Pam's House Blend - DOMA

How will GLAD's victory in the DOMA Section 3 challenge affect me?

Lurleen — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:00:00 GMT

Today, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in US District Court as part of their response to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Motion to Dismiss Gill v. OPM, a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA. DOMA Section 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. The DOJ has until December 4th to respond to today's filings.

Regardless of how the US District Court judge rules, GLAD expects the decision to be appealed to the 1st Circuit Court and perhaps ultimately to the United States Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case.

If GLAD is ultimately successful, the natural question is "how will the ruling affect me?"
How will the ruling affect you? According to GLAD attorneys Mary Bonauto and Gary Buseck*, the answer is a bit complicated and somewhat open-ended. It will depend to a large degree on whether it is the 1st Circuit or the United States Supreme Court (USSC) that makes the final ruling, as well as where you live. *The following is my lay understanding of Mary & Gary's explanation, and any errors are mine.

The USA and territories have been divvied up into 11 United States Court of Appeals "Circuits". After the US District Court judge rules, Gill will be appealed to the 1st Circuit, which includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island. If the 1st Circuit determines that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional and rules in the Plaintiff's (our) favor and the decision is not stayed pending appeal to the USSC, Gill plaintiffs would get immediate relief with respect to their specific complaints.

The effect on other people living in the 1st Circuit will probably depend on whether their state or territory recognizes their marriage. The general rule is that the federal government looks to the state of residence to determine marriage status when someone applies for federal benefits. For example, if I want to sponsor my lawfully wedded wife for US citizenship and we live in one of the 1st Circuit states that doesn't recognize us as married (Maine, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island), the federal government will still see us as legal strangers because our state of residence does. But if we live in Massachusetts or New Hampshire (after 1/1/10), the federal government will consider us married because those states do.

There would probably be no immediate effect on the ability of married same-sex couples living in other Circuits, even in marriage equality states like (California), Connecticut, Iowa or Vermont, in their ability to access marriage-related federal benefits. A ruling in one circuit that a federal law is unconstitutional doesn't automatically strike that law in other circuits. This causes a "conflict of circuits", where the law may be applied differently in different circuits until Congress repeals the law or the USSC steps in.

If the case is appealed to the USSC and they rule in our favor, DOMA Section 3 will become history and all married couples living in states which recognize their marriage will also be recognized by the federal government as married for purposes of federal law.

Because Gill does not challenge DOMA Section 2, the section which allows states to disrespect marriages from other states, the only way married couples living in anti-equality states will get access to the federal benefits of marriage is if Congress repeals Section 2 or the USSC strikes it down via a different lawsuit.

In September, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R.3567), a bill that would not only repeal DOMA entirely but would also explicitly remove the state-to-state portability problem for same-sex couples. H.R.3567 currently has 104 House co-sponsors but as yet there is no Senate companion bill.

REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.
SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''§ 7. Marriage
''(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
''(b) In this section, the term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.''

The approval of Washington's domestic partnership law by voters on Nov. 3rd was an incredible victory. Yet, states that relegate same-sex couples to domestic partnerships, civil unions or reciprocal beneficiaries still fail them in one very important way: by withholding the word marriage, they fail to ask the federal government to confer the 1138 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to these couples.

Success of Gill, like the landmark Goodridge case, will be ground-breaking. But it won't be the end of the story for any of us. We need to keep nibbling away at this problem along all the edges: employers, local law, state law, federal law, court challenges and keeping up the dialogue with future straight allies. If our allies don't know we still face major hurdles, they won't be there to help us. Keep them in the loop, and remind them to come out to their straight friends too.

GLAD Files Motion Challenging Govt Motion to Dismiss "Gill", DOMA Section 3

Louise — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:00:00 GMT

New Press Release from GLAD:

GLAD Forcefully Responds to U.S. Motion to Dismiss DOMA Lawsuit; Seeks Final Ruling in Favor of Plaintiff Couples
Stepping up its litigation challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts both an opposition to the federal government's motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and a motion for summary judgment seeking a final ruling on the law in favor of the plaintiffs.

"Both sides agree that our plaintiffs have taken on the commitments of marriage, played by the rules, paid into the system, and been denied benefits because of DOMA," says GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck.
"Now we're asking the court to say once and for all that the federal government must end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples."

"While the government has rightly abandoned the reasons Congress relied on in passing DOMA in 1996, it now seeks to dismiss our case by arguing that DOMA "maintains the status quo,"" says Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD Civil Rights Project Director.
"The reality is that DOMA itself radically changed the status quo by which the federal government recognized and accepted state determinations of who is married. There is no valid excuse for the federal discrimination imposed by DOMA and this can be resolved now and without a trial."

GLAD argues that under Equal Protection guarantees, there is no justification for splitting married people into two classes: those who are "married" under federal law and those whose marriages do not exist for any federal purposes.

"We believe that DOMA should receive 'heightened scrutiny' from the District Court for many reasons, including because it deliberately targets gay men and lesbians," said Bonauto.

More specifically, GLAD argues that

DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into the states' traditional roles in determining the marital status of its citizens.
By prohibiting married same-sex couples from accessing the safety net, the federal government provides for all other married couples, DOMA Section 3 unfairly burdens their ability to protect and care for their families.
By targeting gay men and lesbians, DOMA discriminates explicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. GLAD argues that any discrimination based upon a person's sexual orientation should be viewed with suspicion by the court.

These legal arguments are supported by affidavits from each plaintiff confirming the facts previously established in the case and showing the intangible, often painful, burdens of federal discrimination. In addition, expert affidavits establish why discrimination based on sexual orientation discrimination should be closely reviewed by courts. Supporting expert affidavits include those by:

George Chauncey, Ph.D., professor of history at Yale University. Dr. Chauncey demonstrates that gay, lesbian and bisexual people historically have been subject to widespread and significant discrimination and hostility;
Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis. Dr. Herek explains that sexual orientation is immutable and that it bears no inherent relation to a person's ability to perform, contribute to, or participate in society;
Gary M. Segura, Ph.D., professor of American politics at Stanford University. Dr. Segura demonstrates that gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power and are therefore politically vulnerable; and
Michael Lamb, Ph.D., professor of psychology at Cambridge University. Dr. Lamb establishes that the children of same-sex parents are equally well-adjusted as those with different-sex parents.

GLAD also takes on all the claimed government interests invoked by the Congress when passing DOMA in 1996. As the brief points out,

"The reasons offered by Congress at the time, which the government sensibly does not even try to defend, are either nonsensical or just another way of saying that Congress wanted to denounce and impose harm on those gay men and lesbians who form long-term relationships and seek to have those relationships recognized and respected.
For example, it is absurd to suggest that barring federal recognition of marriages of same-sex couples will somehow promote responsible procreation. And the government itself has determined that DOMA, while excluding Plaintiffs and others like them from important federal programs designed to support couples and families, does not even produce net savings to the U.S. Treasury."

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management was filed on March 3, 2009 on behalf of 8 married same-sex couples and three widowers, all of whom had been harmed by DOMA.
GLAD's legal team is led by Mary Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, and Staff Attorneys Nima Eshghi, Janson Wu and Legal Fellow Samuel Bickett. Co-operating counsel on the case include Foley Hoag LLP (Boston), Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC (Washington, DC).
Full information about GLAD's response and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management is available at http://www.glad.org/doma/respo...
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization devoted to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
###

Motion for Summary Judgment

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment

Statement of Non-Adjudicative Facts

Statement of Undisputed Facts

Fed DOMA may leave LGBT couples out in the cold re: health care reform benefits

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:55:31 GMT

Here we go again -- as the House vote on the $894 billion health care reform plan is looming on Saturday, a teensy problem affecting LGBTs seems to have cropped up in the language of the bill that will leave eligibility at the whim and interpretation of the Health Choices Commissioner position. (Wash Blade):

[T]he bill, H.R. 3962, uses the terms "family" and "dependent," and advocates say the new Health Choices Commissioner - a position established in the legislation to oversee the insurance exchange - could interpret this language to mean someone's opposite-sex spouse, but not a same-sex spouse.
For example, the section describing the retiree reinsurance program - for which employer-based programs could submit claims to the government - says claims could be made on "employment based health benefits provided to a retiree or to the spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent of a retiree."
Brian Moulton, the Human Rights Campaign's chief legislative counsel, said the term "dependent" and "family" in the bill are "fairly open-ended" and "leave a lot of discretion to the new commissioner to define them."
"Certainly, there is some use of the term 'spouse' in the bill in some of the provisions, and certainly DOMA would control that definition of spouse," he said. "I think there are some areas where there's a potential there won't be access to some of the benefits."

Do you trust that this administration will put a person in this position that will interpret this language broadly or narrowly, given a broad interpretation will turn up the right wing spin machine?

Jerilyn Goodman, a [Tammy] Baldwin spokesperson, also said the Health Choices Commissioner could interpret "dependent" in a way that excludes same-sex couples.
"H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act, does have the potential to interact with DOMA and affect the LGBT community," she said. "Whether that is positive or negative, however, depends almost entirely on the administration." Another Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said it's "up to the administration" to determine whether same-sex couples would be included in some parts of health care reform. "Clearly, the only way to ... ensure equality across the board is to repeal DOMA," said the aide.

That said, there are key provisions in the bill that do take LGBTs and those dealing with HIV/AIDS into consideration, including:

• general non-discrimination language inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity that prohibits discrimination by health insurers;
• a provision enabling a new assistant secretary for health information to collect health data on disparate populations, including the LGBT community, and to open public health programs and grants focused on health disparities to cover the LGBT population;
• language eliminating taxes on employer provided health coverage for LGBT people who receive coverage from a same-sex partner under an employer's plan;
• a provision allowing people with AIDS to count drugs they receive from AIDS Drug Assistance Programs toward out-of-pocket costs to qualify them for Medicare Part D catastrophic benefits;
• and language permitting state Medicaid programs to cover low-income people with HIV before they develop AIDS.

Click over and read the rest. It's an interesting mix of reactions to the dance that Congress is doing here; given the minimal notice that has been given in the MSM regarding LGBTs and the health care reform bill (as opposed to the right's fixation on access to abortion, for instance), I'm glad this language is out here to evaluate before the vote.

Open thread: discussion about Nadler live blog on DOMA repeal bill

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:50:00 GMT

UPDATE: Nadler answered the question that I discussed with Joe earlier:

Q: Can you explain the value of submitting DOMA repeal legislation even if it's not likely to pass this session? Finally putting the issue on the table seems to give us a sense of which elected officials are with us -- and who isn't there yet. What are other benefits from your perspective?
Nadler: First, even if DOMA repeal is not likely to pass this session, we must begin the fight if we are eventually to repeal it. Introducing repeal legislation, as Pam said, enables us to find out who is with us and who we need to work on. We begin now a period of outreach and political organizing to bring about eventual passage. The sooner we begin the fight, the sooner we will prevail.

Join people over at Americablog for a live chat with Congressman Jerrold Nadler at 2PM ET. This thread is an open chat for reactions. Some information on what will be discussed is below.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) recently introduced a bill to repeal DOMA, filed as The Respect for Marriage Act.

REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.
SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''§ 7. Marriage
''(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
''(b) In this section, the term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.''

Rep. Nadler noted on his own site that the range of supports is indicative of the need to repeal the law:

Among the bill's backers are former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law in 1996, and former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), who first introduced DOMA. They join the dozens of civil rights organizations and 91 original co-sponsors of the bill who are pushing for a full repeal of DOMA.
Today, President Clinton said: "I want to thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership on this issue, and Reps. Baldwin, Polis, Conyers, Lewis, Velazquez and Lee, for introducing the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind. When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy."
Today, Bob Barr said: "I join with former President Bill Clinton in commending Rep. Jerry Nadler for introducing the 'Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.' This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted. Rep. Nadler's legislation would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and by so doing, remove the federal government from involving itself in matters of defining 'marriage,' which historically and according to principles of federalism, are properly state matters and not federal."

One elected official not supporting the bill is Rep. Barney Frank. Read why below the fold.

Frank has two major beefs with the bill: 1) he fears the timing of the introduction will distract from other LGBT priorities - hate crimes, ENDA, domestic partner benefits for federal employees, and repealing "don't ask, don't tell" - all of which he says can be accomplished in this two-year Congressional session; and 2) he believes the "certainty provision," which guarantees that the federal government will recognize legally performed same-sex marriages regardless of which state you live in, is strategically problematic.
Mr. Chairman started by declining to cosponsor the bill, then he said, "Given that there is zero chance of this bill becoming law in the near future, it is a mistake to explicitly introduce this crossing state lines issue."
By Friday, he was telling Roll Call newspaper , "I do think it can complicate things electorally for Members ... People will interpret this as exporting marriage."
For anyone hoping the new Respect of Marriage Act (RMA) might gain a little traction this Congress, Frank's statements tilted the toxicity meter. A number of activists lamented that he had given his Democratic and Republican counterparts a perfect reason not to back the legislation.

