New Jersey LGBT Law

Lately, I’ve been rushing to cineplexes and studying critics’ picks so that I’ll be in shape for the 84th Academy Awards show, which airs from the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles on Sunday.

People all over the world will watch as winners and losers dressed to the nines, walk the red carpet, muster up smiles for the cameras even when they haven’t won a coveted statue and try to thank everyone they’ve ever known before the music begins playing telling them to get off the stage. But for me and other LGBT viewers, this isn’t just another awards show. The Oscars are our Super Bowl. With stars glittering in glam, dazzling divas and a long homage to all things celluloid from costumes to acting, the Academy Awards packs a powerful queer quotient.

Why is our community so entwined with Tinseltown?  Because historically, movies have played a vital role in forming the images that we have of ourselves, and LGBT people in front of and behind the camera have been instrumental in creating Hollywood.

Movies have intersected with the milestones in everyone’s life (gay or straight), I’d wager.  Who hasn’t thought of a sigh, a kiss, a witty line or music from a film when falling in love, breaking up with a lover, mourning a loss or quarreling with a BFF?

This is even truer for LGBT filmgoers. Often isolated by homophobia, since the dawn of the silent pictures, we’ve turned to movies (even though many films don’t have openly queer characters) for romance, camp and beauty. For better, and until recently often for worse (in such films as “The Children’s Hour” with its stereotypical portrayal of lesbians or “Tea and Sympathy” with its “unmanly” teenage protagonist), movies have cemented cultural definitions of what LGBT people are like.  As the narrator says in the 1996 documentary “The Celluloid Closet,” Hollywood has “taught straight people what to think about gay people and gay people what to think about themselves.”

In 1974, when I was 22, after some years of timidity, I got the courage to come out after seeing the 1971 movie “Sunday, Bloody Sunday.” Though dated today, the film’s story of a love triangle involving a bisexual man and his gay and straight lovers, revealed to me that I wasn’t the only LGBT person in the universe. The movie showed me that though being open about my sexuality wouldn’t be easy, I could have a life.

Years later, reel life meeting real life, I met the love of my life at a screening of “Desert Hearts,” a lesbian romance, at a LGBT film festival.

When my (late) partner was ill, we found solace in screwball comedies from the 1930s like “Bringing Up Baby.” Even if you’re dying, it’s hard not to laugh when, in “Baby,” Cary Grant (widely believed to have been bisexual), wearing Katharine Hepburn’s bathrobe, exclaims, “I’ve gone gay!” on being asked why he’s wearing such garb.

A gay presence and sensibility have long permeated Hollywood. “Lots of gay people” worked for the studios during Hollywood’s golden age, writes Scotty Bowers in his new tell-all book “Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars.”  “Those behind the camera could be more open,” Bowers says, “but the actors and major directors and producers had ‘morals’ clauses in their contracts, which they would have violated by being openly known as gay or bisexual.”

Though until fairly recently, openly queer characters couldn’t be portrayed in films, LGBT directors, actors, choreographers and others involved in production (including George Cukor, James Whale and Greta Garbo) infused movies from “The Bride of Frankenstein” to “Camille” to “The Gay Divorcee” with fabulous beauty, camp and wit.

True, homophobia still exists in Hollywood, and there are far too few films that accurately portray queer life.  But where would we be without the movies?  Watching the Oscars, let’s say, “Hooray for Hollywood.”

D.C. is growing larger and getting livelier.

The city’s rising population — growing faster than any state during the most recent Census Bureau annual data reporting period — will continue to alter the landscape across a broad and ever-expanding swath of the District. It will also accelerate the curtailment of the influence and power of anti-growth neighborhood nannies and anti-business Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) members.

The number of city residents is growing throughout the city and intensifying in the Logan Circle, U Street, Shaw and Petworth neighborhoods, NoMa and the rapidly developing H Street, N.E., area, as well as the Nationals stadium and Navy Yard waterfront location. This expansion continues to be most evident along the commercial corridors of 14th and U streets.

On the heels of explosive population and housing growth in recent years, nearly 1,300 new housing units are either currently under construction or planned for coming months along 14th Street between Thomas Circle and Florida Avenue. Upwards of 2,000 additional residents will soon become the newest faces of this continued transformation — significantly increasing the population in the area as they quickly snatch up soon-to-be-available new housing.

Nearly all of this new construction multi-unit housing will be apartments, with several planned condominium projects having converted to rentals prior to construction. Reflecting the seemingly insatiable demand by young professionals and older singles and retired couples for housing in the area, these units are predominantly studios and one-bedrooms averaging less than 650 square feet. These contemporary light-filled residences comport with strong marketplace preferences for less space and high-end finishes for the modern life-on-the-go lived substantially outside the home.

