the State's interest," the Ninth Circuit now is likely to find that the proponents do have standing under federal law to bring the appeal -- although the court need not do so. At that point, the appeal of the Perry trial court decision -- the "merits" decision from the trial court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- could go forward.

The question of standing was raised when the state officials who would ordinarily defend state laws -- the governor and attorney general -- decided not to appeal now-retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision finding Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional under constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the law. As such, the only party left appealing the trial court decision was the proponents of Proposition 8, which led the Ninth Circuit to question whether, constitutionally, the proponents themselves have the right to bring the appeal themselves.

The Ninth Circuit decided that the California Supreme Court could help the Ninth Circuit in reaching that decision by addressing the question, answered today, about the role of initiative proponents post-election under California state law.

The Ninth Circuit could now seek additional briefing and/or arguments or it could rule on both the standing question and the constitutionality of Proposition 8 with no additional steps. Once a ruling is issued from the Ninth Circuit, the losing party is almost certain to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. As Olson indicated today, at that point both the standing and merits questions would be before the nation's highest court for final resolution.

Read the decision:S189476.PDF

The winding challenge to California's Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex couples from marrying, will take another step on Thursday, Nov. 17. The California Supreme Court announced today that it will release its opinion -- an answer to a certified question sent to it from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- about whether it sees state law as granting initiative proponents the ability to appeal challenges to enacted initiatives when state officials do not do so at 10 a.m. Pacific Time Nov. 17.

Specifically, the court will be answering whether the proponents have "particularized interests" in seeing the initiative upheld and whether California law itself allows the proponents to stand in the place of elected officials charged with defending the state constitution when those officials decline to do so.

The Ninth Circuit appeals court, which is hearing the appeal of the trial court decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, sought to have the California Supreme Court assist it with the case by answering these questions about state law through the process of asking a certified question.

On Sept. 6, the California Supreme Court heard arguments about the questions, with several justices appearing critical of the argument that the Proposition 8 proponents should be denied standing to appeal.

Once the Ninth Circuit receives the answer, it will take the appeal, Perry v. Brown, back under advisement and decide how it wishes to proceed on the federal standing question.

If the California Supreme Court finds the proponents to have a "particularized interest" or "the authority to assert the State's interest," the Ninth Circuit could then find the proponents to have standing. At that point, the appeal of the Perry trial court decision -- the "merits" decision from the trial court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- could go forward.

But, as the American Foundation for Equal Rights attorney David Boies said for the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 at the December 2010 arguments before the Ninth Circuit, the standing question will not be answered definitively by the California Supreme Court. As such, the appeals court could call for additional briefing and/or oral arguments following the California Supreme Court decision on the certified question, which could put off a decision on the merits of the case -- even if the proponents are found to have standing -- further.

FOR MORE INFO: "Proposition 8 in Court: California Supreme Court Certified Question Argument FAQ."

[Photo: Ted Olson, center, and David Boies, right, answer questions by audience members selected by David Boaz, the Cato Institute's executive vice president, on May 18, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

[Photo: Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan addresses the National Center for Transgender Equality awards ceremony on Nov. 15, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

On Tuesday night, Nov. 15, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary addressed the eighth anniversary National Center for Transgender Equality awards ceremony. The event, held at the Mayflower Hotel, drew a crowd that included many notable D.C. LGBT politicos and, according to NCTE, marked the first time a cabinet secretary addressed a transgender organization.

Donna Cartwright was recognized at the ceremony for her work as a founding board member of NCTE and service as the co-president of Pride at Work, given the Julie Johnson Lifetime Achievement Award. Brian Bond, the former deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison who now works at the Democratic National Committee, was the other awardee, receiving the Distinguished Ally Award.

Later, in an exclusive interview with Metro Weekly, Donovan marked another first with his first-from-a-sitting-cabinet-member comments that he "absolutely" supports marriage equality. In his speech at the NCTE ceremony, however, Donovan focused on the advances for transgender people -- made in his agency and throughout the administration -- that NCTE executive director Mara Keisling praised in introducing Donovan.