As I told Joe Sudbay today, if Frank wants to take that POV, he's entitled, but what can be gained by tossing a bone to the right wing like that? Has he unlearned the use of the appropriate phrase "no comment"? When I attended Equality Alabama's gala on Saturday night and witnessed the keynote of civil rights hero and ally Rep. John Lewis, it made me weep wondering why the passion with which Lewis acts on our behalf -- talking and walking the walk -- is so flaccid among our own leaders; they are content to cocktail party their way to equality. (Read Rod McCullom's post about Lewis's inspirational speech.)

In any case, folks should drop by Americablog for the chat. I've asked Joe to ask Rep. Nadler to describe the value of submitting repeal legislation even if it will likely fail -- people need to hear that putting the issue on the table ensures that elected officials have to show their hand and own their positions. And that is valuable work to open up dialogue between constituents and those pols.

Related:
* Frank bio: Barney Frank's 'Left-Handed Gay Jew' No Tell-All"

DOJ files motion to dismiss GLAD's anti-DOMA Gill v. Office of Personnel Development

Lurleen — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Today the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Development, GLAD's lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA Sec. 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing legally married couples if the spouses aren't of different sexes.

As in other DOMA-related filings from the Obama administration, the DOJ insists that it is required to defend DOMA, even though the president deems it onerous.

As the President has stated previously, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.

Uh huh. Whatever. At least they didn't compare my civil marriage to incest this time, according to Chris Geidner. Progress?

GLAD responds:

Nothing in the government's brief is unexpected, and nothing in it addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states' determination that people are married. We disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that's a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection.
This case is about seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can't get on their spouse's health plan, for parents who can't file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children's education or family emergencies. We're pleased that the issues have now been joined and the case is moving toward resolution, because every day, an increasing number of families - not just our plaintiffs - are being harmed by DOMA.
We're proud of this case the National Law Journal has called "carefully planned" and the case with the potential to have "the greatest national impact". There's a long road ahead, and we will keep you posted of all the developments along the way.

Here's what happens next, according to an e-mail from GLAD.

So, at this point we have 14 days to file an opposition to the motion dismiss. The government will then file a reply to our opposition. After that, our first hearing will be scheduled, and we can expect that to take place early next year. Having said all of that, it's possible that both sides will get and receive extensions on that schedule.

In other words, stay tuned.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler discusses the Respect for Marriage Act on Air America

Lurleen — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:00:00 GMT

H/T Blender Shelley.

Jack Rice interviewed Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on Tuesday about the just-filed Respect for Marriage Act (H.R.3567) that would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. The interview does a great job covering the basics.

I can't figure out how to embed the audio file, but you can listen here. A full transcript is below the fold.

Jack Rice: One of the co-sponsors of this bill is Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat out of New York. Congressman, thank you for joining me.
Jerrold Nadler: Pleasure.
Rice: This has been introduced today by you and a group of others. First of all lets talk about what DOMA is, what the Defense of Marriage Act actually talks about in terms of the willingness not to recognize gay marriage, but beyond that. Talk to me about that.
Nadler: Well Defense of Marriage Act essentially says two things. One, it says that one state need not recognize the gay marriage entered into in another state, and secondly and frankly more importantly at this stage of the game, it says that the federal government - it says that for federal purposes, a marriage consists of only the union of a man and a woman, and the federal government will not recognize and give any of the federal benefits of marriage to anyone other than a man and a woman, even if you're legally married. So if you;re legally married, if a gay couple is legally married in Massachusetts, for example, the federal government won't let them file joint taxes, or have joint Social Security or anything else.
Rice: So we have two sides. We have the acknowledgment side and we have the right side. With the repeal...
Nadler: We have the more very practical side. In other words, it's not just theoretical. If you're a gay couple and you're married legally in Massachusetts or eh, the federal government will not permit you to do many many things. It will not permit you to jointly file income taxes. It will not permit you to have your Social Security go to your partner should you die, and disability - all kinds of things. And couples are harmed bu this every day.
Rice: I have friends of mine who were married in Massachusetts, a same-sex couples, who've had this very same problem right now on a nationwide bases. So we have the two sides. We have the sort of acknowledgment side, and then the right side of this. With the repeal of this, what is it you're trying to accomplish, both?
Nadler: Well, what we're trying to accomplish basically, is that if you're married legally, the federal... Well first of all let me just say that historically the federal government never defined marriage. The federal government said that if Massachusetts or New York says you're married, you're married as far as we're concerned. And we just want to restore that. So tho say that if you get legally married in any state, then for federal purposes you're married, you get all the benefits of it.
Rice: No matter where you are.
Nadler: No matter where you are, that's right. There's one provision. Besides simply repealing DOMA, we don't want a situation where you get married in Massachusetts, you're legally married there. Your company transfers you to Nebraska, so the federal government doesn't recognize you as legally married because Nebraska doesn't recognize it. Then you go to New York and you're married again, then you go to New Jersey and you're not. That doesn't make any sense.
Rice: So all of a sudden move to Nebraska and I look at my wife and I'm saying "Sorry Baby, I'm sorry I'm a single man..."
Nadler: Well for federal purposes, so what my bill says, the Respect For Marriage Act says is that the federal government will recognize you as married if your marriage was valid in the state or foreign country or wherever where it was entered into.
Rice: Now as I understand it, President Obama has said he is not for gay marriage. However, he is for at least that second part of the repealing of DOMA.
Nadler: He is for repealing DOMA period. He has had he's for repealing DOMA in its entirety.
Rice: Then why isn't everybody else lining up behind this? I mean that I understand that Barney Frank isn't...
Nadler: Well, we have a tremendous number lining up. Every gay rights and human rights group in creation is lined up behind this bill - every civil rights group basically. We've got over 90 co-sponsors in I think 3 or 4 days, so I think we have very very broad support at this point.
Rice: Do you feel like this is something that can actually happen? I've been talking to republicans who I know who feel like, ooh this is a state, that's the first argument that I hear from them. And that this is an example of the gays chipping away, you know what I mean.
Nadler: Well what this bill does is take the federal government out of it. All this bill does is say look traditionally, the federal government never defined marriage, never said who could get married or not, but for purposes of the federal law can you file joint income taxes, can you get Social Security if your spouse should die or whatever, um, who's yous spouse? The federal government said that's up to the state, and that's all we're doing again. All this bill does is restores the old standard.
Rice: What's interesting about this again is I was in California during the whole Proposition 8 fight, and what I heard from some of the conservatives out there was, we're trying to protect marriage, we don't wanna deny gay people rights. It would seem to me that they would stand behind what you're saying too, wouldn't they?
Nadler: Well they should logically, but logic doesn't often enter into this.
Rice: Amen.
Nadler: The very title of the old Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which we're trying to repeal, then defend marriage against what?
Rice: Congressman, it's like the PATRIOT Act.
Nadler: Now, when DOMA was passed there were no legally-married gay couples in the United States. And it was, em, opponents could demonize gay couples and say that gay marriage would threaten straight marriage in some unspecified way. But now we've had years of experience, tens of thousands of gay couples are legally married in various states. The sky has not fallen, as other people said it would. In fact, nothing has happened, nothing at all, to marriage. In fact the divorce rate has gone down in states where there's gay marriage. Not because of that, but it shows that anyone who says that this threatens marriage is in some way is wrong.
Rice: If I'm not mistaken I think there were 48,000 married couples that continue to be married out in California. As I've said many many times, if anyone wants to weaken my marriage, it's usually me by my insensitivity and my unwillingness to pick up my own underwear. I've never quite understood this idea that gay marriage is going to weaken it.
What's the expectation, what's the timeline on your introduction of this?
Nadler: Well there is no timeline. There are a number of bills that have been, that are well down the legislative process, and we hope to complete them in this Congress. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, perhaps Don't Ask Dont' Tell, the Hate Crimes act, Tammy Baldwin's bill on domestic partnership rights for married, you know for federal employees. Those are well down the road and will probably be finished first. This bill is brand new just as of today, we have a lot of work to do, a lot of education to do, and I have no doubt it will pass eventually. Our task is to make it as soon as possible, but I can't give you any timelines yet. We're about 4 hours into a marathon at this point.
Rice: Yeah I know a lot of people have been looking at and talking about this. Representative Barney Frank has said he will not sign on as a co-sponsor. Can you explain the logic behind that for me?
Nadler: No, I do not understand the logic, and you really have to ask Barney.
Rice: For you, what's the expectation on the other side of the isle? Obviously you will get the majority in the House. On the Senate side, have you heard anything on the Senate side what will happen?
Nadler: Well we're having conversations with a number of senators. I'm not at liberty to reveal them. We do expect that the bill will be introduced into the Senate within a reasonable time.
Rice: Have you heard anything from President Obama when it comes to this. As you've said and he said it before that he would move to repeal this. He's had problems with the gay community. They've felt that he's been lukewarm at best, They said he said he was the best friend that they had, and since that time they have been lukewarm.
Nadler: Well he recently said, and I'll quote him, I stand by my longstanding commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it intereferes with states' rights and it's time we overturned it. Unquote. And the bill we introduced today, the Respect for Marriage Act, really honors the president's pledge, and we look forward to working with the administration on the bill.
I must say that while we were at the press conference, we received a statement in support from President Clinton, former President Clinton.
Rice: Would you like to see something specifically regarding this bill from President Obama?
Nadler: Well he already has given us...
Rice: But is there something he could do now to help push this forward. Obviously we;re, everybody's been focusing on the health care question, but we have other problems...
Nadler: Well he's going to continue to focus on the health care question. Look, we're starting a campaign that's going to last a while for the bill. The administration said they support this, we look forward to them showing that support over time. Um, and that's really all we can say at this point. We have to start, we started of with 90, 91 cosponsors in a couple days, we'll get more. We'll get the bill introduced in the Senate, and we'll go on from there.
Rice: Congressman, thank you very much for joining me.
Nadler: You're quite welcome.

Filed: The Respect for Families Act DOMA repeal bill

Lurleen — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:02:25 GMT

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) today filed the "Respect for Families Act", or DOMA repeal bill. Significantly, this bill calls for a full repeal. DOMA has two functional parts, one that prevents the federal government from recognizing marriages between two people of the same sex, and another that allows states to ignore s-s marriages from other states if they choose to. In Congressman Nadler's press release

The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.
The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation's leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples.
The Respect of Marriage Act would accomplish this by repealing DOMA in its entirety and by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which embraces the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized. While this rule governs recognition of marriage for purposes of federal law, marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state.
The Respect for Marriage Act would not tell any state who can marry or how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law, and would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex. It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple's marriage for purposes of state law.

Responses of some of the major LGBT and civil equality organizations (and a NOMskull or two) are below.
Update: Tammy Baldwin's statement is directly below the fold.
Tammy Baldwin:

Statement of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (W-WI)
Press Conference Introducing the Respect for Marriage Act
To Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
September 15, 2009
"In support of families throughout the nation, the legislation we're introducing today will extend to legally married same-sex couples the same federal rights and recognition now offered to heterosexual married couples - nothing more, nothing less.
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is a long overdue and important step on the road to full equality for LGBT Americans.
Same-sex couples are now legally married in six states, and New York and the District of Colombia recognize these out-of-state marriages.
For the federal government to deny any legally married couple the hundreds of benefits and responsibilities that help protect their families is discrimination - plain and simple.
Defining marriage has never been a prerogative of the federal government; it has been a states issue. Congress and the federal government have historically deferred to states to craft public policy around who can legally marry, as well as whether to refuse to recognize an out-of-state marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act clearly interferes with the rights of states to define and regulate marriage as they see fit. DOMA was wrong-headed when Congress passed it in 1996 and it is wrong today. This type of unfairness has no place in American society and I am very pleased we are introducing legislation to repeal this backward law.
This year, we have a President who is committed to repealing DOMA and a growing majority of Americans who understand that denying legal protections to their neighbors because a family has two dads or two moms is simply un-American.
Nothing in the Respect for Marriage Act forces one state to recognize a valid marriage performed by another state, and nothing in the Act obligates any person, religious organization, locality, or state to celebrate or license a marriage between two persons of the same sex.
I am proud to be among the 91 Members of Congress who are original cosponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act."

