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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Image courtesy of Minnesotans United]

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

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

Watch Rice's statement here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Post poll, 56 percent of Virginia adults believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married, while 34 percent think it should be illegal. Ten percent expressed no opinion. Among registered voters, those who thought it should be legal led by a similar margin, 56 to 33 percent.

The poll was conducted by telephone from April 29 to May 2 among a random sample of 1,000 adults in Virginia, including 887 registered voters and users of both conventional and cellular phones. Among registered voters, the poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. 

The Post poll found majority support among Democrats and independents, while Republicans were split on the issue. Among registered voters who identify as Democrats, 75 percent thought marriage equality should be legal and 21 percent illegal. Fifty-six percent of self-described independents who are registered voters say same-sex marriage should be legal, 33 percent illegal. Among Republicans who are registered voters, 40 percent say same-sex nuptials should be legal, while 47 percent say they should be illegal. Virginia does not register voters by party, so polling relies on self-identification. 

Among all adults, regardless of voter-registration status, liberals and moderates support marriage equality by overwhelming margins – liberals by an 82-15 spread and moderates by a 65-27 spread. Only a third, or 32 percent, of conservatives, support marriage equality, with 53 percent opposed.

The Post poll also found strong support among demographic groups that tend to skew more politically liberal, with women more strongly supportive than men, and nonwhites more supportive than whites. Whereas 53 percent of Virginia men believe same-sex marriage should be legal, 60 percent of women in Virginia do. Whites favor marriage equality by a 54-37 margin, and nonwhites by a 62-28 margin. Among African-Americans, that margin increases to 64-28.

In keeping with national trends and polling from other states, Virginians ages 18 to 29 support same-sex marriage by a 72-22 margin. Support for legal same-sex marriage ranges from 54 to 60 percent among those in 30 to 64, but a majority of those over 65 believe same-sex marriage should be illegal, with only 35 percent in favor and 53 percent opposed.

Geographically, the greatest support for marriage equality in in the D.C. suburubs, with 69 percent saying same-sex marriage should be legal and 22 percent saying illegal. But residents in Central and Western Virginia say same-sex marriage should be illegal by a 56-38 spread.

The Post poll directly conflicts with an April poll by the University of Mary Washington Center for Leadership and Media Studies, which found only 45 percent of voters in Virginia support allowing same-sex couples to legally wed in the commonwealth.

The Mary Washington poll also contradicted the findings of the Post poll in terms of support for same-sex marriage among different racial groups. According to that poll, white voters in Virginia oppose allowing same-sex nuptials by 50-46 percent and African-Americans oppose the idea by 54-40 percent, while Hispanics support same-sex marriage by a 64-34 spread.

The Mary Washington poll is more consistent with polling from 2011 and 2012 done by the North Carolina-based firm Public Policy Polling, which found majorities of Virginians opposing same-sex marriage. But two other Post polls from 2011 and 2012 found a plurality of support for same-sex marriage in Virginia, with 47 percent and 49 percent, respectively, supporting the idea that it should be legal. 

In an interview with Metro Weekly, James Parrish, the executive director of the nonpartisan LGBT rights organization Equality Virginia called the results of the Post poll "exciting to see."

"It's definitely nice to see, but it's something we expected," Parrish said. "Support in Virginia mirrors what’s going on nationally. Hopefully, this will set Virginia up to be able to remove the marriage amendment and allow same-sex couples to marry in the state."

Parrish noted that the strongest movement in support for LGBT rights has occurred among Republicans. He said that polling by Equality Virginia has also seen that shift among Republicans in its own polling, which explains why a bill supporting workplace nondiscrimination protections in state employment garnered stronger-than-usal support from Republicans this past legislative session. That measure passed the state Senate 24-16 before being killed in committee by members of the House of Delegates.

According to Equality Virginia's polling, workplace discrimination had the most support among all groups, and marriage equality had the least support. But Parrish said that has implications for other pro-LGBT measures the organization has been trying to get passed in recent years.