"We've gotten so much more done. We've have so many more reasonable conversations with more reasonable people than we were ever allowed to have before," Keisling said. "And that's really making a big difference in transgender people's lives and in LGBT people's lives."

Of HUD in particular, Keisling described it as "[o]ne of the agencies that has really, really made some major advances in some ways that are really life-saving for trans people and some ways that are importantly symbolic."

In opening his remarks, Donovan told the crowd, "It is a very special honor to be the first cabinet secretary to address the National Center for Transgender Equality -- but I also want to be very clear that I will not be the last."

Donovan began by pointing to the administration's successes more broadly on transgender issues -- ranging from out transgender appointees like Amanda Simpson, who was in attendance, to the Office of Personnel Management's announcement prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in federal employment. He also noted actions from the Veterans Affairs and State Departments, as well as the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Then, Donovan expanded on the accomplishments within his own agency.

"But I'm here this evening because this Administration is not only committed to ensuring the transgender community has a seat at the table -- but also a place to call home," he said. "Every person in this room knows that rights most people take for granted are routinely violated against transgender people. It's estimated that one in five transgender Americans have been refused a home or apartment -- that more than one in 10 have been evicted because of their gender identity or expression."

Raising the issue of LGBT youth and homelessness, Donovan said, "Forty percent of homeless youth are LGBT -- and half of them report experiencing homelessness as a result of their gender identity or expression. Even more troubling, the majority of them report harassment, difficulty, or even sexual assault when trying to access homeless shelters. 

"Allowing this to happen is wrong -- and more importantly, it's not who we are as Americans."

Donovan went on to describe the new regulations being proposed by HUD that would take steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in several of the federal agency's programs -- from government-backed mortgages to public housing.

He then added: "We've heard concerns from NCTE that simply preventing people from 'inquiring' about gender identity may not be enough to prevent discrimination that we all want to make sure never happens again. And while we are still reviewing all of the comments that we got before final publication of the rule, let me simply say that we've heard your concerns on this and that they haven't fallen on deaf ears."

Finally, Donovan also detailed how HUD is "conducting the first-ever national study of LGBT housing discrimination -- a historic study we designed based on feedback from town halls conducted in communities across the country."

In concluding his discussion of HUD's work, Donovan told the crowd: "No one should ever have to hide their identity in order to find a home. Not in America."

In the interview with Metro Weekly, Donovan referenced how the civil rights movement -- and specifically ending discrimination in housing -- is his passion and led him to speak at the NCTE event.

"I think the broader issue is that one of the things that has always made me passionate about housing and that got me interested in housing in the first place is that I was a student of the civil rights movement ... and feel that housing is such a basic gateway to opportunity in our country," he said. "When you buy a home, you don't just buy a home. You choose where your kids are going to go to school, you choose access to jobs, you choose public safety .... You choose so much when you choose a home.

"So, anything that denies access to a home to an American is an issue of basic civil rights. ... Coming here tonight is about engaging and making sure we're pushing forward on one of the frontiers of civil rights in our country right now, and that's pretty fundamental to the work that we do."

Read Secretary Donovan's prepared remarks below the jump.

[Photo, above right: National Center for Transgender Equality executive director Mara Keisling opens the program at the organization's eighth anniversary awards ceremony on Nov. 15, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

This morning, Veterans Affairs Secretary Ric Shineski and his wife hosted a breakfast in the East Room of the White House in honor of Veterans Day, along with President Obama and his wife, Michelle. Among those attending: Mike Almy, a veteran kicked out of the Air Force in 2006 under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Almy didn't attend the breakfast as a representative of any DADT repeal-oriented organization, although his activism -- and ongoing lawsuit to return to the military -- certainly make him one of the many human symbols of repeal efforts. He was there, as the other guests, as a veteran.

Among those attending from the administration, Almy told Metro Weekly this afternoon, were Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, as well as several of the service chiefs or their representatives. Among the veterans attending were some World War II veterans as well as some younger veterans who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From what Almy could tell, he was the only veteran there who had been involved with DADT repeal.