Advocate

Respect For Marriage Act Debuts
Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York announced Tuesday to announce the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would fully repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
By Kerry Eleveld
Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York -- flanked by out Representatives Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jared Polis of Colorado as well as a wide swath of LGBT advocacy groups -- held a press conference Tuesday to announce the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would fully repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
"Today, we celebrate the first step toward overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and sending that ugly law into the history books where it belongs," said Nadler, adding that the new RMA bill has 91 original cosponsors.
Nadler later read a statement from former President Bill Clinton thanking Reps. Nadler, Baldwin, Polis, John Conyers of Michigan, John Lewis of Georgia, Nydia Velazquez of New York and Barbara Lee of California, for introducing the legislation. Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. ...
The bill would repeal all three sections of DOMA -- which federally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman -- including section one, which is the name; section two, which instructs states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and section three, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legally performed same-sex marriages.
As Rep. Baldwin put it at the press conference, "The legislation we're introducing today will legally extend to legally married same-sex couples the same federal rights and recognitions now offered to heterosexual couples -- nothing more, nothing less."

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders

With the filing today of the DOMA repeal bill, the "Respect for Families Act", Lee Swislow, Executive Director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders issued the following statement of support:
Our view is that every branch of government should be engaged in the process of getting rid of this discriminatory law. Every day we see the damage DOMA causes families in the states, denying them access to the federal safety net, penalizing them financially, and rendering them second-class. We need to engage all levels of government in ending this discrimination.

Along with dozens of other groups, GLAD has signed a letter of support for the bill. The letter is being delivered to members of Congress today.
On behalf of eight Massachusetts married same-sex couples and three widowers, GLAD filed Gill et al v OPM et al in March of this year, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of Justice's response to GLAD's amended complaint is due this Friday, September 18, 2009.
Link to PDF

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Task Force: 'Respect for Marriage Act' marks 'step toward closing an ugly chapter in our nation's history'
Applauds today's introduction of legislation to repeal discriminatory 'Defense of Marriage Act'
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund applauds today's introduction of the "Respect for Marriage Act," which would repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act," a 1996 law requiring the federal government to single out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying those couples more than 1,100 federal protections and responsibilities that otherwise apply to married couples. U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) Jared Polis (D-Colo.), along with Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), John Lewis (D-Ga.), Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), introduced the DOMA repeal measure today. Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey spoke at the press conference announcing the introduction of the "Respect for Marriage Act."
Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
"We thank Reps. Nadler, Baldwin, Polis, Conyers, Lewis, Velazquez and Lee for introducing this bill to dismantle one of the most discriminatory and far-reaching laws to emerge against our community: the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act.'
"DOMA is and has always been an immoral attack on same-sex couples, our families and our fundamental humanity. This hateful law has only served to discriminate against people and belittle our country's heralded values of freedom, fairness and justice. It is long past time to repeal DOMA, which has left a moral scar on this country. Today marks an important step toward closing an ugly chapter in our nation's history, and for working to ensure same-sex couples and our families are treated fairly. Too many families have been hurt for far too long because of DOMA.
"We at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, along with people all across the country - from every town and every background - recognize that our entire nation benefits when everyone is allowed to contribute their talents and skills, free from discrimination. That's why we are urging for passage of the 'Respect for Marriage Act.'"
Read Rea Carey's full remarks from today's press conference here.

People For the American Way

Legislation to Dump DOMA Introduced in Congress
Legislation to repeal the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) was introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York. People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan issued the following statement:
"The introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA is a necessary step in the direction of fairness and equality for all Americans. It's long past time to get rid of laws designed specifically to discriminate against same-sex couples. In states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont, same-sex couples who are legally married are being denied federal protections that their neighbors take for granted, and that causes real harm. Americans don't want to hurt their friends and neighbors, but that's exactly what DOMA does.
"As Congress continues to progress in passing legislation outlawing hate crimes, workplace discrimination and ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' it should also move as soon as possible to repeal DOMA so that LGBT Americans are afforded equality in America.

National Center for Lesbian Rights and National Black Justice Coalition

NCLR and NBJC Hail Introduction of Congressional DOMA Repeal
(San Francisco, California, September 15, 2009) - The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and the National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC) applaud lawmakers for introducing legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples. Through DOMA, the federal government selectively denies same-sex couples more than 1,100 federal protections and responsibilities, including Social Security and immigration benefits, that apply to all other married couples.
The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in the House by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO). The bill has 91 co-sponsors.
"DOMA is discriminatory and harmful to families," said NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell. "Married same-sex couples pay taxes, serve their communities, struggle to balance work and family, and raise children and care for aging parents like other Americans. Their contributions and needs are no different than anyone else's and their relationships deserve the dignity and protection of federal recognition."
The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal both sections 2 and 3 of DOMA. Section 2 creates an exception to the full faith and credit clause for married same-sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act would eliminate that provision, but it would leave each state free to decide whether to recognize marriages of same-sex couples from other states. Section 3 excludes same-sex spouses from all federal benefits and protections, including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to file joint taxes, and the right to petition for permanent residence for a foreign spouse. The Respect for Marriage Act would require that the federal government treat all married couples equally.
"DOMA is an egregious piece of legislation as it codifies discrimination into federal law. As African Americans, we know all too well the injustices that laws such as this impose on our communities and our families. We encourage the Congressional Black Caucus to join us in calling for its repeal," said Jason Bartlett, Deputy Director of the National Black Justice Coalition. "As African Americans, we are sensitive to the federal government trying to define our families. Let us consign the mistakes of the past to history and move forward together. We call on Congress to pass the Respect to Marriage Act as we continue to fight for our civil rights."
On June 17, 2009, President Barack Obama said, "I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with states' rights, and it's time we overturned it." The President reiterated his support for the repeal of DOMA in an August 17, 2009 White House statement.
NCLR worked in close cooperation with other groups and lead co-sponsors to help define the scope of the bill to repeal DOMA and to secure federal respect for the marriages of same-sex couples. NCLR supports the legislative repeal, as well as the legal overturn, of DOMA.
DOMA was signed into law on September 21, 1996.

Lambda Legal

Lambda Legal Calls for Swift Passage of Respect for Marriage Act
"It's long past time for DOMA to go."
(New York, September 15, 2009) - Today at a Capitol Hill press conference announcing the introduction of a bill to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Lambda Legal's Executive Director Kevin Cathcart and a Lambda Legal plaintiff couple from the Iowa marriage equality victory lawsuit called for the bill's passage.
"It is long past time for DOMA to go," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal. "When DOMA passed in 1996 it was a gratuitous slap in the face. But now, 13 years later, there are thousands of married same-sex couples who are hurt by this law. We've come a long way in 13 years and the federal government shouldn't be in the business of deciding that some married couples are worthy of federal respect and others are not. Married same-sex couples pay federal taxes just like everyone else and have a right to the same respect, important benefits and protections as everyone else."
The Respect for Marriage Act is sponsored by Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan and two openly gay members of Congress, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado.
"We applaud the bill's sponsors for their leadership and call on all fair-minded congressional members to support this bill," Cathcart added.
Jen and Dawn BarbouRoske, a married same-sex couple from Iowa City, Iowa, and their two daughters McKinley, 11 and Breanna, 7, were plaintiffs in Lambda Legal's lawsuit which resulted in the Iowa marriage victory this spring. The family spoke at the press conference about why federal respect of their marriage is important to them.
"We've been together for nearly 20 years and when we got married this summer, we got the same license and undertook the same responsibilities as every other married couple in our state," said Jen BarbouRoske. "Why is the federal government labeling our marriage as undeserving of the same federal respect and protections that our married neighbors have? When Dawn and I do our federal tax return next year, our own government will tell us to lie and say we're not married. But we are, and the government that takes the same taxes and Social Security deductions from our paychecks as from everyone else's, should give us the same legal rights, too."

Our good friend Brian of NOM with some "blessings"

URGENT ALERT: DOMA Repeal Introduced in Congress! September 15, 2009
Dear X,
The attack on DOMA has begun.
Today, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act -- the only federal law protecting the marriage statutes of 44 states. Reports indicate he has at least 69 co-sponsors in this effort to undercut state marriage laws.
We've known this day would come. President Obama has been advocating the repeal of DOMA since his first day in office. Gay marriage activists have debated the strategy and timing for pushing the bill in Congress.
And we're ready. Already, we are more than 500,000 strong as Americans from every walk of life have joined our ranks to stand firm against radical efforts to force same-sex marriage in every state. Our goal is 2 million Americans by the end of 2010. If each of us were to tell just three friends about TwoMillionforMarriage.com, we'd reach our goal in mere days.
Now it's time to speak truth to power! Gay marriage advocates are divided on DOMA -- even Rep. Barney Frank thinks the DOMA repeal bill is overreaching and has refused to support it. Now is our chance to send a clear message to Congress that will galvanize opposition to the DOMA repeal, and help sway those who are on the fence. The message is simple: Don't mess with marriage.
Just a few years ago, gay marriage advocates spoke of "state's rights" and a "gay marriage experiment" in a handful of states. Obviously, they didn't believe a word of it, and today they want to force same-sex marriage on every state in the nation, "like it or not."
Marriage isn't about inside-the-Beltway opportunism, or scoring political points. It's about honesty and integrity. Protecting children and religious liberty.
The need is urgent. I'm asking you to do three things right now:
1) Visit www.[redacted].com and send a message to Washington. Use our online form to contact your Senators, Congressman, as well as congressional leadership, and tell them "Don't Mess with Marriage." Even if you've emailed before, let's flood the Capitol with phone calls and emails today, urging our congressmen to oppose Rep. Nadler's DOMA repeal bill.
2) Tell three friends about this new threat to DOMA, and ask them to join us at [redacted].com today! Or just forward this email to people in your address book -- it's simple, fast, and amazingly effective. We're already 500,000 strong, and together we can stop this bill in its tracks!
3) Help support our TwoMillionforMarriage campaign today. Over the next six months, we need to raise another $1.5 million to fully fund our multi-faceted campaign to recruit 2 million Americans to join us in protecting DOMA. Using TV, radio, internet, telephone, email and direct mail efforts, we are identifying tens of thousands of new marriage activists who have never before been politically involved, but who care about marriage and are willing to do what it takes to stop courts and politicians from trampling the will of the American people. Your gift of $25, $50, or even $1000 if you're able, will help ensure that we reach our goal. Click here to make a secure online donation today.
I'm simply in awe at the outpouring of encouragement and new supporters we keep seeing every day. To those of you who have been with us for a long time -- thank you! And keep up the good work. Together we're getting the message out and making a difference all across the country. And for those of you new to our efforts -- Welcome! We're so glad you've joined us, and look forward to working together in this fight for marriage.
The threat is real, and increasingly urgent. Please take action right now. Don't put it off. Let's make sure Congress gets our message loud and clear today.
Brian Brown
Blessings,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542