"What Equality Virginia and LGBT Virginians can take from this is not only should we expect to see support for marriage equality, but that there’s clear, broad support for workplace discrimination protections and allowing LGBT families to adopt," Parrish said, noting that both issues consistently outperform marriage. "It's good to see that Virginia is consistent with the national trend. Unfortunately, it also shows that the members of the House of Delegates do not represent what most Virginians are thinking."

[Photo: Gay couple holding hands (Photo credit: Till Krech, courtesy Wikimedia Commons).]

At a signing ceremony outside the Capitol in St. Paul, Dayton invoked the founding principles of the country, as found in the Declaration of Independence's promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ensures equal protection under the law. 

The marriage-equality bill passed the state Senate on a 37-30 vote Monday, with 36 Democrats and Republican Branden Petersen (R-Andover) voting in favor and 27 Republicans and 3 Democrats - Lyle Koenen (D-Clara City), LeRoy Stumpf (D-Plummer) and Dan Sparks (D-Austin) - voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on May 9 by a 75-59 vote that saw four Republicans - David FitzSimmons (R-Albertville), Jennifer Loon (R-Eden Prairie), Andrea Kieffer (D-Woodbury) and Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington) - voting with 71 of the lower chamber's 73 Democrats to ensure passage, while two other Democrats, Mary Sawatzky (D-Willmar) and Patti Fritz (D-Faribault) voted against.

During speeches following Dayton's signing of the law given by prominent legislative leaders and activists who were crucial to the bill's success, House Speaker Paul Thissen (D-Minneapolis) said that the way in which proponents advocated on behalf of the marriage-equality bill and changed hearts and minds through one-on-one conversations could be a model, not just for marriage equality, but for how to move Minnesota forward. Other speakers, including out lesbian Rep. Karen Clark (D-Minneapolis) and out gay Sen. Scott Dibble (D-Minneapolis), used the opportunity to celebrate how far the marriage-equality bill has come in the two years since the then-Republican-controlled Legislature forced a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage onto the 2012 ballot. Minnesota voters later rejected the amendment, with 53 percent voting against it, and voted to put Democrats in charge of the Legislature, making passage of a pro-LGBT measure like marriage-equality possible. 

Minnesota same-sex couples will be able to marry starting Aug. 1, when the law takes effect.

Other states, including New Jersey, Nevada and Oregon, are also pushing seeing efforts toward marriage equality. In Illinois, which has no constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Gov. Pat Quinn (D) has called on legislators in his state's House of Representatives to pass a marriage-equality bill that was passed by the state Senate on Valentine's Day by a 34-21 vote. With Democrats holding a supermajority in both chambers, the bill's success relies on attracting the support of rank-and-file Democrats, particularly African-American lawmakers and those who represent areas with large amounts of conservative Democrats, such as the Northwest and Southwest sides of Chicago and the vote-rich "collar counties" that surround Cook County.  

[Photo: Gov. Mark Dayton (courtesy of the governor's office).]

Minnesota will become the 12th state to allow same-sex couples to marry after the Minnesota Senate approved marriage-equality legislation with a 37-30 vote today.

The bill will be signed into law by Gov. Mark Dayton (D) tomorrow, thus making Minnesota the third state to approve marriage-equality legislation this month and the first Midwestern state legislature to do so (Iowa has permitted same-sex marriages since 2009 after a ruling by the state's Supreme Court). 

"With just a few words we have the ability to bring loving families across the state of Minnesota into the full sunshine of equality and freedom that they have been denied for so long," said lead sponsor and out gay Sen. Scott Dibble (D-District 61) at the start of the debate, as supporters and opponents could be heard demonstrating outside of the chamber.

Last week, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted 75-59 in favor of the same-sex marriage bill.

The Senate quickly adopted the House version of the bill, which included a Republican amendment tacked on last week that increasing religious protections by inserting the word "civil" before all references to "marriage." A great deal of the debate focused on a Republican-proposed amendment that sought to expand those religious protections further. However, marriage equality supporters described the amendment as "breathtaking" and argued it would open the door to discrimination across the state. The amendment was defeated 26-41. 