"The president didn't expressly mention 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' or gay servicemembers in any of his remarks, but what is really cool is that after breakfast we went through the receiving line at the White House with both the president and Michelle," Almy tells Metro Weekly. "When they introduced me to the president, I leaned over and shook his hand and I said, 'Mr. President, it looks like I will be the first person to go back on active duty following repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and his face just lit up and he gave me a big hug after I told him that."

Although others have rejoined the reserves or National Guard, Almy said that he believes he would the first to return to active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.

"This is the first Veterans Day following repeal. The first Veterans Day where we can fully honor the service of all veterans and servicemembers, gay and straight alike," Almy says. "To be an official guest here at the White House for Veterans Day, I just thought was tremendous."

Almy has likened his attendance at this morning's breakfast to the attendance of same-sex couples raising children at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, talking about how his presence as a gay veteran was more incidental as one of the approximately 150 attendees at the breakfast.

Almy remains technically at odds with the administration as one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and filed before the repeal of DADT to return him and two others discharged under DADT to active duty. Almy says that he's done all of the paperwork to return, has his security clearance finished and only is yet to have his medical clearance completed.

"Once they have the medical clearance done, then they sumbit all the paperwork, and we just wait for the official word back down from the Air Force," he says. "I could know something by the end of this month, and then, potentially, have a commissioning ceremony within the next month or two."

At that point, he says, he would drop his lawsuit.

For today, however, Almy says of his attendance at this morning's breakfast, "It's just one more indication of how far we've come and how inclusive this White House is trying to be and has been so far."

[Photo: Mike Almy speaks on the day the Senate voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act at a news conference held Dec. 18, 2010, by LGBT advocates of repeal and Senate leaders. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

As reported earlier today at Metro Weekly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit nominee Edward DuMont had requested that President Barack Obama withdraw his nomination. This afternoon, Obama did so.

Listed as a "withdrawal sent to the Senate," "Edward Carroll DuMont, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, vice Paul R. Michel, retired, which was sent to the Senate on January 5, 2011" was withdrawn.

DuMont would have been the first out gay appellate judge in the nation, but he never even received a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee -- despite a "unanimously well qualified" recommendation from the American Bar Association.

Spokespeople for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said in the past that Republican opposition to holding a hearing had prevented the scheduling of a hearing because such scheduling is traditionally done by agreement. Spokespeople for the Republicans on the committee noted, however, that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could schedule a hearing without Republicans' consent.

Today, Leahy refused to discuss DuMont's request that the nomination be withdrawn, and a spokeswoman for Leahy directed questions to the White House. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

DuMont had been waiting longer than any other Obama judicial nominee for a committee hearing, having originally been nominated on April 14, 2010, which was in the 111th Congress. He was renominated on Jan. 5, at the start of the 112th Congress.

In DuMont's place, Obama nominated "Richard Gary Taranto, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, vice Paul R. Michel, retired."

According to biographical information distributed by the White House earlier in the afternoon, Taranto clerked for Judge Robert Bork of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and then Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor after law school. Bork's later nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate because of concerns expressed by Democrats like former Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that Bork's conservative views were outside the mainstream of legal thought.

After clerking, Taranto served as an assistant to the solicitor general during Charles Fried's tenure as solicitor general in the Reagan administration. The solicitor general is the top appellate litigator in the Department of Justice. Although Fried has supported conservative judicial nominees in the past, he also voted for Obama for president in 2008.

One of Taranto's notable Supreme Court arguments -- he's had 19 -- was MGM Studios v. Grokster, in which he represented the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing service. The case, in which Grokster had won at the appellate level, was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court.

In a statement regarding Taranto's nomination, Obama did not mention DuMont, saying, "Richard Taranto is a lawyer of exceptional legal ability and great personal and professional integrity. I am pleased and honored to nominate him to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit, and I am confident that his intelligence, independence, judgment, and temperament will make him a welcome addition to that court."

[UPDATE @ 8P: In July, when President Obama withdrew the nomination of Goodwin Liu, then a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the White House issued a statement. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said, per Politico:

Goodwin Liu would have brought extraordinary credentials, great intellect, and an inspirational life story to the bench. We remain disappointed he was not confirmed by the United States Senate but are confident he has a brilliant future. This administration will continue to work diligently to nominate judicial candidates from diverse backgrounds with mainstream views who respect the rule of law.