Freedom to Marry

Nadler, Baldwin and Polis Introduce the Respect for Marriage Act to Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Civil Rights advocates and LGBT Americans herald new legislation to overturn one of the nation's most discriminatory laws
"In America, we don't have second-class citizens and we shouldn't have second-class marriages either." -Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry
New York, September 15, 2009 - Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), with a total of 91 original co-sponsors to date, introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.
The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.
The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation's leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples.
The Respect of Marriage Act would accomplish this by repealing DOMA in its entirety and by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which embraces the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized. While this rule governs recognition of marriage for purposes of federal law, marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state.
The Respect for Marriage Act would not tell any state who can marry or how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law, and would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex. It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple's marriage for purposes of state law.
Supporters of DOMA argued in 1996 that the law is necessary to promote family structures that are best for children, but every credible medical, social science and child welfare organization has concluded that same-sex couples are equal parents. Married gay and lesbian couples pay taxes, serve their communities and raise children like other couples. Their contributions and needs are no different from those of their neighbors. The Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that couples who assume the serious legal duties of marriage are treated fairly under federal law.
The introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act responds directly to a call from President Obama for Congressional action on the issue. As the President recently confirmed: "I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it."
Standing with the Members of Congress today were couples who have been harmed by DOMA, numerous members of the clergy, and many of the nation's leading LGBT and civil rights organizations - including Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Freedom to Marry, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, People for the American Way, and the National Organization of Women. Also supportive of this legislation, and of this particular strategy for repealing DOMA, are the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who are leading the litigation efforts challenging DOMA in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.
"So-called 'DOMA' was a radical departure from the way federal government has treated married couples throughout most of American history. It makes more sense to respect marriages than to destabilize them. In America, we don't have second-class citizens and we shouldn't have second-class marriages either," said Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry.
"The full repeal of DOMA is long overdue," said Rep. Nadler. "When DOMA was passed in 1996, its full harm may not have been apparent to all Members of Congress because same-sex couples were not yet able to marry. It was a so-called 'defense' against a hypothetical harm. This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families. Now, in 2009, we have tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, living openly, raising families and paying taxes in states that have granted them the right to marry, and it has become abundantly clear that, while the sky has not fallen on the institution of marriage, as DOMA supporters had claimed, DOMA is causing these couples concrete and lasting harm. Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy. But, with a President who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law."
"In support of families throughout the nation, our legislation will extend to same-sex, legally married couples the same federal rights and recognition now offered to heterosexual married couples, nothing more, nothing less," said Rep. Baldwin, Co-Chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus. "As we continually strive to form a more perfect Union, repealing DOMA is a necessary step toward full equality for LGBT Americans."
"No one should be denied the opportunity to choose his or her spouse," said Rep. Polis. "It is a basic human right and deeply personal decision. Throughout history, we have only moved forward when society has distinguished between traditional values and valueless traditions. The Defense of Marriage Act - DOMA - is a valueless tradition that undermines the spirit of love and commitment that couples share and sends the wrong message to society. It is time for its repeal."
"Respecting the dignity of every human being and the people's right to freely make decisions about their own lives is in keeping with the most sacred and fundamental principles of our democracy," said Rep. Lewis. "That is what made the Defense of Marriage Act so wrong. From the founding of this nation, we made exceptions to this high moral mandate, and as our history shows, it has always led to the gravest injustice. Before we travel too far down the wrong path, we must right this wrong. We must repeal DOMA and put in its place federal action that restores the integrity of our democracy. Over the years, thousands have paid the price to make this a more open, inclusive society. We must not turn back. We must progress to that point where we seek to build a national community at peace with itself."
"We must work to promote fairness, tolerance and justice for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation," said Rep. Velazquez. "The Respect for Marriage Act will help to ensure that the rights provided to married couples are extended across state lines and without prejudice."
"The so called Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and unfair and denies fundamental civil liberties to countless families across America," said Rep. Lee. "Gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans deserve nothing less that equal protection under the law."
"The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a hurtful and cynical law enacted to discriminate against loving, committed same-sex couples. It does real harm by denying thousands of lawfully-married same-sex couples the federal rights and benefits that only flow through marriage. Many of these include the protections couples turn to in times of need, like Social Security survivors' benefits, medical leave to care for an ailing spouse and equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws. Today's introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA is a welcome step, and as more states recognize the commitment of loving same-sex couples and their families, it's time for this law to go into the history books where it belongs," said Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign.
"DOMA is and has always been an immoral attack on same-sex couples, our families and our fundamental humanity. This hateful law has only served to discriminate against people and belittle our nation's heralded values of freedom, fairness and justice. It is long past time to repeal DOMA, which has left a moral scar on this country. We thank Reps. Nadler, Baldwin and Polis for taking this step toward closing an ugly chapter in our country's history, and for working to ensure same-sex couples and our families are treated fairly," said Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
"It is long past time for DOMA to go. When DOMA passed in 1996 it was a gratuitous slap in the face. But now, 13 years later, there are thousands of married same-sex couples who are hurt by this law. We've come a long way in 13 years and the federal government shouldn't be in the business of deciding that some married couples are worthy of federal respect and others are not. Married same-sex couples pay federal taxes just like everyone else and have a right to the same important benefits and protections as everyone else," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director at Lambda Legal.

HRC delivers DOMA survey to Congress; Rep. Nadler to introduce repeal bill next week

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:45:00 GMT

Lord knows the White House won't want to comment on any DOMA repeal legislation that starts moving, so this pressure is a good move IMHO. HRC Legislative Director Allison Herwitt delivered a survey on DOMA to Congress. (HRC BackStory):

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today launched a campaign to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies legally married same-sex couples more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities. As part of the campaign, HRC launched a national action alert, an interactive website, RepealDOMAnow.org, and delivered to Congress nearly 50,000 survey responses showing the concrete harms DOMA brings to the lives of LGBT Americans and their families. A bill is expected to be introduced in the U.S. House as early as next week.

“Now is the time to let Congress and President Obama know that DOMA must go. The introduction of a bill to repeal DOMA with this unprecedented momentum behind it will mark a tidal shift in this fight,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This hurtful and discriminatory law denies millions of Americans federal recognition of marriage and the critical rights and benefits that come with it – Social Security survivors' benefits, equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws, the right to take leave to care for a spouse, and more. It is more important than ever to push for repeal of DOMA.”

You can view the survey at: www.hrc.org/DOMASurvey. Over at The Politico, Ben Smith makes the call that Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will be the one to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA. It will be interesting to see who signs on as co-sponsors (and who doesn't).

Kerry at The Advocate has more:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/10/DOMA_Repeal_Bill_Coming_Next_Week/

Remembering Ted Kennedy's work on ENDA

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:00:00 GMT

This is a good bit of history told from a personal perspective that shows the character and commitment of Sen. Kennedy. Thanks, Tanya. -- Pam.

Remembering Ted Kennedy for his Compassion and Courage
By Tanya Domi
In the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, I will always remember him for his deep compassion and strong support for members of the gay community.
I had the opportunity to work with Kennedy's office on the introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as the legislative director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 1994.
Kennedy agreed to introduce the ENDA in fall 1993 shortly after the adoption of Don't Ask Don't Tell in fall 1993. All of us working on the military ban took the defeat badly. But we picked ourselves up and got to work quickly. In less of a month after DADT was adopted, along with the then-Human Rights Campaign Fund and my colleagues Dan Zingale, Nancy Buermeyer and Cathy Woolard we began building a coalition of groups to support ENDA with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, led by Ralph Neas, its executive director at the time. LCCR supported ENDA, historically supporting for the first time gay rights legislation by the most imminent group of civil rights organizations in America.
The first hearings were scheduled in the Senate with Senator Kennedy chairing, arranged by Michael Iskowitz, his diminutive aide on gay and disability rights. Republican Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, who had strongly opposed lifting the military gay ban, also served on the labor committee, but we did not expect him to attend the hearings.
Before the hearings began, we had gathered in a conference room behind the hearing room to finalize preparation of our witnesses, Cheryl Summerville, who had been fired by a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Tennessee for being a lesbian and Ernest Hopkins, a postal worker from Cincinnati, Ohio, who had been beaten unconscious in his work place by co-workers for being gay. Suddenly, a significant number of black men, who had been standing in line to enter the hearing room, wearing orange buttons which said "they are not equal" were led through the conference room by a Coats' aide. With no Capital police present, they began yelling epithets at Cheryl and Ernest and our group, pushed and shoved Ernest, jostling Cheryl as a number of us jumped in to stop the hitting and moved them out of room. A very upsetting event and a despicable tactic employed by Coats' staff, which was simply a violation of Senate protocol in everyway imagined.
The hearings began shortly after this disturbing event. Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room and began his opening remarks. He called on Cheryl Summerville to make her opening remarks, who was crying, so upset by what had just transpired behind the hearing room.
In a soft voice, Kennedy applauded her courage and told her that she was very brave to come to the Congress to testify about her experience at Cracker Barrel. He said that she should take her time and take a deep breath. Somehow, Cheryl pulled herself together and delivered her testimony.
I was sitting next to Tim McFeely, the executive director of HRCF, softly crying, along with Tim who had red eyes. We were all very upset. But Cheryl testified and so did Ernest, telling their compelling stories of unquestionable employment discrimination. We got through the day with Kennedy putting into the record lesbian and gay stories and their experiences of on-the-job discrimination for the first time in history. That is the Senator Ted Kennedy I will always remember. May he rest in peace.
Tanya Domi worked for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 1992-1994, serving as the director of the military freedom project and legislative director. She teaches human rights at Columbia University as an adjunct professor of international and public affairs and lives in the City of New York.

Signorile, LCR's Moran face off over President Obama's 'fierce advocacy' and DOMA

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:00:00 GMT

Sirius-XM OutQ host Michelangelo Signorile was on CNN last night debating the actions of President Obama versus his promises on LGBT policy, focusing on DOMA. Opposite Mike was the Log Cabin Republicans' Charles Moran.

LEMON: Is President Obama living up to his campaign promise to be a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians? Gay activists think Mr. Obama is backtracking on promises both on the campaign trail and in the White House. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
We must continue to do our part to make progress, step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion, and a president who fights with you and for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: But the Justice Department is fighting a lawsuit that challenges the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Well, some say that adds hypocrisy.
Joining us is Sirius-XM host, Michelangelo Signorile, an author. He's in New York; and from New York, Charles Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans.
Thank you very much, both of you.
You heard a couple of times, the president and once-candidate Obama says I'm a fierce advocate for gay rights.
Has that so far, do you feel, it's been the case, Charles?
CHARLES MORAN, SPOKESMAN, LOG CABIN REPUBLICAN SPOKESMAN: Well, the issue of being an advocate means you actually have to do something. And unfortunately all we've seen from the White House in the Obama administration is more rhetoric and not a lot of action. In fact, the most we've gotten is a little bit of a circuit party with a Madonna remix in the East Room of the White House. And unfortunately that just doesn't cut it. [WTF, lol?]
LEMON: OK, that's an interesting way to put it.
And listen, I'm looking at the filings here. It says, "The administration says it supports the repeal of the law." But in the same filing, "The Justice Department will defend the statute in that case, because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional," Michelangelo?
MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Look, the president has spoken very, very supportively of rights for gay and lesbian Americans. He has certainly showed a passion in the past, much more than Republicans. What he has lacked since taking office is courage. Courage to really move forward, move forward on repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, move forward on repeal of DOMA.
And he can do things right now even before repealing, he can stop the discharges under federal law of those people being discharged under Don't Ask Don't Tell. He can also decide not to fight the Defensive Marriage, not to fight the challenge. He can actually -- there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to defend current law. George H.W. Bush actually did not defend current law when he was president, because he didn't believe in it, and his Justice Department made the argument that they weren't going to defend it. And the lawyer making the argument in the Justice Department was John Roberts, who is now the Supreme Court justice.

MORAN: You know, Michelangelo, I want to follow-up with you.
Log Cabin Republicans is the only organization right now that has a federal lawsuit filed against the Justice Department to block the -- to turn over Don't Ask Don't Tell on constitutional -- on an unconstitutional basis. We're calling on behalf of the Obama administration to instruct the Justice Department not to fight this law.
LEMON: Charles and Mike, this maybe the one area where conservatives and liberals might actually work together, because it seems that you two agree in tandem on this issue.
You mentioned something, Michael, you mentioned the former administration. And there's a bit of irony in that the former vice president supports gay marriage, and he has left President Obama's stance on gay marriage.
SIGNORILE: Yeah, absolutely. Dick Cheney has come out now in favor of marriage, equality. Of course, he didn't do that very specifically when he was vice president. He didn't have the courage himself at that time. Now that he's out of office, he has a lesbian daughter, he's speaking out.
Ted Olson, who was George Bush's solicitor general, is now arguing before the federal courts that Proposition 8 in California should be overturned, that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.
LEMON: Charles, then, why then do you think that the gay community feels that the president is not doing as much as they should? Why do you think he's not doing what he promised on the campaign trail?
MORAN: There is so much double speak coming out of the White House. And this is the problem. We have seen evidence where Rahm Emanuel's office has instructed their allies and the Congress to hold off on the introduction of legislation that would repeal DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. They are looking for political cover and they're doing it at the expense of the gay and lesbian community. That's awful, given the fact that 70 percent of gays and lesbians voted for President Obama on the issue of change.
In some cases, you can argue that we sacrificed Proposition 8 out in California for the election of President Obama, and this is what we get, is putting on the brakes, not really taking any action where, you know, action is due.
LEMON: Charles, I want to let Michelangelo get in this. Mike, I'll give you the last word. We're out of time.
SIGNORILE: I agree with Charles completely on what's happening around Barack Obama. The big difference, from the campaign to now, are the people around Barack Obama who are making him move very cautiously on a variety of issues where he needs to forge ahead and be the man with passion who spoke so fervently about these issues during the campaign.
LEMON: Political insiders say the issues you're talking about, especially when it comes to gay rights, that those are second-term issues. They want to make sure he gets a second term, and then he will do that. In the meantime, a lot of people are waiting for him to overturn or do some things when it comes to the campaign, the promises he made.
Thank you, Charles Moran.
MORAN: Thank you.
LEMON: Thank you, Michelangelo Signorile. We appreciate it.