Although many expected the House to approve the bill, opponents maintained the bill would be a slippery slope. Describing Europe as on the verge of "civil disaster" because of their embrace of marriage equality, Republican Sen. Dan Hall (District 56) blasted the bill as one that would lead to "civil disobedience." Responding to those who have asked him if he wants to be on the right side of history, Hall responded, "The truth is I'm more concerned with being on the right side of eternity."

Same-sex nuptials will begin in Minnesota on Aug. 1. Today's historic vote comes two years after Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature bypassed the governor to put an initiative on the ballot to amend the state’s Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. However, on Election Day in November, Minnesota voters rejected the amendment and ushered in Democratic majorities in both chambers.

"Minnesota is a perfect example of the progress we’ve made on marriage equality in America," said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement responding to the bill's passage. "Voters in Minnesota brought anti-equality efforts to a screeching halt on Election Day, and today state leaders in St. Paul made it clear that all Minnesota families are equal in the eyes of the law."

Following the approval of marriage equality legislation in Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota in the past two weeks, now eyes turn to Illinois. The Illinois state Senate approved same-sex marriage legislation with a 34-21 vote nearly three months ago on Valentine's Day. Supporters have said they will not bring the bill to the floor of the House for a vote until the have the votes necessary for passage. Last week marriage-equality supporter and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) called on lawmakers to act, telling the Chicago Tribune, "It's time to vote."

[Image: The final Minnesota Senate vote (Screenshot courtesy of the Minnesota Senate).]

"It's time to vote," Quinn said, according to the Chicago Tribune. "Illinois passing marriage equality into law, I think, sends a great signal to the people of our state and the people of America. So it's important to Illinois (that) the House of Representatives get going."

Quinn's call for the Illinois House to act comes after the state Senate approved same-sex marriage legislation with a 34-21 vote nearly three months ago on Valentine's Day. Since that vote, Rhode Island and Delaware have both approved marriage equality legislation. Minnesota is also poised to legalize same-sex marriage after the Minnesota House of Representatives approved marriage equality legislation yesterday. The Minnesota Senate is expected to approve the bill next week and the governor has promised to sign it into law, which would make Minnesota the first Midwestern state legislature to legalize marriage equality.

In Illinois, advocates have faced delays as they attempt to secure votes in the House, despite high profile support for the bill from national leaders, including President Barack Obama.

In December, Obama, through a spokesman, endorsed same-sex marriage in his home state of Illinois. Speaking to the Chicago Sun-Times, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said the president would vote for the measure if he was still serving in the Illinois General Assembly. 

"While the president does not weigh in on every measure being considered by state legislatures, he believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect," Inouye said. "As he has said, his personal view is that it's wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. Were the president still in the Illinois State Legislature, he would support this measure that would treat all Illinois couples equally."

In April, Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, who filled Obama's vacant Senate seat after the 2008 presidential election, became the second Senate Republican to openly endorse marriage equality. 

Supporters of the Illinois legislation are believed to be close to the 60 votes needed to pass the bill in the House, however a floor vote is not expected until they are sure they have the votes necessary for passage. 

Speaking to the Chicago Tribune, bill sponsor Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) would not say when a vote could be expected, but stipulated momentum continues to grow for their side.

"Now the eyes of the country are on Illinois to see if we are going to do the right thing," Harris said.

[Photo: Pat Quinn (Credit: Chris Eaves/Wikimedia Commons)]

Minnesota took a step closer to becoming the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage today. Just months after Minnesota voters rejected an amendment to the state’s constitution that would have banned same-sex marriage, the state’s House of Representatives voted 75-59 in favor of a same-sex marriage bill today. 

Out lesbian Rep. Karen Clark (DFL-District 62A), who has been in office for more than 32 years, began the floor debate by sharing a photo taken of her, her partner and her late parents during at the Minneapolis gay pride parade after Minnesota became the first state to pass civil rights laws offering full protections to LGBT people.