As noted above, however, there was nothing today from the White House about DuMont.]

[Photo: DuMont.]

[Photo: Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) talks with Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and legislative director Allison Herwitt, with Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) at his side before the start of the committee's Nov. 10, 2011, business meeting. The Respect for Marriage Act is to be voted on at the meeting. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act out of committee on a party-line vote, although Republicans on the committee repeatedly said that they did not expect the full Senate to take up the bill, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, in the 112th Congress.

In addition to repealing DOMA, the RMA would add a provision in law to guarantee that the federal government recognize the marriage of any couple "valid in the state where the marriage was entered into" -- even if the couple moves to a state where the marriage is not recognized.

After less than two hours of discussion, the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act on a 10-8 vote. No Republicans supported the measure; all Democrats voted for it.

In expressing his opposition to the bill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) spoke about the costs of expanding federal benefits to same-sex couples but also said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would not hold a vote on the RMA in the 112th Congress because "he would face a revolution in his own caucus."

That, however, prompted Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who had voted for DOMA in 1996 but now says he was "wrong" and supports the RMA, to say, "If this is brought to the floor, and only the 30 co-sponsors vote for it, it is worth it." Durbin is a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, serving as the majority whip.

The committee vote, regardless, was historic as it was the first congressional vote in support of ending the 1996 law, which defined marriage in federal law and purports to shield states from needing to recognize marriages entered into elsewhere.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) opened the meeting this morning by talking about his pride in his home state of Vermont for having "long taken an active role in America's journey to build a more just society."

Talking about the state's history of passing civil unions and now marriage equality for same-sex couples, Leahy said of DOMA, "[T]housands of American families are now being treated unfairly by their federal government."

If the committee votes in favor of the RMA today, Leahy said it will represent "the next step on the path toward equality."

Of the states' historic role in marriage definition determinations, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) -- the lead sponsor of the RMA -- opened her remarks by saying, "DOMA infringes on this state authority."

Feinstein then went through a set of disadvantages that DOMA causes for corporate America, relying in part on the court filing made by companies from Xerox to Google in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this past week supporting the trial court ruling in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that struck down the federal definition of marriage contained in DOMA as unconstitutional.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese attended the vote, along with several other HRC staff members, as did representatives from the ACLU, National Center for Lesbian Rights and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.

In a statement released following the vote, Solmonese said, "We thank the members of the Judiciary Committee who stood up for LGBT families and particularly thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Feinstein for their leadership in fighting this unjust law."

A spokesman for President Obama, Shin Inouye, also praised the vote.

"President Obama applauds today’s vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the Respect for Marriage Act, which would provide a legislative repeal of the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act,'" Inouye said in a statement. "The President has long believed that DOMA is discriminatory and has called for its repeal. We should all work towards taking this law off the books. The federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections afforded to straight couples."

After Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking minority committee member, noted that "For thousands of years ... marriage was an exclusively heterosexual institution" -- a point later questioned by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) -- the Iowa senator referenced a column by The New York Times's Frank Bruni to suggest that even the "liberal" magazine has highlighted black leaders' uncomfortability with marriage equality.

In the column, however, Bruni prasied the Human Rights Campaign's "Americans for Marriage Equality" project for highlighting black Americans who have been prominent supporters of marriage equality.

In a statement released this afternoon, one of those referenced in Bruni's column and discussed by Grassley today, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights president Wade Henderson, struck back.

"Senator Charles Grassley chose to misappropriate and misconstrue statements attributed to me in a news article in order to make an illegitimate case against equality for LGBT Americans. He was wrong," Henderson said. "Marriage equality is a civil rights issue and I am a supporter of marriage equality."

After testimony from all attending senators, Grassley said, "We know where the votes are," and, accordingly, the minority will be offering no amendments. Three potential amendments, only one of which related to the RMA's purposes, were circulated to committee members on Nov. 9 but not offered today.

The bill now goes to the full Senate, where Reid would have to choose to place it on the calendar for debate, which would need to be accepted by unanimous consent or on a motion to proceed, or a senator would have to bring it up as an amendment to other legislation. A motion to proceed takes only a majority vote, but it is subject to a filibuster -- which could mean proceeding would require 60 votes.