Obama DOJ softens tone on DOMA brief -- but will defend that 'constitutional case can be made'

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Make up you flipping mind, and, by the way, nice sentiments don't mean much as you continue to screw with our relationships. Sigh -- after that exhale, the positive overarching message in this new Obama DOJ reply brief (and it will not please the right either) the tone is much improved, but there's that still-open question is about whether it HAS to defend the discriminatory law at all. Arguments have been made on both sides.

The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.
Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.
In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law. Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.
..."DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

What is left to evolve on this issue? The only thing evolving is marriage itself, which the fundies continually state hasn't changed in 2000 years or some such BS. Good news also mentioned in the article is that the U.S. government will not defend using the blatantly ridiculous notions that procreation or raising children needs to be tied to government interest when it comes to marriage.

The White House statement:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of Media Affairs
______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 17, 2009
Statement by the President on the Smelt v. United States Brief
Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

The brief and statements from it are below the fold.

From the brief itself:

"With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here. And in this case, plaintiffs' constitutional claims are unavailing. In their opposition brief, plaintiffs offer only a token response to the United States' arguments on the merits. Indeed, they say nothing at all in response to the arguments concerning their "full faith and credit," right to travel, right to privacy, First Amendment, or Ninth Amendment claims. On that basis alone, those claims should be dismissed."
"Courts have held that challenges to DOMA are subject to rational basis review. Under that deferential standard of review, this Court should find that Congress could reasonably have concluded that there is a legitimate government interest in maintaining the status quo regarding the distribution of federal benefits in the face of serious and fluid policy differences in and among the states. That there is now a debate taking place in this country about same-sex marriage does not make Congress's belief in this regard any less rational. Basic federalism principles allowed Congress in 1996, and allow Congress now, to take this uniform approach based on a traditional definition of marriage that all 50 states recognize while the states grapple with the emerging debate over same-sex marriage. Under rational basis review, Congress can reasonably take the view that it wishes to wait to see how these issues are resolved at the state level before extending federal benefits to marriages that were not recognized in any state when Congress tied eligibility for those benefits to marital status.
"Unlike the intervenors here, the government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in "creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents" or that the government's interest in "responsible procreation" justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Doc. 42 at 8-9). Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003), Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion - which, of course, is the prevailing law - because "the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry." For these reasons the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality."

Via Americablog:

Last Day: "Urge Connecticut AG to Challenge DOMA Campaign" Please Help

JohnVisser — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:59:37 GMT

Just call the Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, at 860-808-5318.

And send an e-mail while you're at it: attorney.general@po.state.ct.us

Just a quick note will do to urge the AG to join Massachusetts in suing the feds over the unconstitutional DOMA.

Thank you.

(Some background from Lurleen): The Hartford Courant recently summed up the situation:

A national grassroots campaign is urging Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, to join Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and sue the U.S. government over the discriminatory and blighted Defense of Marriage Act.
Better known as DOMA, the nearly 13-year-old federal law that denies married same-sex couples federal marriage benefits, according to Defend the Law. That Massachusetts-based organization, founded by a Boston College law student, is asking Connecticut residents to contact the attorney general between Aug. 10 and 14 to urge him to file suit, and protect marriage equality in the state.

More on the case from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders here.

GLAD files amended complaint in DOMA lawsuit Gill v. OPM

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Just in...

On Friday, July 31, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed an amended complaint in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, its lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In the amended complaint, GLAD officially added tax plaintiffs Mary and Dorene Bowe-Shulman and Marlin Nabors and Jonathan Knight. GLAD also removed its claim involving passport plaintiffs Keith and Al Toney. Due to a change in State Department policy in May of this year, Keith Toney has been able to get a U.S. passport in his correct married name.

As a result of the July 31 filing, the Department of Justice response will be due on or before September 18, 2009. The amended complaint, as well as complete information about Gill v. OPM can be seen at www.glad.org/doma.

Below is text from the complaint (it's 111 pages).

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1. Declare that the FEHB Program, the HCSFA, and the FEDVIP Program permit coverage of same-sex spouses under their authorizing statutes and regulations.
2. Declare DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.
    2    Enjoin the defendants from continuing to discriminate against the plaintiffs by treating them differently from similarly situated individuals who are married to persons of the opposite sex.
3    Issue an injunction ordering defendant Michael J. Astrue to review the applications for benefits of plaintiffs Jo Ann Whitehead, Randy Lewis-Kendell, Herb Burtis, and Dean Hara without regard to DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7.
4    Award plaintiffs Mary Ritchie and Kathleen Bush judgment in the amount of $14,518, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430.
     6. Award plaintiffs Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez judgment in the amount of $14,018, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this
     Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430.
5    Award plaintiffs Marlin Nabors and Jonathan Knight judgment in the amount of $2,520, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430.
6    Award Mary Bowe-Shulman and Dorene Bowe-Shulman judgment in the amount of $3,332, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430.
7    Award attorney's fees and costs to plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 or any other applicable statutory provision.

10. Grant such other relief as is just and appropriate.

OPM Director John Berry, Tammy Baldwin testify at hearing on fed DP Benefits Act

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:00:00 GMT

UPDATE: I received Michael Guest's testimony. It is below the fold.

A hearing on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2517), was held Wednesday before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia. Testifying on the bill:

WITNESS LIST
PANEL I
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-2-WI)
Mr. John Berry, Director, Office of Personnel Management
PANEL II
Ms. M. V. Lee Badgett, Research Director, The Williams Institute, UCLA Law School
Mr. Greg Franklin, Assistant Executive Officer, Health Benefits, California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
Ms. Carolyn E. Wright, Vice President, Corporate Human Resources, American Airlines
PANEL III
Ms. Lorilyn Holmes, current federal employee; Reverend, Metropolitan Community Churches
Ambassador (ret.) Michael Guest, former career Foreign Service Officer
Dr. Frank Page, Pastor, First Baptist Church of Taylors; President, Southern Baptist Convention 2006

Statement on the legislation by Rea Carey, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund:

"Already, a majority of Fortune 500 companies offer their employees domestic partner benefits. So do more than 300 colleges and universities, more than 200 local governments and at least 19 states. This legislation has been endorsed by four major unions, together representing nearly two and a half million government employees.
"Polls conducted within the last year demonstrate that a majority of Americans believe that same-sex partners should receive federal benefits, and that fully 73 percent of the country believes that same-sex partners should be eligible for health insurance. Far from a radical social policy, this legislation would simply bring the federal government up to the standard endorsed by nearly three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers.
"In addition to the issue's fundamental fairness, the federal government's failure to provide domestic partner benefits also makes it significantly more difficult to recruit and retain the best people. Ambassador Michael Guest, who testified before the subcommittee this afternoon, recently left the State Department after being unable to secure health insurance benefits for his partner. Across the country, an unknown number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees have done the same, leaving government for jobs in the private sector, where benefit coverage for same-sex partners is much easier to find.
"It is unconscionable that the federal government, the country's largest civilian employer, does not already provide domestic partnership benefits. With this bill, the time has come to rectify this injustice. We thank the subcommittee for this hearing and we urge the House of Representatives to move swiftly to pass this important legislation."

Berry's testimony is below the fold.

STATEMENT OF
JOHN BERRY
DIRECTOR
U. S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
H.R. 2517, THE "DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 2009"
JULY 8, 2009
Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member Chaffetz, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to testify today on behalf of President Obama and the Administration in support of H.R. 2517, which would provide health, life, and survivor benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees.
I first want to applaud Representative Baldwin and the cosponsors of H.R. 2517 for introducing this bill, and you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. The White House and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) wholeheartedly endorse passage of this bill. In my remarks today, I will briefly describe the basis for our endorsement of the bill and offer a few technical suggestions regarding the language of the legislation.
At my confirmation hearing, I said that two of my primary goals as the Director of OPM would be to make the Federal Government the country's model employer and to attract the best and the brightest Americans to Federal service. The passage of H.R. 2517 is essential to the accomplishment of both of these goals.
Under current law, the Federal Government cannot offer basic benefits like health insurance, life insurance, and dental and vision insurance to the domestic partners of our gay and lesbian Federal employees. Opposite sex domestic partners are not eligible for these benefits either, but they may gain eligibility through a valid marriage. Except in a few States, same-sex partners do not have that option. And even where they do, their marriages are not recognized for purposes of Federal benefits because of Public Law 104-199, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In the interest of full disclosure, I personally stand to benefit from this legislation, as my partner of 13 years will be eligible to enjoy the benefits of this legislation, if enacted.
This policy is unjust and it directly undermines the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain the nation's best workers. Historically, the federal government has in many ways been a progressive employer, but we're behind the private sector and 19 states, including Alaska and Arizona, on this one. Almost 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies already offer similar benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees. These companies include American Airlines, Chevron, Archer Daniels Midland and Lockheed Martin. The Federal Government does not effectively compete with these companies for every talented person when we fail to offer comparable job benefits to our employees.
The President took an important first step toward addressing these shortfalls when he signed a memorandum last month directing Federal agencies to extend benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees to the extent permitted by existing law. As the President noted when he issued that memorandum, however, statutory changes are necessary before the Government can offer its gay and lesbian employees some of the most important benefits, including health and life insurance. Enacting this bill would address the problem and provide for true equality in benefits for all Federal employees and its passage is supported by the President.
The bill proposed by Representative Baldwin, H.R. 2517, would provide benefits for same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. They would be eligible for coverage under Title 5 insurance-benefit programs, retirement and disability benefits, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, among others.
I suspect that the Committee is interested in knowing how much it will cost the Federal Government to provide these benefits. The cost of extending these benefits to same-sex domestic partners is negligible.
Any additional premiums for providing life, dental, and vision insurance to same-sex domestic partners will be borne entirely by the gay and lesbian employees who enroll their partners in those benefit plans. To add domestic-partner health-insurance and survivor benefits for both Federal workers and retirees would cost approximately $56 million in 2010. This marginal increased cost - which equates to about 2-tenths of a percent of the entire cost to the Federal Government of Federal employee health insurance - would be funded by the additional Government contribution payments for self and family health insurance plans. This includes $19 million in savings because retirees who elect survivor benefits for their domestic partners will experience a reduction in their annuity payments. In addition, as drafted, the bill does not address the tax treatment of the resulting benefits. Under current law, employer-provided health to a non-spouse, nondependent such as a domestic partner is taxable income to the employee. There may also be tax issues with respect to providing other benefits to nonspouse/nondependents of employees. The bill should clarify the tax treatment of the benefits. The Administration also notes that this legislation may have implications for other benefits programs, for example Social Security, across government. The intent of Congress regarding these other benefit programs needs to be clarified.
Simply put, extending benefits to same-sex partners would be a good business decision. American Airlines and the other sixty percent of the Fortune 500 companies who provide these benefits can testify to that. Therefore, I am pleased to provide my full support to passage of H.R. 2517.
Technical Comments
After reviewing the text legislative language of H.R. 2517, we have some technical comments. I want to describe for you a few examples of technical concerns that, I believe, illustrate the need to revise the bill's structure to ensure that it meshes with the laws governing the particular benefits programs that would be affected. Revising the bill to address these concerns would eliminate ambiguity regarding some of its effects and would greatly facilitate effective implementation.
One of our technical concerns is that the bill provides for coverage of domestic partners of Federal employees, but does not include current Federal annuitants. That means the current language of the bill would exclude annuitants with same-sex partners from electing benefits coverage. In addition, a strict interpretation of the bill would raise questions as to whether benefits would continue to be available to same-sex partners once employees retire.
Second, this would require that affidavits pertaining to the eligibility of domestic partners for Federal benefits be filed with OPM. We do not think it is practicable for OPM to play this role. Each Federal agency carries out human resources management functions, including benefits enrollment and payroll deductions, for its own employees. Requiring affidavits to be filed with OPM would be at odds with current provisions of law and regulation governing Federal employee benefits, which recognize that OPM is not a central clearinghouse for all Federal employees.
Third, the legislation needs to take into account that differences in the administration of benefits between a domestic partnership, certified with an affidavit, and a State-sanctioned marriage may occur. The bill provides that, if a domestic partnership dissolves except by death, the former domestic partner will have the same rights and obligations as a former spouse. By law, a former spouse is eligible to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program if he or she meets certain eligibility criteria. The former spouse must be entitled to a portion of an annuity and must not have remarried before the age of 55.
Under H.R. 2517, there is no language allowing us to enforce a similar obligation for the former domestic partner under the same circumstances. Entitlements and obligations for former spouses under the involuntary division of property are attributed to court orders with respect to divorce, annulment, and legal separation. In the absence of domestic relations law for domestic partnerships in many States, we believe that we would need more prescriptive language in the bill to avoid potential legal hurdles that could occur.
In order to fully address these and other technical issues, we strongly encourage you to amend the applicable provisions of the United States Code. This would provide continuity and would resolve ambiguities highlighted by the examples I have provided. It would also preserve the accuracy of Title 5 for those who administer its provisions in the future.
We would be pleased to work with the Committee to resolve the technical concerns expressed here today and offer you our technical assistance to ensure the legislative intent of this bill is embedded in Title 5.
Conclusion
Again, we welcome the introduction of this bill and strongly support its passage. By your efforts, you have provided a valuable a valuable opportunity for the Federal Government to not only enhance the benefits it can offer as a recruitment and retention tool, but, most importantly, to prove that we recognize the value of every American family and are committed to the ideal of equal treatment under the law that our Founders envisioned.
Thank you. I look forward to continuing our work together, and I will be glad to answer any questions.