"What I want you to do is read the sign they were carrying at that gay pride parade 20 years ago. They carried a sign that said, 'Our gay children should have the same rights as our heterosexual children,'" Clark said on the House floor as chants from supporters and opponents could be heard inside the chamber. "My family knew firsthand that same-sex couples pay our taxes, we vote, we serve in the military, we take care of our kids, our elders, and we run businesses in Minnesota. We work hard and contribute to the same Minnesota system as everyone else."

In an extensive and respectful debate, opponents of the bill advocated for civil unions for same-sex couples and warned against redefining marriage. Supporters, however, said the bill was a matter of fairness and equality, and adopted an amendment offered by Republicans to strengthen religious protections under the legislation.

Passage in the House was expected as Democrats hold a 73-61 majority over Republicans and advocates looked at the scheduling of the vote by House leadership as a sign the bill's passage was all but assured. Should the Democrat-controlled Senate follow suit, as they are expected to do next week, Gov. Mark Dayton (D) has promised to sign the bill into law. Minnesota would become the third state legislature to legalize marriage equality this month, after Rhode Island and Delaware, and the first Midwestern state to do so.

[Photo: Minnesota House Chamber (Credit: Chris Gaukel/Wikimedia Commons)]

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced his support for marriage equality on his Facebook page last night.

"Some great news: On Tuesday, Delaware became the 11th state to allow marriage equality. And just a few days ago, Rhode Island adopted a similar measure, which followed victories last fall in Maine, Maryland and Washington. I most certainly support marriage equality in Florida and look forward to the day it happens here," Crist wrote. 

A frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for governor of Florida, Crist previously served as governor of Florida as a Republican from 2007 to 2011. Known as a moderate while serving as governor, Crist did not elaborate on his evolution on this issue.

As the Tampa Bay Times notes, Crist supported a same-sex marriage ban in Florida while running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2006. He signed his name to a petition attempting to ban marriage equality and touted his support for "traditional marriage."

Crist did not seek re-election after one term as governor, instead running for the U.S. Senate. Marco Rubio beat Crist for the Republican nomination. As a result, Crist left the Republican Party and ran as an independent, but was defeated by Rubio for the Senate seat. In December, Crist announced on Twitter that he had formally joined the Democratic Party while attending a holiday reception at the White House.

[Photo: Charlie Crist (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)]

When Barack Obama sat down with Robin Roberts of ABC News on the afternoon of May 9, 2012, many knew what the president was going to say.

Three days earlier during a May 6 appearance on Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden had become the highest-ranking member of the Obama administration to endorse marriage equality.

Asked by David Gregory if he was comfortable with same-sex marriage, Biden responded, "I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction beyond that."

What ensued was a feverish attempt by the White House to maneuver around Biden's remarks and make clear that they did not necessarily reflect Obama's, who supported civil unions but had repeatedly said he was "evolving" on the issue of marriage equality.

"I can tell you that I'm sure it is the case that he will be asked again at some point when he gives interviews or press conferences about this issue, and I'll leave it to him to describe his personal views," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters in the days following Biden’s Sunday show appearance.

One year ago today, Obama got a chance to describe those views.

"At a certain point I've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told Roberts, securing his place as the first sitting president to publicly endorse the right of same-sex couples to marry.

No one knew how Obama's endorsement of marriage equality would play. It was a few months before an election, and while the Democratic Party had largely embraced marriage equality, it was by no means the position of the party. Just one day earlier, North Carolina became the 31st state to approve a gay-marriage ban. Moreover, a survey Obama signed as an Illinois State Senate candidate in which he declared his support for marriage equality, suggests Obama ran opposed to same-sex marriage in 2008 for political purposes.

Writing in an issue of Newsweek that declared Obama the "first gay president," gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan said he was braced for disappointment when Roberts asked the president if his views on marriage equality had changed.

"And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down," wrote Sullivan, who, in 1989, brought the case for marriage equality to newsstands everywhere with his landmark New Republic cover story. "The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity — and the humanity of all gay Americans — was, unexpectedly, a watershed."