[NOTE: This post was originally posted at 10:25 a.m. and updated throughout the hearing. The final update was made at 4 p.m.]

[Photo: The Senate Judiciary Committee discusses the Respect for Marriage Act on Nov. 10, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

After waiting more than 18 months without even receiving a committee hearing on his nomination, Edward DuMont, a partner at the Wilmer Hale law firm, has asked President Barack Obama to withdraw his nomination to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

As reported at Patently-O -- and earlier at law.com -- DuMont submitted a letter to the president on Nov. 4 asking that his nomination be withdrawn.

DuMont came to the nomination to the specialty court, which primarily hears appeals on patent matters and cases from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, with stellar qualifications and was deemed "unanimously well qualified" by the American Bar Association. A former law clerk to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, DuMont would have been the first out gay appellate judge in the country.

Despite DuMont's qualifications, he never received a hearing on his nomination from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democratic committee spokespeople have said that Republicans had held up the nomination, although Republican committee spokespeople pointed out that the chairman of the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could call for a hearing on the nomination at any time.

In his letter to Obama, DuMont wrote, "Under these circumstances, drawing the process out further does not seem either sensible for me or fair to the Federal Circuit, which has important work to do and deserves to be able to address it with a full complement of active judges."

Back when DuMont was first nominated by Obama in April 2010, Seth Waxman, who served as the top appellate litigator in the Justice Department during Clinton's second term, called DuMont "brilliant" and "thoroughly professional."

DuMont's nomination is yet to be formally withdrawn, and a White House spokesman did not respond to an immediate request for comment.

DuMont was unavailable for comment.

Read DuMont's letter: DuMontwithdrawal letter 11-4-11.PDF

Del. Adam Ebbin (D-Arlington) was elected as Virginia's first openly gay senator in the state's Nov. 8 elections, even as other politicians who oppose LGBT equality won victories and Democrats likely effectively lost control of the upper chamber. 

With 88 of precincts reporting, Ebbin, who will replace retiring State Sen. Patsy Ticer (D-Alexandria) in a district that includes parts of Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax counties, led his opponent, Republican Tim McGhee, 67-33, according to results from the Virginia Board of Elections.

"It feels wonderful," Ebbin said of his victory. "It's been almost 11 months of planning and campaigning, so it's a relief to see that come to fruition. The margin and the confidence of the people of the 30th District is amazing."

The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, an organization dedicated to helping elect LGBT people to public office, had previously endorsed Ebbin in his race and released a statement once the results were announced.

"We're thrilled for Adam and for LGBT Virginians, who will finally have an authentic LGBT voice in the state senate," Victory Fund President and CEO Chuck Wolfe said in the statement. "The Victory Fund has been proud to support Adam throughout his career. He’s been a persistent champion for fairness and equality, and we congratulate him."

In other races, out gay Republican Patrick Forrest, who also was endorsed by the Victory Fund, lost his race to incumbent state Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax).

In terms of the balance of the legislature, as of 11:15 p.m. Nov. 8, Democrats and Republicans had won or were leading in 20 of 40 senate races. State Sens. Roscoe Reynolds (D-Martinsville) and Edd Houck (D-Spotsylvania) were the only incumbents who failed to win re-election, with Reynolds losing by just more than 1 percent to challenger William Stanley and Houck losing by a few hundred votes to Bryce Reeves, according to the state board of elections website. A recount in the latter race is likely. 

Meanwhile, Republicans continued to make gains in the House of Delegates.

LGBT groups viewed the results as a disappointment, since a split senate gives Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) a tie-breaking vote, effectively giving control to the Republicans, many of whom are not allies of the LGBT community. 

"It's not good, but it could be worse," said Claire Gastañaga, a spokeswoman for LGBT equality organization Equality Virginia. "We gained a couple of friends, but not as many allies as enemies."

Gastañaga praised Ebbin's victory, saying he and fellow Arlington Democrat Barbara Favola would be great allies in helping to push fair-minded legislation to benefit LGBT people in Virginia. She also said a win by Alfonso Lopez, who takes over Ebbin's seat in the House of Delegates, was a positive development. 