Former Ambassador Michael Guest:

Oral Statement by Michael Guest
Hearing on Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of Columbia
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
July 8, 2009
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to offer my perspective on this bill.
For more than half of my life, I served the United States as a career Foreign Service officer. I was honored to represent our country and am proud of my accomplishments. But in December 2007 I ended my career after having sought, without success, to amend policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian Foreign Service personnel. No longer could I accept that, while sharing the same service obligations as my colleagues, my family had no benefits, simply because I'm gay. My partner had sacrificed his career to support me in serving the country that we both love, and in return was treated as a second-class citizen in our overseas postings. And I couldn't reconcile how an Administration so consumed with the fight against terrorism would knowingly put my partner's life at risk, and indeed jeopardize the security and effectiveness of our embassy communities, through policies that based protections needlessly on marriage - an option that of course is unavailable to us.
Mr. Chairman, the State Department-specific inequalities that I challenged frame my perspective on this issue and, as you will see, on our country. As examples, the Department would not train my partner to recognize a terrorist threat or counter-intelligence trap, thus putting his life and, indeed, U.S. interests at risk. He had no guarantee of being evacuated, whether for life-threatening medical reasons or to escape political violence that might close the embassy. The Department would not train him in the informal community leadership roles that he, in fact, was expected to fill. Unlike spouses, he had no diplomatic protections, nor could he compete for jobs the embassy needed to fill, regardless of qualifications. And while the Department paid to transport pets to and from post, it wouldn't pay my partner's airfare, as if the government for which he sacrificed so much considered him to be less important than a dog.
I trust you see the ironies. As a diplomat, I advanced American principles of equality, fair play, and respect for diversity in the countries to which I was posted. And yet the very agency that charged me to do so showed no respect for those principles in how it treated those of us who are gay or lesbian. Nor did that agency, which drills crisis management and diversity awareness and leadership skills into employees, show any concern for issues of health, safety, morale, and effectiveness that stemmed from these discriminatory policies.
Mr. Chairman, I still believe America is the greatest country on earth. But my experience in seeking redress of these inequalities made me realize that this is not the America I believed in when I came to Washington, some 30 years ago, to work as an intern here on Capitol Hill. You see, the issue we are here to address is not, as you've heard, personal belief, nor is it about the definition of marriage. Those are red herrings. This bill is about workplace fairness. And it's about civil rights. Somehow we as a country have allowed the word "equality" - which is an absolute term - to be redefined to mean more rights for some citizens and fewer for others. LGBT Americans are not demanding so-called "special rights," another red herring, through this or any other bill - in fact, you might say that current law gives heterosexuals special rights. How is it that we're still debating, even here today, whether citizens who are gay should enjoy the same fundamental protections enjoyed by others with whom we live in our communities, work in offices and factories, and yes, share fellowship in our places of worship? And in that regard I might mention that when I studied at Furman University, many years ago, I attended First Baptist Church in Taylors, South Carolina, represented here by a panelist from the Southern Baptist Convention who sits next to me yet is figuratively on the opposite side of this table.
Mr. Chairman, I was reluctant to relive before this committee the most painful decision of my life, that of leaving the career I loved. But for me this is a matter of closure. When President Obama took action June 17 to end the State Department discrimination I've described, I took my partner's hand and quietly apologized that the decision hadn't come sooner, for his sake. Now the spotlight is on Congress. The bill before you addresses a range of benefits that remain out of reach for federal employees with same-sex partners. These benefits, which the first panel has already described, are as critical to our families as they are to yours. I respectfully ask that you close this gap.
You've heard many solid arguments for this bill based on what I call "mechanics" - things like worker retention, budgetary impact, and comparisons to corporate policies. But I ask you to support this legislation for other reasons.
First, principle is at stake. Equality, fair-mindedness and respect for diversity are at the heart of America's identity. This bill would honor those principles and bring us closer to fulfilling those ideals.
But second, this bill is about people. Those of us who are gay have the same aspirations, the same hopes, and the same needs as any of you. We have families that we love, and that we need to take care of, just as you do. We are humans, like you. We love and support our country, like you do. We ask only to be treated fairly and equally, and that our families be provided with the same employer protections and benefits that are provided to yours.
Across almost three decades in Washington, I've heard that policy issues related to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans are just too hard to tackle, that other agendas must come first, that the time isn't now. Well, the time is now. This issue is hard only because we make it so. I ask that this committee restore federal leadership on this issue and not allow our equal and fair treatment as fellow citizens to become a partisan matter. Surely we can come together as a country, and as a people, and do the right thing for families who have yet to realize the equality to which we, as citizens, should be entitled.
Thank you.

Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate covered the hearing live on Twitter.

Chris@Law Dork:

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) repeatedly expressed repeated concerns about discrimination . . . against heterosexuals. Among his comments, per Eleveld, is one that “heterosexual couples who are not married would not have the same benefits as same-sex couples under this bill.” Baldwin, per Eleveld, responded: “Should heterosexuals desire those benefits, they would have the opportunity to marry.”

...In order to keep this bill centered on equal rights and not “special” rights — clearly the angle sought out by Rep. Chaffetz — and in order to simplify the statutory language over time as changes in marriage laws continue, it seems to me that this legislation needs to be amended, hopefully in committee, in such a way that a state’s recognition of same-sex relationships supersedes and substitutes for the affidavit requirement.

Section 2 (a) of the bill reads:

(a) In General- An employee who has a domestic partner and the domestic partner of the employee shall be entitled to benefits available to, and shall be subject to obligations imposed upon, a married employee and the spouse of the employee.

I would amend it as such:

(a) In General- An employee who has a domestic partner and the domestic partner of the employee shall be entitled to benefits available to, and shall be subject to obligations imposed upon, a married employee and the spouse of the employee. If a state otherwise formally recognizes same-sex relationships, whether through marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership registry or otherwise, proof of this recognition will supersede and substitute for the affidavit requirement otherwise imposed in subsection (b).

The “substitute” language will prevent the three different categories of relationship problem that I discussed above. The “supersede” language will prevent opponents from saying that same-sex couples are allowed to get married in state “X” but even if they choose not to do so could still receive the benefits contained in this bill without getting married.

Massachusetts Sues the Federal Government over DOMA

Lurleen — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:00:00 GMT

Update: H/T to Law Dork who provides a link to the complaint and has a summary of the AG's press conference. Highlights and reactions from various organizations at bottom of post.

In a case led by Attorney General Martha Coakley, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is suing the US federal government, calling Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The case is called Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.
"In enacting DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act], Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state said in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court in Massachusetts.
The suit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal in the state in 2004 "and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state."
"Despite these developments, same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still denied essential rights and protections because the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] interferes with the Commonwealth's authority to define and regulate marriage," the lawsuit said.

Similar to the GLAD lawsuit, the Massachusetts suit is reportedly only challenging DOMA's Section 3, which says

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

In other words, it says that for the purposes of federal-level rights, responsibilities and benefits, only married heterosexuals need apply.

The Boston Globe reports that the basis of the challenge is the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. and Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which limits the power of Congress to matters of taxation and providing for the "common defense and general welfare" of the country.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) already has a lawsuit cooking against DOMA Section 3 called Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Not surprisingly, GLAD is praising the Commonwealth for entering the game.

In filing Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Attorney General Martha Coakley today uphold the Commonwealth's long tradition as a national civil rights leader and take a major step towards ensuring that all its citizens are treated equally by the federal government. We applaud the Commonwealth's move to protect legally married same-sex couples from the harms caused by federal discrimination.
Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) represents an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into the traditional and historical power of the states to make determinations of marital status. By refusing to recognize any marriage of same-sex couples-and by denying these couples access to all federal rights, protections and responsibilities related to marriage-the federal government steps in and overrides these state-sanctioned marriages. The Commonwealth's lawsuit seeks to uphold the traditional division of power between the federal and state governments as it has always been regarding marriage.
Same-sex couples have been marrying in Massachusetts for over five years. In March 2009, GLAD filed its own challenge to Section 3 of DOMA on behalf of six married same-sex couples and three men whose spouses had died. The issues in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management involve federal income taxes, Social Security, and federal employees' and retirees' benefits.
The federal government should treat these Massachusetts couples-and all married same-sex couples-the same as any other legally married couple, with all the benefits, protections and responsibilities that come with marriage. It's a simple matter of fairness and equality. We have never had first and second-class marriages in this country. We should not start now.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization working to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
For complete information about GLAD's DOMA Section 3 challenge, visit www.glad.org/doma.

Further information is expected from AG Coakley's office this afternoon.

Obama's Department of Justice had better get it right this time. If the DNC thought pissing of the gAyTM was a disaster, imagine pissing of The Cradle of Liberty.

Reaction...

HRC:

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organization, today commends the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Attorney General Martha Coakley for filing a federal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which denies thousands of married same-sex couples in Massachusetts access to over 1,000 federal protections, benefits and obligations. This lawsuit, which names the United States and the Secretaries and Departments of Veterans affairs and Health and Human Services as defendants, marks the first time that a state has challenged the federal government's discriminatory treatment of its LGBT citizens.
The complaint in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services et al points out that discrimination against same-sex married couples bears no nexus to the purposes of federal programs like Medicaid.
"The Commonwealth has presented the court with the stark facts of discrimination that should finally spell the end of DOMA," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Excluding our families from equal protections never had anything to do with promoting a legitimate interest, and has everything to do with discrimination."
"DOMA was wrong, discriminatory and mean-spirited when it was enacted in 1996, and today it stands between thousands of married couples and the equal protections they deserve," Solmonese said. "We applaud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for stepping forward on behalf of these families and saying, in essence, 'enough is enough.' Now it is time for the federal government to take affirmative steps to challenge and repeal this discriminatory law that causes real harm to loving, married couples and their children."

Kentucky Equality Federation:

Kentucky Equality Federation applauds the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for suing the U.S. government for intruding on states' rights with the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act," stated Kentucky Equality Federation President Jordan Palmer. "This is a step in the right direction, a state [instead of its citizens] has said enough is enough; we demand full liberty and equality for our citizens now."

Barney Frank's office released this statement:

"Martha Coakley's decision to join the lawsuit against the part of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal recognition of thousands of valid Massachusetts marriages deserves the support and gratitude of all of the state's residents.
This is an important example of the legitimate use of the law both on behalf of the principle and the rights of tens of thousands of citizens of the Commonwealth.
I will be particularly interested to see how conservative defenders of states' rights rebut Attorney General Coakley's cogent argument of our rights as a state to defend marriage which has been cast aside by this law that she has challenged."

BiNet USA

BiNet USA immediately repeated it's support of any action that would result in the ultimate removal of DOMA, President Gary North saying "we applaud the action".

Law Dork has provided a summary of the AG's news conference. Highlights are

Coakley begins by saying that the words of John Adams, in Massachusetts' constitution, were determined in 2004 to mean that marriage must be available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation. After five years of living that experience, today, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit in federal District Court challenging Section 3 of DOMA.
Coakley gave three reasons for the suit:
1. DOMA created a federal definition of marriage, directly interfering with Massachusetts' longstanding soverign authority to determine who it determines are "married" under federal law.
2. DOMA is a discriminatory law.
3. DOMA places Mass. in the position of choosing whether to adapt its programs to fit federal law, but if it does so, it limits the ability of Mass. residents to have full equality under Mass. programs....
Among the commonwealth-specific harms Coakley cited are:
* The commonwealth is affected when it provides health benefits because same-sex couples who choose to receive them are tax on those partners' benefits, which "frankly creates a paperwork nightmare." She referred repeatedly to the "two-tiered" system the state had to create after 2004 as a result of DOMA.
* DOMA requires that Mass treats individuals differently under public medical benefits like Medicaid and Medicare.
* Mass. cannot inter the same-sex spouses of military veterans in federal military burial locations....
DOMA also violates the Spending Clause, the suit alleges. One clear limitation is that Congress cannot compel the states to violate its states' citizens state constitutional rights. This is interesting because it is something that is far more effectively raised by a state than any private party.