One year later, there is little question that it has helped Obama rather than hurt him as momentum for marriage equality has reached heights largely unimaginable just a few years earlier. On the same day Obama was re-elected with 76 percent of the gay vote, which made up 5 percent of the electorate in 2012, voters for the first time approved marriage equality at the ballot box in Maryland, Maine and Washington. In Minnesota, voters struck down the same kind of gay marriage ban North Carolina voters had approved months earlier. Polls indicate a slim majority of Americans now support marriage equality, with overwhelming support among Americans younger than 30.

"The president welcomes the progress we've seen in the evolution of the hearts and minds of the American people on the issue of equality for the LGBT community," White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Metro Weekly. "As he has said before, change like this won’t be led by people in Washington, but by Americans across the country."

Obama's support was also an irrevocable moment for his party, all but ensuring no viable candidate for president will ever again be able to run for the Democratic nomination without supporting marriage equality. Indeed, two of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination in 2016 — Govs. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Martin O’Malley of Maryland — both signed marriage-equality legislation into law.

The Democratic Party has also fully embraced marriage equality, writing it into its national party platform. And as two landmark same-sex marriage cases regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 sit before the Supreme Court, a stampede of Democratic senators have endorsed marriage equality, leaving just two Senate Democrats opposed. Not only do a majority of Americans now support marriage equality, so do a majority of senators.

"Of all the successes that Freedom to Marry has had in the last 10 years, one that I'm especially proud of is having paved the pathway for the president to come out and support, because I think it was a real inflection point in our movement," Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry, told Metro Weekly. 

Wolfson is the architect of the modern marriage-equality movement and founded Freedom to Marry a decade ago as President George W. Bush was campaigning for re-election on a platform that supported amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

"At that time all we wanted from the current president and federal government was nothing. Stay away from it and stop attacking," Wolfson said. "Thanks to the way the American people are rising to fairness, we’re now at a time when doing the right thing is also happily the right thing to do politically. And even when people don’t fully agree with an elected official, they respect authenticity and commitment and leadership."

Many believe Obama's endorsement, and the way in which he described his reversal on this issue as coming from talks around the dinner table with his children, opened the door for politicians to do the same. 

In March, Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Senate Republican to openly endorse marriage equality after learning that his son is gay. Better known for his focus on fiscal issues, Portman faced criticism from some for only coming to his position after it directly impacted someone close to him. "That's how most of us change our mind on this issue," Portman said Monday during an event with BuzzFeed, seeming to mirror the president's evolution. 

The landscape on this issue continues to change rapidly. Earlier this month, lawmakers in Rhode Island and Delaware approved same-sex marriage legislation as well, with states like Minnesota and Illinois expected to follow suit. Next month, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of DOMA and California's gay-marriage ban, leaving open the possibility of a ruling that strikes down state marriage bans nationwide. Although the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in February 2011 before the president's same-sex marriage endorsement, it is highly unlikely the Justice Department would have filed a brief in the Proposition 8 case were it not for the president’s endorsement.

"In a very large and compelling way it is partly responsible for the moment we now enjoy," HRC vice president Fred Sainz said of Obama's endorsement. "I'm careful not to give his endorsement all of the credit. Certainly this is a movement that has been going on for 20 years. But it builds on everything that we have achieved to date and I do believe it was incredibly momentous."

Speaking to reporters March 1, the day after the administration's brief was filed in the Proposition 8 case, Obama elaborated further on his views. Previously, he had said states should be left to decide this issue. But in the White House briefing room, he went further than he had ever gone before, stating that he believes state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. 

"What we've said is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, that the Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it's doing it. And if the state doesn't have a good reason, it should be struck down," Obama said. "Now, the court may decide that if it doesn't apply in this case, it probably can't apply in any case. There's no good reason for it. If I were on the court, that would probably be the view that I'd put forward. But I'm not a judge, I'm the president."

[Photo: Barack Obama announces his support for marriage equality to Robin Roberts (Official White House photo by Pete Souza).]

Markell signed the bill at a ceremony held at Legislative Hall, sending out a tweet reading: "Signed #MarriageEquality bill into law @LegHall bc no one should have to wait one more min. #NetDE is truly grt place to live, learn and love."