However, she said other races were big disappointments, with some House members who were LGBT allies losing their seats due to newly gerrymandered districts created in the most recent round of redistricting. Gastañaga said that if Democrats lose their majority in the senate, they will no longer be able to block unfriendly legislation passed by the more conservative House of Delegates.

Still other frustrations included a win by former Del. Richard Black (R-Loudon) in an open state senate district. 

"Dick Black heading back to the senate is a hard pill to swallow," Gastañaga said. "His return might signal the advent of legislation such as banning gay adoptions, which is disheartening."

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

The Metro Weekly liveblog of tonight's election!

[Read the "Races to Watch" from earlier today here.]

8:45 P.M. - VIRGINIA - Out gay Democrat Adam Ebbin wins in the 30th Senate District. With two-thirds of percent reporting, he's up 70-30 to Republican Timothy McGhee. Ebben, currently serving in the House of Delegates, will be Virginia's first out LGBT senator. Metro Weekly will have more on this race later tonight.

9:00 P.M. - VIRGINIA - Out gay Republican challenger Patrick Forrest is losing to incumbent Sen. Janet Howell (D-32), although just more than one-third of the precincts are counted. Howell is up 66-34.

9:25 P.M. - MASSACHUSETTS - Alex Morse, an out gay 22-year-old in Holyoke, Massachusetts, was just elected mayor of the 40,000-person town. The Victory Fund celebrated his victory, calling him the nation's youngest gay mayor.

9:30 P.M. - INDIANA - Indianapolis gets its first out LGBT city council member, with Zach Adamson's election, as noted by the Victory Fund.

9:45 P.M. - MAINE - Question One appears to be ending with same-day registration staying in Maine, as the Associated Press has called the race. The AP says the referendum campaign succeeded in overturning a Republican-passed bill to end such registration. From Talking Points Memo: "AP: Maine Voters Say Yes To Same Day Registration."

10:05 P.M. - NEW YORK - From New York Times reporter Thomas Kaplan, "Rose Belforti, the upstate N.Y. town clerk who won't sign [marriage] licenses [for same-sex couples], has won re-election."

10:15 P.M. - MICHIGAN - According to the Traverse City Record-Eagle, "By a nearly two-to-one margin, the city voted 2,818 to 1,661 to keep the [city's sexual orientation nondiscrimination] ordinance." The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey said in a news release, "The people of Traverse City have sent a clear message that they value their LGBT friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members and don’t want to see them left vulnerable to discrimination."

10:30 P.M. - NEW JERSEY - Garden State Equality chair and chief executive officer Steven Goldstein tells Metro Weekly, "Of all 40 Senate seats up for election, there were two marquis state Senate races, so closely fought, and the odds were against both of the pro-marriage equality Democrats winning. Both won. [They are Sens. Bob Gordon (D-38) and Jim Whelan (D-2).] We also picked up a pro-marriage equality seat in another district that went from an anti-marriage equality Democrat who retired to a pro-marriage equality Democrat elected tonight. And, Garden State Equality member Dr. Tim Eustace was elected to the Asssembly tonight -- the second openly LGBT legislator in New Jersey history." Eustance joins Assemblymember Reed Gusciora, who won re-election tonight.

11:00 P.M. - OHIO - With more than 99 percent of precincts reporting, Chris Seelbach will be the first out LGBT member of Cincinnati City Council. He finished ninth of 23 candidates on the ballot. The top nine vote-getters are elected to Council, and Seelbach garnered more than 1,000 votes more than the 10th-place vote-getter.

11:05 P.M. - IOWA - The Iowa Independent reports that the "final" results in the balance-of-power state Senate special election race went to the Democrat, Liz Mathis. With 55.8 percent of the vote, she bested Republican Cindy Golding, who received 43.52 percent of the vote. Mathis's victory means the state Senate stays in Democratic control, stopping an attempt at reversing marriage equality in the state. Freedom to Marry president Evan Wolfson said in a statement, "The voters rebuffed the anti-gay attacks that sought to make undoing the freedom to marry a critical factor in the race, and instead elected a candidate who supports the freedom to marry for all Iowa families.  One Iowa worked hard to make sure that marriage remains secure in Iowa and to elect a legislator who will focus on the real challenges confronting the state."