Law Dork quotes Coakley as saying that MA is open to the idea of consolidatin this suit with GLAD's Gill suit. Read the whole report, with LD's reactions, here.

Video of yesterday's White House LGBT Stonewall/Pride Month Reception

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:30:00 GMT

For those who wish to relive the precious moments of the community and the administration uniting as one...

The transcript:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 29, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT LGBT PRIDE MONTH RECEPTION
East Room
4:35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) Hey! Good to see you. (Applause.) I'm waiting for FLOTUS here. FLOTUS always politics more than POTUS.
MRS. OBAMA: No, you move too slow. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: It is great to see everybody here today and they're just -- I've got a lot of friends in the room, but there are some people I want to especially acknowledge. First of all, somebody who helped ensure that we are in the White House, Steve Hildebrand. Please give Steve a big round of applause. (Applause.) Where's Steve? He's around here somewhere. (Applause.)
The new chair of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg. (Applause.) Where's Fred? There's Fred. Good to see you, Fred. Our Director of the Institute of Education Sciences at DOE, John Easton. Where's John? (Applause.) A couple of special friends -- Bishop Gene Robinson. Where's Gene? (Applause.) Hey, Gene. Ambassador Michael Guest is here. (Applause.) Ambassador Jim Hormel is here. (Applause.) Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is here. (Applause.)
All of you are here. (Laughter and applause.) Welcome to your White House. (Applause.) So --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody asked from the Lincoln Bedroom here. (Laughter.) You knew I was from Chicago too. (Laughter.)
It's good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I've received from so many of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. (Applause.) And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)
Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.

It continues below the fold.

And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community. And that's important, and I'm glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. (Applause.) For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.
(Cell phone "quacks.")
Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)
MRS. OBAMA: It's a duck.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I'm just curious. (Laughter.)
Indeed, that's the story of the movement for fairness and equality -- not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It's the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could.
That's the story of a civil rights pioneer who's here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired -- (applause.) Frank was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. (Applause.)
It's the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens -- with few options, and fewer supporters -- decided they'd had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton discrimination. And two men who were at those protests are here today. Imagine the journey that they've travelled.
It's the story of an epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need -- that we all share the capacity to love.
So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.
And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.
But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive -- (applause.) We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration. (Applause.)
Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we've already put in place since coming into office. I've signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don't exist. And I'd like to note that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is here today. And I want to thank John Berry. (Applause.)
I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination -- (applause) -- to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I've made that clear.
I'm also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children. (Applause.) My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we're making progress on both fronts. (Applause.) Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today. I met with Judy in the Oval Office in May -- (applause) -- and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew. (Applause.)
In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy. And we all know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. And that's why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested. (Applause.)
And finally, I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)
Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.
Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.
I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy -- patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who've served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.
Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet.
That's why I've spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences -- in front of African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that's what I'll continue to do so. That's how we'll shift attitudes. That's how we'll honor the legacy of leaders like Frank and many others who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship.
Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens, including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement.
It was the middle of the night. The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots where it was safe to be gay in New York. Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary. Because it was considered obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate. The nature of these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail.
Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse. But on this night, something was different. There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is this: People didn't leave. They stood their ground. And over the course of several nights they declared that they had seen enough injustice in their time. This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night, but what they had experienced their whole lives. And as with so many movements, it was also something more: It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves.
As we've seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way. (Applause.) And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, "So what if I am?" It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest.
In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back.
The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you -- or, for that matter, I -- (laughter) -- would be standing here today. (Applause.) So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.
Thanks very much, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) Thank you. It's a little stuffed in here. We're going to open -- we opened up that door. We're going to walk this way, and then we're going to come around and we'll see some of you over there, all right? (Laughter.) But out there. (Laughter.)
But thank you very much, all, for being here. Enjoy the White House. Thank you. (Applause.)
END 4:53 P.M. EDT

***

The livestream of the White House event ("President Obama and First Lady host Reception for LGBT Pride Month") was held from 4:25 PM-4:40 or so ET. Feel free to jump into the Blend chat room to discuss.

Join the Blend Chat Room

It was also carried on the WH Facebook page.

And here's the list of the guests invited to the WH Stonewall reception

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:24:50 GMT

Here you go, folks, from the pool report, passed on to the Blend by the White House Press Office...

List of invited guests at the LGBT event in the East Room

White House LGBT Event
June 29, 2009

Administration Officials

John Berry, Director, Office of Personnel Management

Fred Hochberg, Chair, Export-Import Bank

John Easton, Director, Institute of Education Sciences at the Department of Education

City and State Officials

Jason Bartlett, Connecticut House of Representatives
Kate Brown, Oregon Secretary of State
David Dibble, Minnesota State Senator
Evan Low, Vice-Mayor, Campbell, CA City Council
Al McAffrey, Oklahoma House of Representatives
Andrew Mcdonald, Connecticut House of Representatives
Robert Meza, Arizona House of Representatives
Christine Quinn, New York City Council
Debra Shore, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Denise Simmons, Mayor of Cambridge, MA
Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona House of Representatives
Patricia Todd, Alabama House of Representatives
Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff

The invitation-only guests are below the fold.
Other Invited Guests (Invite Only)
Michael Adams, Service and Advocacy for LGBT Elders (SAGE)
Mark Agrast, Washington, DC
Madeline Alk, New York, NY
Ron Ansin, Harvard, MA
Judith Appelbaum, Department of Justice
Chip Arndt, Miami Beach, FL
Cornelius Baker, National Black Gay Men's Advocacy Coalition
Tom Barbera, SEIU Lavender Caucus
Andrew Barnett, Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL)
Jarrett Barrios, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
Vic Basile, Office of Personnel Management
Christopher Bates, Washington, DC
Michael Bauer, Chicago, IL
Terrance Bean, Portland, OR
Jeremy Bernard, National Endowement for the Humanities
Jennifer Besson, Washington, DC
Dana Beyer, Chevy Chase, MD
David Binder, San Francisco, CA
Elizabeth Birch, Washington, DC
Jeremy Bishop, Pride at Work (AFL-CIO)
David Bohnett, Beverly Hills, CA
Marsha Botzer, Quilcene, WA
Raymond Buckley, DNC Vice-Chair
Eliza Byard, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Christopher Caldwell, Los Angeles, CA
Leslie Calman, Mautner Project
Rea Carey, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Charles Carter, New York, NY
Kevin Cathcart, Lambda Legal
Curtis Chin, Los Angeles, CA
Jennifer Chrisler, Family Equality Council
Jamie Citron, Department of Health and Human Services
Wes Combs, Washington, DC
Roberta Conroy, Santa Monica, CA
Cheryl Cook, Department of Agriculture
Stampp Corbin, San Diego, CA
Michael Council, Columbus, OH
Wilson Cruz, West Hollywood, CA
Mark Davis, Philadelphia, PA
Q Todd Dickinson, Washington, DC
Daniel Dozier, Washington, DC
Ruby Dunning, Washington, DC
Ingrid Duran, Falls Church, VA
Christopher Dyer, Washington, DC Office of LGBT Affairs
Steven Elmendorf, Washington, DC
Fred Eychaner, Chicago, IL
Eric Fanning, Department of Justice
Bishop Yvette Flunder, City of Refuge United Church of Christ
Earl Fowlkes, International Federation of Black Prides
Rebecca Fox, National Coalition for LGBT Health
R. Brandon Fradd, New York, NY
Daniel Galindo, San Antonio, TX
Adolfo Garay, New York, N
Jesus Garcia, TX LULAC 4871
Joan Garry, Montclair, NJ
Rufus Gifford, Washington, DC
Emily Giske, New York, NY
Mitchell Gold, Hickory, NC
John Gonzalez, Washington, DC
Vernita Gray, Chicago, IL
Chad Griffin, Los Angeles, CA
Patrick Guerriero, Gill Action
Hon. Michael Guest, Former Ambassador
Rebecca Haag, AIDS Action
Steve Hildebrand, Sioux Falls, SD
Gavin Hilgemeier, Federal GLOBE
Leonard Hirsch, Federal GLOBE
Lorilyn Holmes, Federal GLOBE
Clifford Honicker, Knoxville, TN
Conrad Honicker, Knoxville, TN
Gerald Hoose, Stonewall Participant
Ernest Hopkins, Communities Advocating Emergency AIDS Relief
Hon. James Hormel, Former Ambassador
Paul Horning, Atlanta, GA
Brad Hoylman, Village Independent Democrats
Jody Huckaby, Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
Kevin Jennings, Department of Education
Jennifer Jones, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Frank Kamney, Washington, DC
Elaine Kaplan, Office of Personnel Management
Paul Kawata, National Minority AIDS Council
Mara Keisling, National Center for Transgender Equity
Kate Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Jacqueline Kittrell, Knoxville, TN
Harry Knox, Human Rights Campaign
Steven Latasa-Nicks, New York, NY
Andre Leon Talley, White Plains, NY
Richard Llewellyn, Los Angeles, CA
Robert Llewellyn, Los Angeles, CA
Rosemary Llewellyn, Los Angeles, CA
Thomas Lopach, Export-Import Bank
Lin Lougheed, Miami Beach, FL
Claire Lucas, Corona del Mar, CA
Glenn Magpantay, Federation of LGBTQ AAPI Organizations
Mary Beth Maxwell, Department of Labor
Lisbeth MelendezRivera, Unid@s
Shannon Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Chance Mitchell, National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
Mary Morten, Chicago, IL
Babak Movahedi, Miami Beach, FL
David Munar, National Association of People with AIDS
Kevin Naff, Washington Blade
Justin Nelson, National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
J. Alexander Nicholson, Servicemembers United
David Noble, NASA
Matt Nosanchuk, Silver Spring, MD
Robyn Ochs, BiNet USA and Bisexual Resource Center
Derek Orr, DC Office of Disability Rights
C. Dixon Osborn, Washington, DC
Kathleen Padilla, Philadelphia, PA
Pari Parker, Washington, DC
Skip Paul, Beverly Hills, CA
Terry Penrod, Columbus, OH
Troy Perry, Founder Metropolitan Community Churches
Thomas Petrillo, Washington, DC
Frank Pond, Los Angeles, CA
Robert Raben, Raben Group
Gautam Raghavan, Department of Defense
Steven Ralls, Washington, DC
Ellen Ratner, Washington, DC
Miriam Redleaf, Chicago, IL
Catherine Renna, Chicago, IL
Dr. Sylvia Rhue, National Black Justice Coalition
Jeffrey Richardson, Washington, DC
Laura Ricketts, Chicago, IL
Anthony Riley, Prince Georges County, MD
Carmen Robello, New York, NY
Bishop Gene Robinson, Diocese of New Hampshire
Hilary Rosen, Washington, DC
David Rosenauer, New York, NY
Renee Rosenfield, New York, NY
Jane Saks, Chicago, IL
Aubrey Sarvis, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
Thomas Schmidt, Stonewall Participant
Marsha Scott, Washington, DC
Evan Shapiro, New York, NY
Jonathan Sheffer, New York, NY
Judy Shepard, Matthew Shepard Foundation
Babs Siperstein, Edison, NJ
Melissa Sklarz, National Stonewall Democrats
Mary Snider, Silver Spring, MD
Courtney Snowden, The Raben Group
Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign
Rick Stafford, DNC LGBT Caucus Chair
Eric Stern, UC Berkeley School of Law
Jon Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI
Sally Susman, New York, NY
John Tedstrom, Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GBC)
Kevin Thompson, Seattle, WA
Andrew Tobias, DNC Treasurer
Jeffrey Trammell, Washington, DC
Ted Trimpa, Denver, CO
Gregory Varnum, National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC)
Alex Wagner, Department of Defense
Paquita Wiggins, Beltsville, MD
Phil Wilson, Black AIDS Institute
Peter Wilson, New York, NY
Robert Witeck, Arlington, VA
Chuck Wolfe, Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund
Tobias Wolff, Philadelphia, PA

White House's Bond, GLAAD's Barrios, Faith In America's Mitchell Gold on today's Stonewall event

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:00:00 GMT

(NOTE: The White House event will be livestreamed starting at 4:25 PM ET. Feel free to jump into the Blend chat room to discuss. I will have an open thread that goes live at 4:15 PM ET)

As the time nears for the official A-gays at the White House event, here are some perspectives out there today. Read, digest and comment; I share my thoughts at the end -- plus a couple of questions. First, let's look at the framing from the White House itself, from Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement Brian Bond.