The governor signed the bill less than an hour after the state Senate passed the marriage-equality bill, HB 75, by a 12-9 margin. Eleven Democrats and Republican Sen. Catherine Cloutier (R-Heatherbrooke) voted in favor, while the other seven Republicans joined with Democratic Sens. Bruce Ennis (D-Clayton) and Robert Venables Sr. (D-Laurel) in opposing the measure. The bill previously passed the House of Representatives on April 23, 23-18. 

The new marriage-equality law is slated to go into effect July 1. 

[Photo: Gov. Jack Markell (Courtesy of the Office of the Governor)]

"For immigration reform to be truly comprehensive, it must include protections for all families," Leahy said in a statement. "We must end the discrimination that gay and lesbian families face in our immigration law."

If adopted, Leahy's first amendment would add protections to the Senate's 844-page immigration bill that mirror the language of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would recognize immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same sex and grant rights denied to immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same sex, including eligibility for green cards, due to the Defense of Marriage Act. According to Leahy's office, his second amendment would provide "equal protection to lawfully married bi-national same sex couples that other spouses receive under existing immigration law."

Senate Republicans, including some of those who are members of the bipartisan "gang of eight" who drafted the Senate bill, have threatened to derail immigration reform over inclusion of same-sex couples. Advocates, however, have blasted such threats.

"If they end up doing that, they should just own it and call it what it is: homophobia," the Human Rights Campaign said in a fiery statement today that also chronicled the momentum for equality in recent years. "Labeling the inclusion of bi-national couples in the immigration bill as toxic is nothing more than a tired, insulting ruse designed to distract attention from their own failure to represent all Americans."

Advocates have indicated that they expect the Judiciary Committee to consider Leahy's amendments next week.

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

Read Leahy's amendments here:

Leahy UAFA Amendment

Leahy Marriage Amendment

President Barack Obama lowered expectations further for an LGBT-inclusive comprehensive immigration reform bill Friday evening, telling reporters he would not speculate on whether he would sign a bill that does not include provisions for binational same-sex couples.

During a joint press conference with President Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica, Obama said that while he supports an immigration bill that provides protections for binational same-sex couples, he reiterated that no side will get everything it wants in the final bill.

"Now, the provision that you've discussed that Senator Leahy has talked about is one that I support, and I've said in the past that the LGBT community should be treated like everybody else," Obama said. "That's, to me, the essential, core principle behind our founding documents, the idea that we're all created equal and that we’re equal before the law, and it’s applied fairly to everybody." 

The Senate immigration bill unveiled by a bipartisan group of eights senators last month did not include provisions for same-sex couples, despite a fierce push from advocates and the backing of President Barack Obama. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, foreigners in relationships with Americans of the same sex are denied various protections, including eligibility for green cards, because the federal government does not recognize such relationships. Since that bill was introduced, Obama has downplayed expectations for an LGBT-inclusive final bill, stating that no one will be entirely satisfied with the compromise reached by Democrats and Republicans, including him.

"I think it's premature for me to start talking about what I will or will not do before I get a final product since the road is going to be long and bumpy before I finally see an actual bill on my desk," Obama said Friday, indicating he would still sign an immigration bill that does not include LGBT protections. "But I can tell you I think that the provision is the right thing to do." 

Amid reports that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will tack on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would recognize immigrants in relationships with Americans of the same-sex, as an amendment to the 844-page immigration bill, key Senate Republicans have threatened to derail immigration reform.

"I can also tell you that I’m not going to get everything I want in this bill. Republicans are not going to get everything that they want in this bill," Obama said, adding, "I think that this comprehensive immigration bill has the opportunity to do something historic that we have not done in decades. But I don't expect that, after we’re finished with it, that people are going to say, there’s not a single problem that we have with our immigration system, any more than is true after any piece of legislation that we pass."

[Image: Barack Obama at Friday's press conference in Costa Rica (Screenshot via YouTube).]