11:25 P.M. - MORE ON IOWA - According to a release from the Human Rights Campaign, "HRC contributed to Liz Mathis' victory by placing five full-time field organizers in the 18th Senate District during the final weeks of the campaign."

11:45 P.M. - TEXAS - With more than 99 percent of the precincts counted, out lesbian Houston Mayor Annise Parker appears to have won re-election with no run-off, defeating five challengers. With 50.85 percent of the vote for Parker, her nearest challenger stands at 14.81 percent of the vote.

11:55 P.M. - ARIZONA - Daniel Hernandez Jr., the out gay intern for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) who was praised as a hero for his efforts when the congresswoman was shot, was elected to his local school board tonight.

2:30 A.M. NOV. 9 - CALIFORNIA - In San Francisco, out gay former supervisor Bevan Dufty was trailing five other challengers to Mayor Ed Lee -- who was ahead of all the challengers. City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who received some organized LGBT support, was running in third. Although Lee was not going to garner 50 percent with the initial ballot, the city's multiple, ranked-choice balloting meant, according to the Los Angeles Times, that he was heading toward being elected to a full term.

The Human Rights Campaign often finds itself the subject of criticism for not taking aggressive action against politicians and others who are pro-LGBT in some respects but not in others.

Today, however, HRC took a strong stand, with president Joe Solmonese striking out at Foley & Lardner LLP, the law firm where Cleta Mitchell is a partner. Mitchell recently registered as a lobbyist for the National Organization for Marriage in Minnesota, where a marriage constitutional amendment will be on the ballot in 2012.

Solmonese writes:

We fully recognize that the legal profession has the duty to represent unpopular clients and take on controversial cases, particularly in defending individuals or organizations charged with violating the law and in protecting civil liberties. The firm's involvement, however, has gone well beyond simple legal representation of an unpopular client. In 2009, our lawyers witnessed Ms. Mitchell leading and counseling anti-LGBT community members at a public D.C. hearing on testimony that was deeply hurtful towards our community. Now, Ms. Mitchell is a registered lobbyist on behalf of NOM in Minnesota, which goes well beyond any professional or ethical obligations of legal representation. Moreover, the firm has established a clear pattern of knowingly taking on anti-LGBT organizations as clients, even after we and others in the community expressed concerns.

HRC takes seriously our role as the nation's leading organization advocating for LGBT equality. We have an obligation to express publicly our deep concern and frustration with your firm's continued legal and advocacy efforts on behalf of organizations devoted exclusively to furthering anti-LGBT bigotry. This commitment on your part marks a continued and significant reversal from Foley & Lardner's past practices of supporting LGBT equality.

Solmonese writes that it will be downgrading Foley & Lardner to a 60 score on the 2012 Corporate Equality Index, "one of lowest scores earned by an Am Law 200 law firm in the upcoming report." He added that HRC would be advising "corporate counsel and law students" of the firm's "continued representation of anti-LGBT organizations and its current legislative advocacy on behalf of NOM."

In addition to her work in 2009 and 2010 to try and stop marriage equality in the District, Mitchell earlier this year had been one of the voices pushing to keep GOProud out of CPAC, the annual conservative political gathering. The effort prompted GOProud chairman Chris Barron to tell Metro Weekly that Mitchell was a "nasty bigot" -- words he later said he regretted using.

Read Solmonese's letter to Foley & Lardner: JoeSolmonese_letter_FoleyAndLardner_Nov2011.pdf

[NOTE: For results, see the Metro Weekly "Election Day 2011: Liveblog."]

Although much of the media's political focus is on the latest developments in the Republican presidential primary race, many Americans head to the polls today in races certain to have their own -- though generally more local -- impact.