As a gay kid growing up in rural Missouri - I never thought I would end up helping to organize an LGBT Pride event in the White House. Then again, I never thought I would ever realize my dream to work in the White House. But thanks to the historic election of Barack Obama, today I am honored to be working here.
To me, today's event is more than just a reception honoring LGBT Pride month. It is an opportunity for the Administration to provide the world with a snap shot of the real heroes across the country that do the day-to-day work fighting for equality. People like State Representative Patricia Todd in Alabama to Sheriff Lupe Valdez in Dallas, and may other local LGBT elected officials that will be here today. And it's people - ordinary families - that by simply living their lives openly are changing hearts and minds. It is also an opportunity to welcome the people upon whom shoulders we stand, people like Frank Kameny, as well as Phil Wilson, Bishop Robinson and Ambassador Hormel, who I know personally, and those who stood up to bigotry at Stonewall. I really wish people like Bayard Rustin could be standing here with us today. He would be up for the fight ahead of us and proud of the place we now stand.
People may not know this, but there hasn't been a significant event since the President took office that hasn't included the LGBT community -- discussions on the economy and the recovery, or health care -- but this event is special to me and to many of the people that haven't been here for many years.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. We will work together to pass Hate Crimes and ENDA and to end DADT and DOMA, but today is an opportunity to celebrate who we are and affirm who we are as Americans. But the truth is that in this White House we do this every day. With over 60 out appointees working in this Administration already, we are free to be ourselves. But not everyone is in this country is able to do the same, and we are here to help change that.
I am here because I know the President and this Administration believe that too and are committed to fighting for equality - yes it will take time, and yes we should be pushing and yes you should too. We are all in this together and I am equally proud of both my President and my community.
I will take a little time out today to celebrate the diversity and depth of our community with my President. And we will get back to work. Everyone in this building is very clear -- from the President on down -- are committed to equality. So for a young, ok for a now aging and balding gay guy from rural Missouri, this is my way to celebrate Pride month and our community's importance in the American fabric.

The incoming president of GLAAD (and fellow Dallas Principles author), Jarrett Barrios, wrote an op-ed in the WaPo about why he's going to be there. Read a snippet below the fold.

The Stonewall Riots of 1969 -- when patrons at a New York city gay bar fought back against police brutality and harassment and set in motion a wave of activism -- have been commemorated in various ways. There have been protests, rallies, academic lectures and parties. Today is the first time Stonewall will be remembered in the tony quarters of the White House.
I have to admit I was ambivalent when I received the invitation, with its fancy curlicue script (truly, just like my sister's wedding announcement) and a return address that read simply "The White House." The problem is that I haven't been as excited as I'd like to be about President Obama. I'd been excited by Candidate Obama. His campaign invited people like me and my husband Doug -- gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans -- into his aspirational vision of America the Possible. But, as President Obama, he has presided over an administration that has stumbled -- sometimes symbolically, sometimes substantially -- in its commitment to include us on the agenda.
Indeed, some gay community members advocated boycotting the White House's Stonewall event. "Co-optation by Cocktails," read one blog post. "Traitors," blathered another. While my heart wasn't filled with such animus, just disappointment, I could understand their anger.
When I told my 17-year-old son Javier about the reception, he could sense that I was torn. From across the dinner table, he looked straight at me: "Papi, you need to go to the White House, and you need to take me. It's the President." Not persuaded by that one, kid. "It's the President, and he needs to see our family, too. To remind him that we're counting on him."
What's true for President Obama is also true for those Americans who still struggle with stereotypes and misperceptions about gay and transgender people. We know that interpersonal connections -- getting to know gay people, their lives, their struggles and concerns -- are one of the most important ways for everyday Americans to understand that we are in every family, in every workplace, on every street. And that we're counting on them to value our contributions, too, and to support our equal treatment.

Here's what Jarrett had to say in an interview on 6/27 about the reception:

Also weighing in is philanthropist and Faith In America Founder Mitchell Gold is one of the LGBT invitees to today's White House event commemorating Stonewall (and he also attended the LGBT DNC fundraiser, which he wrote about on the Blend). The home furnishings entrepreneur released a statement on the meeting today (via email).

"What this event really boils down to is the President saying to America that he honors gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. This is incredibly historic and represents a dramatic shift in policy from the last administration. Can anyone imagine President Bush inviting a couple of hundred gay Americans to the White House to commemorate anything gay? No!!! In fact, the Bush administration will go down in history as running an ongoing campaign to marginalize and dehumanize LGBT people in America and abroad."
Gold continued "I am thankful for the opportunity to attend the meeting and praise President Obama for holding the event which I believe sends an important signal to all Americans. "There has been much progress in achieving various increments of equality during these previous 40 years," Gold said. "However, now is the time for President Obama to take an unequivocal stand against religion-based bigotry and prejudice and the immense harm it brings to bear on gay and lesbian youth. The struggle for full equality has been confined to only incremental advances because anti-gay religious factions have used religion-based bigotry to fortify the wall of discrimination."
But he said such religion-based bigotry has a much more insidious consequence for the lives of gay youth.
"The fact is that late tonight after our reception with President Obama a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender teen is alone and isolated thinking about why their parent, their classmates, their pastor or elected officials view them as morally inferior, undeserving and unworthy. No one disputes that religion-based bigotry and prejudice is the No. 1 reason this social climate of rejection and condemnation has been allowed to flourish.
"But the American people are awakening to the fact that history has judged all the past examples of such religion-based bigotry toward minorities - African-Americans, women, interracial couples and people of different faiths - as wrong and morally unjust.
"This shift represents the single most important social change for the lives of gay Americans. I hope President Obama will seize the opportunity that this moment in history has brought him and that he will use his position to help us educate Americans about the incredible damage religion-based bigotry brings to bear on innocent, young lives for the sole reason that they were created with same sex attraction."

***

Questions:
1) Exactly what kind of lobbying and productive conversations will take place? Realistically, will any of the attendees really have the time on the reception line to engage with the President on a meaningful level to convey any discontent with policy issues or actions? As I've said before, these folks can and should meet with the President, but don't attempt to sell the idea that this social event is akin to sitting down at a conference table to hammer out policy differences. No one out in here in the real world will buy that; many will accept that visibility matters. But that raises another question...

2) Will we see a full guest list to get an idea of who the White House considers leaders of the community? It will tell us a lot about who and what kind of LGBT orgs are players to this administration, and who isn't. What kind of diversity will be represented -- race, class, region -- will there be noted transgender representation?

I've been told by an insider that one category will be notably missing -- new media activists weren't on the invite list, which would not be surprising on one level since the netroots have, in general, been tepid or outright critical of the admin, but that would also mean the operating strategy is contrary to the President's own position that dissent is welcome and encouraged. The Obama admin, full of new media devotees who ran his campaign by connecting with the grassroots and netroots knows that all too well, but they changed the channel once in office. It's great to raise cash and generate votes using the netroots, but online advocates are nothing but a PIA when it comes to governing (do you hear the voice of Rahm?). And a good number of online activists have no interest in sucking up for a job or contract work either in the White House or one of the LGBT orgs inside the Beltway, so that allows for more freedom to dissent -- that of course, lowers any chance of invites. But that's the breaks.

My own theory about this it's less about dissent than a reluctance to officially acknowledge the netroots in any way (positive or negative). Doing so means the White House has yet another sub-constituency to deal with -- one not easily controlled -- that bypasses LGBT orgs that are supposed to serve as the conduit to and voice of the community. And it makes sense to some degree in the short run, but it's like a Band-Aid on a spewing jugular since the world of advocacy and communications is rapidly changing -- and decentralizing.

You'll notice that in the blow up over the fundraiser (and there will be more to come about that quickly reported $1 million take), the online criticism was not addressed by contacting the online activists, but by contacting and working with the offline orgs. That strategy is largely ineffective, of course -- as if a gay org can shut down public criticism by a citizen journalist -- but it makes it looks like, as far as the MSM goes, that they are doing something without having to address the actual origin of the criticism.

It's nothing conspiratorial, mind you, just practical short-term thinking in order to get and through a news cycle, that doesn't draw the MSM's attention to netroots dissent (or affirmation, for that matter). The LGBT orgs are also in a pickle of trying to figure out what to do about citizen journalism -- working with, co-opting, minimizing impact of, etc. It depends on the day, the topic, the blog(s) in question and the damage control needed. That's just the brave new world of communications and activism that we are in. No one has a handbook, no one can say they are experts in the field. Eventually the old school patient will expire.

Mike Signorile interviews combative Barney Frank about DOMA, criticism of Dems

Pam Spaulding — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:15:00 GMT

Surf over to Mike Signorile's blog to listen to the Massachusetts Congressman nearly go off the rails when Mike asks basic, obvious questions in a calm manner about the strong criticism of the DOMA brief by Howard Dean (Frank has defended the language in the brief). Let's just say the question caused the normally unflappable lawmaker to threaten to end the interview.

Barney became very unhappy with me and pretty heated when I played Howard Dean's comments on the DOMA brief, trying to stop me and saying he didn't come on for me to "play records."
He defended the brief, defended the President on LGBT rights, defended Democrats in the House (though he said we need to take on Democrats in the Senate) and defended the DNC fundraiser.
Barney and I have known each other for many years, agree on many things, disagree on others, and often when he comes on the show it can be a spirited discussion. This time I'd say he was a more angry about issues, particularly with how some of us who have criticized the Democrats and the White House.

Please go listen to the interview -- the question about DOMA came up at minute 8:00. When Mike goes to play the Dean clip, Frank really loses it; it's clear that he doesn't want to have his position juxtaposed against Dean's (pertinent Dean quote: "you cannot talk about gay Americans the way they were talked about in this brief."). At one point (around 15:07) Frank screams into the phone at Mike. It was pretty shocking.

LGBT fundraiser for DNC (reportedly) nets $1M, attendees greeted by small group of demonstrators

Pam Spaulding — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:00:00 GMT

UPDATE (bumping post back up): A political insider has just informed me that there is something fishy about that $1 Million amount claimed to have been raised for the DNC fundraiser. So we cannot confirm that this is all queer money from this fundraiser.

As often done, Andy Tobias as Treasurer of the DNC can apply any of his fundraising efforts or other DNC staff fundraising efforts to whichever event that in order to inflate the success of the particular fundraiser. Many straight stockbrokers (loyal DNC'ers) could have given $30K in the months prior to the fundraiser, and had no clue where his/her money was being applied internally at the DNC. Also there are regular Queer Donors to the DNC that give monthly and annually and this amount was probably added to the tally for the event.

FEC reports will be filed at the end of this month so we will be able to check the DNC amounts for when the $$$ was raised, and who wrote a check from the LGBT community. My inside source says they would be lucky if they actually raised $250,000. Still a lot of money, but no where near the $1,000,000. claimed by the DNC.

Here is video from the Washington Blade of the protest:

There's not a lot of press out there about last night's 10th annual LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser yet, but Kerry Eleveld has coverage up at The Advocate this AM (and DaveM has a diary up). The number of protestors was pretty small -- I've seen 40 and this article says 25.

When Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin arrived, she chatted with the spirited flock of about 25 and then pivoted to enter the Mandarin Oriental Hotel as cries of "Don't go in, Tammy!" and "Shame on you!" followed her.
"I think it's so important that as gay and lesbian people who are denied equal rights, we do feel an impatience and a frustration and it's really important that that be expressed both outside and inside," she said.

A long list of prominent people dropped out of the fundraiser, but the event was successful -- raising more scratch than last year's event.

Despite the controversy, about 180 people showed up to hear Vice President Joe Biden speak for a price tag of $1,000 to $30,400 per plate. The event brought in nearly $1 million, up from about $750,000 last year, according to a Democratic Party source.

So what does this mean? Well, one question I have is whether those who withdrew had paid in advance actually asked for their money back when they dropped out; otherwise, the DNC coffers were still filled with queer dollars. It also means that we still have a good chunk of our well-heeled community that cares less about sending a strong message of dissatisfaction to this administration than putting chips in to stay "in the game" at the expense of, for instance, discharged service members during a time when their skills are desperately needed for our national security. So what did the special guest, our VP Joe Biden, offer up?

Biden ticked off a list of priorities for the community, starting with receiving a standing ovation for saying with great gusto, "We will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act with your help!" He touched on "don't ask, don't tell," the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, employment nondiscrimination, the HIV travel ban and hate crimes.

But tellingly, DNC chair Tim Kaine seemed to be aloof about the issues at hand re: the community:

"He didn't really seem to recognize what it meant for the people who were in that room to show up," said LGBT activist Peter Rosenstein, calling his speech "disappointing." ...he didn't run down the litany of issues that the vice president did during his speech - it lacked a real commitment to showing what the DNC is going to do on our issues."