Read the full exchange here:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Leahy is pushing for a bill on recognizing same-sex couples as part of the immigration bill. Are you concerned at all that that undermines the success of the package? And given that you made a point throughout your presidency to make clear that you don't think LGTB Americans should be treated any differently, will you sign a bill that will do exactly that?

And for you, Madam President, is there any concern that the more -- that by creating more stringent immigration standards could hamper the ability of Costa Ricans to emigrate to the U.S.? Thanks. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Lisa, I hope you don't mind, before I answer your question I want to get back to Mark because I realize there was one clause in your question -- sometimes you guys have a lot of clauses in your question -- (laughter) -- that I didn't specifically answer, and I didn't want anybody to extrapolate from that.

You asked about boots on the ground and whether we’ve ruled boots out on the ground in Syria. As a general rule, I don't rule things out as Commander-in-Chief because circumstances change and you want to make sure that I always have the full power of the United States at our disposal to meet American national security interests.

Having said that, I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground in Syria would not only be good for America, but also would be good for Syria. And by the way, when I consult with leaders in the region who are very much interested in seeing President Assad leave office and stabilizing the situation in Syria, they agree with that assessment.

So I just wanted to make sure that my omission there did not turn into a story.

To your question, Lisa, as I’ve indicated, I’ve got four broad criteria for immigration reform. I want to make sure that our border is secure and well regulated, in part so that we can get down to the business of smoothing trade and commerce across our borders and creating jobs in the United States, but also making sure that negative actors aren’t able to penetrate the United States.

Number two, cracking down on employers who are breaking the law. Number three, making sure we’ve got a legal immigration system that works better, smarter, and so what we can continue to attract the best and the brightest to the United States.

And by the way, when it comes to legal immigration, the issue here is not going to be stringency, per se. The issue is do we make the system more rational, more effective, better. If there are smart engineers and young people and scientists and students who are looking to emigrate to the United States from Costa Rica, then we want them to know that we’re a nation of immigrants. But we want to make sure that the legal process is in place so that it’s easier and simpler, but also more effective in managing the legal immigration process.

And finally, that we’ve got a pathway so that the 11 million or so undocumented workers inside the United States are able to pursue a tough, long, difficult, but fair path to legal status and citizenship. 

So those are my broad-based criteria. Now, the provision that you’ve discussed that Senator Leahy has talked about is one that I support, and I’ve said in the past that the LGBT community should be treated like everybody else. That's, to me, the essential, core principle behind our founding documents, the idea that we’re all created equal and that we’re equal before the law, and it’s applied fairly to everybody.

And so Senator Leahy may present this provision in committee. It may be presented on the floor. It will be one of many amendments and provisions that are presented, some of which I’ll support, some of which I’ll think are really bad ideas. And I think that the general principle for me is are we advancing, are we improving the immigration system -- because ultimately this is an immigration bill.

And we’ll evaluate the end-product. I think it’s premature for me to start talking about what I will or will not do before I get a final product since the road is going to be long and bumpy before I finally see an actual bill on my desk. But I can tell you I think that the provision is the right thing to do.

I can also tell you that I’m not going to get everything I want in this bill. Republicans are not going to get everything that they want in this bill. But if we keep focused on what our main aim is here -- which is creating a smart, effective immigration system that allows us to be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants -- then we’re going to be in a position to not only improve our economy and what’s happening inside the United States, we’re going to I think have a much stronger relationship with the region and that's going to help enhance our economy and jobs and our growth over the long term. 

And, last point I’ll make, as is true with every bill, if there are things that end up being left out in this bill, or things that I want to take out of a bill, but if it’s meeting those core criteria around a comprehensive immigration bill that I’m looking for, then we go back at it and we fix what’s not there and we continually improve what’s been presented.

I think that this comprehensive immigration bill has the opportunity to do something historic that we have not done in decades. But I don't expect that, after we’re finished with it, that people are going to say, there’s not a single problem that we have with our immigration system, any more than is true after any piece of legislation that we pass. 

Well, thank you very much everybody. Muchas gracias.