Here are the top five races to watch for those concerned with LGBT issues:

1. Iowa - 18th Senate District: In Iowa, a special election for the 18th Senate District has captured more attention than otherwise would be expected because control of the state Senate hinges on the race's outcome. Because the previous Democratic occupant of the seat received a gubernatorial appointment earlier this year, the special election -- featuring Republican Cindy Golding and Democrat Liz Mathis -- is happening today. If Golding wins and the Republicans take control of the Senate, the process for seeking a constitutional amendment to end marriage equality in the state -- which has been halted by Democratic control of at least one chamber since the 2009 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that led to marriage equality in Iowa -- is likely to begin in earnest (although several complications would remain). [Quad City Times; The American Prospect]

2. San Francisco - Mayor: San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (D), running for a full term after his earlier appointment to the post, is facing off against 15 opponents today, including out gay former supervisor Bevan Dufty (D) and City Attorney Dennis Herrera (D) -- whose office repeatedly supported marriage equality efforts with filings in the American Foundation for Equal Rights lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund has endorsed Dufty -- and drawn criticism from Dufty and others for an anti-Herrera mailer sent a few weeks before the election. [San Francisco Chronicle; Bay Area Reporter]

3. Maine - Question One: In Maine, Question One is a referendum on a Republican-passed legislative measure to end same-day voter registration in the state. As Portland's WCSH-6 notes, "Next year's ballot will include a Presidential race, a major fight for control of a new Maine legislature, and possibly another referendum on gay marriage." Same-day registration is favored by supporters of advancing marriage equality in the state. [WCSH-6]

4. Virginia - 30th and 32nd Senate Districts: Virginia Del. Adam Ebbin (D) is poised to become the state's first out LGBT senator in today's election, while out gay Republican Patrick Forrest challenges incumbent Sen. Janet Howell (D) in a race that has featured repeated charges from Forrest that Howell is exploiting Forrest's sexual orientation as a reason Republicans should vote against him. The Victory Fund has endorsed both out candidates. [Metro Weekly; Washington Post]

5. Ohio - Cincinnati City Council: Chris Seelbach is running a race that has garnered attention across the state, as he seeks to become the first out LGBT councilmember in a city that, until 2004, had a prohibition on any sexual orientation antidiscrimination measures. In addition to wide LGBT support, including the Victory Fund, Seelbach received the endorsement from the Cincinnati Enquirer in his bid. [Cincinnati Enquirer]

Also, be sure to watch:

• The outcome in the Traverse City, Michigan, ballot initiative -- an effort in which the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force has taken an interest -- asking whether a nondiscrimination law enacted a year ago should stay in place. [Traverse City Record-Eagle]
• Write-in challenger Ed Easter's effort in New York to unseat Ledyard town clerk Rose Marie Belforti, who has refused to grant same-sex couples marriage certificates. [WSYR-9]
  
• The re-election margin for out lesbian Houston mayor Annise Parker. Houston is the largest U.S. city to be led by an out LGBT person. [Houston Chronicle]

[Photo, left: Mathis. Photo, right: Seelbach. (Photos from campaign websites.)]

[Photo: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) opens a business committee meeting to consider the Respect for Marriage Act, as well as several judicial nominations. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its formal consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation introduced earlier this year that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Additionally, the committee quickly disposed of the nomination of out gay attorney Michael Fitzgerald for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. His nomination was reported to full Senate with no opposition from any members of committee. Ranking minority committee member Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) allowed the nomination, and a handful of others, to proceed in a group to the floor of the Senate.

In opening the hearing, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said of the Respect for Marriage Act's aim, in part, "What would change, and what must change, is the federal government's unequal treatment of state-approved marriages."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the lead sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, opened her comments at the hearing by saying, "I voted against [DOMA] for the same reason then, that I [support] repeal now.

"Just three months ago, this committee heard" testimony on the impact of DOMA, she said, referencing the earlier hearing.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says, referencing Alexis de Tocqueville's discussion of America's march toward full equality, made the brief comment, "That march continues."

Due to Senate procedural, the minority Republicans were allowed to hold up the mark-up of the bill, at which time amendments can be offered and a vote would be held, for a week. At that time, Leahy said that the bill "will be" considered.

[UPDATE @ 11:55P: In a statement issued after the hearing by committee Democrats, the Respect for Marriage Act's Judiciary Committee mark-up and vote is set for 10 a.m. Nov. 10 in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.]