The measures passed the House of Representatives earlier in the afternoon, 56-15, sending two bills – H5015 and S38 – to Chafee for his signature. Thursday's vote marked the second time the House had voted on same-sex marriage, the first being in January when the original version of H5015, sponsored by Rep. Art Handy (D-Cranston), passed by a 51-19 margin.

The wider margin of today's vote was provided by the addition of two marriage-equality supporters, Rep. Donna Walsh (D-Charlestown) and Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy (D-Hopkinton), both of whom were absent in January; and Rep. Deborah Fellela (D-Johnston) and Rep. Spencer Dickinson (D-South Kingstown), who both expressed opposition back in January but did not vote on the original measure.

In addition, two legislators who voted "no" in January -- Rep. Raymond Johnston (D-Pawtucket) and Rep. Patricia Morgan (R-West Warwick) -- switched their votes to "yes." Morgan's vote places her in a small, but growing, contingent of state Republicans supporting marriage equality, along with House Minority Leader Brian Newberry (R-North Smithfield) and all five Republican members of the state Senate.

Both marriage-equality measures had experienced some resistance in the Senate, where leadership, including Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed (D-Newport) and Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio (D-North Providence), were opposed. But amended versions of both House and Senate bills – with additional religious protections extended to fraternal societies and other organizations that are not technically religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus – passed the upper chamber, 26-12, on April 24.

"I know you have been waiting for this day to come," Chafee told supporters who gathered to watch him sign the bills into law, noting that many advocates for same-sex marriage had passed away throughout the nearly two-decade struggle to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. "But I am proud to say, now, at long last, you are free to marry the person you love."

In yesterday's issue of The New York Times Chafee penned a column in which he justified his support for same-sex nuptials, recalling that he was one of just four senators – and the only Republican, at the time – to announce his support for marriage equality in 2004 and again in 2006, when voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as a member of the U.S. Senate.

"A historic realignment is happening all around us, as Americans from all walks of life realize that this is the right thing to do," Chafee wrote. "It is occurring both inside and outside of politics, through conversations at the office and over kitchen tables, and at different speeds in different parts of the country. But once the people have spoken, politics should do its part to make change efficient and constructive. … I personally feel that Rhode Island is a better state, and America is a better country, when we are as inclusive as possible." 

Speaker Gordon Fox (D-Providence) also spoke at the bill signing, thanking supporters, fellow legislators and citizens who championed and lobbied on behalf of the House and Senate bills. He also thanked Paiva-Weed for her leadership in choosing to step aside and allow senators to vote their conscience, despite her personal opposition to the measures, something he noted could be a political risk to her, particularly if she was perceived to have lost control of her caucus. 

"When she stepped aside and kept her promise to let this vote take place...she was truly a supporter in this cause," Fox said of Paiva-Weed.

Responding to the news, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's top LGBT-rights organization, issued a statement praising the passage of marriage equality in the Ocean State, which brings the number of Americans living in states with legal same-sex marriage to nearly 50 million. 

"The unprecedented momentum for marriage across the country continues, with Rhode Island becoming the first state of 2013 to say yes to marriage equality," HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement. "As the Supreme Court deliberates the fundamental right to marry the person you love, these historic and bipartisan victories keep mounting and prove the country is ready for marriage equality."

The national organization Freedom to Marry also issued a statement commemorating the law's passage. 

"Today Rhode Island - and now all of New England - has embraced the freedom to marry and lived up to our American promise of liberty and justice for all," Marc Solomon, the national director for Freedom to Marry, said in a statement. "That the entire Rhode Island Senate GOP caucus joined with a vast majority of Democratic lawmakers to live up to the state's values in voting for marriage will inspire more momentum in more states. It is time now for the Supreme Court to uphold these American values for all loving and committed couples."

With Chafee's signature, same-sex couples will be able to obtain civil marriage licenses starting Aug. 1. 

[Photo 1: Gov. Lincoln Chafee signs the marriage-equality bills into law (video feed courtesy of Capitol TV, R.I. General Assembly). Photo 2: Screenshot of the vote tally for the final House vote (video courtesy of Capitol TV, R.I. General Assembly).] ..