The already unmet desires of current city residents in high demand areas for neighborhood hospitality and retail businesses — primarily places to eat, drink and socialize — will fuel intensifying demand for additional venues. On many evenings, existing restaurants and bars are insufficient to meet the demands of space and desires for a diversity of options.

These recent and new arrivals paying premium prices for their preferred urban lifestyle expect the convenience of having ready access to these social destinations. They don’t take well to suggestions by ANCs or licensing and zoning opponents that development should be restricted or amenities limited. Easily flummoxed by not being able to walk out the door and onto the street to enjoy a full complement of dining, drinking and entertainment opportunities, they will continue to drive the development of our neighborhoods in ways not yet fully recognized.

This requires only that they both overcome their astonishment at the undue influence small numbers of development-averse residents have historically wielded and are able to trust that the city government increasingly weighs economic development considerations in adjudicating such matters.

Area blogs and news reports announce on an accelerating frequency the planned opening of new restaurants, bars, lounges and other gathering spots in the immediate and surrounding areas. The reaction of most neighborhood residents is one of delighted appreciation and excitement.

Although there will be transportation, parking, infrastructure and business development pressures and conflicts for the foreseeable future as a result of this concentrated growth, the popularity of D.C. city living will dictate the growing irrelevance of those who seek to eliminate the casual cacophony of a vibrant urban life. Over time this will further enhance the District as a world-class environment and allow it to evolve from its long-held reputation as a sleepy Southern river town.

D.C. FOOD TRUCK UPDATE

The D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) announced last week that the agency has extended the period for public comment on proposed regulations governing local food trucks and their operation to March 1 at 5 p.m., an extension of 12 days.

The news appears to have excited Barbara Tomlinson of Seattle, Wash., who on Feb. 19 sent a message to DCRA among her 4,005 other signed online petitions regarding a wide variety of issues from across the country available on the national petition website being utilized by the D.C. Food Truck Association (DCFTA) to gather signatures concerning this local issue.

Thank you, Ms. Tomlinson, for playing the game all the way from the American Northwest — now put away the keyboard and go get something to eat!

Mark Lee is a local small business manager and long-time community business advocate. Reach him at OurBusinessMatters@gmail.com.

What a difference a year makes. Just 11 months ago, the hopes of Maryland’s gay rights advocates were dashed when the House of Delegates yanked a bill to legalize same-sex marriage after support for the measure crumbled.

But on Friday, after a long week of testimony, amendments and emotional floor speeches, the House approved the bill by two votes and found support from a few unlikely voices.

Republican Dels. Wade Kach and Robert Costa cast votes in favor, joining fellow Republican Sen. Allan Kittleman, who voted for it last year. Then in another surprise move, Del. Tiffany Alston, who was widely criticized last year for changing her mind on the bill, changed it again. She voted against the bill in committee on Tuesday, then for it on the House floor on Friday after offering a friendly amendment that was accepted. Unfortunately, she supports a referendum on the issue. In an odd twist, Alston was indicted last year on charges that she used campaign funds to pay for expenses related to her wedding, including her dress.

Kach, from Baltimore County, switched his vote from last year and said he received threats as a result. He was shadowed by state police officers in Annapolis on Friday.

Costa announced his support in advance of the vote last week.

“I think it’s not a state function to decide who can marry,” the Annapolis Capital quoted Costa as saying. “I do what I believe is right for people. I don’t think that matters. I represent constituents and not a party.”

A confluence of factors brought about this historic outcome, from the aggressive support of Gov. Martin O’Malley, to the passage of similar laws in New York last year and Washington and New Jersey earlier this month. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney got involved in the Maryland fight, placing calls to fence-sitting Republicans asking them to vote for the bill, according to a Baltimore Sun report. That little gem puts President Obama in an awkward position — to the right of Cheney on marriage.

Another little noticed development came during a town hall-style meeting with O’Malley sponsored by the Baltimore Sun last week. During the meeting, O’Malley acknowledged that he sacrificed his private support for marriage for political gain.

“I was mayor of the city of Baltimore then and my political advisers and friends went absolutely nuts and said ‘There is no such term as civil marriage’ … if you use the term ‘civil marriage’ you are going to jeopardize whatever hope we have to defeat the current officeholder and make the sort of strides, in any number of areas, that [then-Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. is] opposed to on these things,” O’Malley said.

It was a stunningly candid admission, though a fact that most of us assumed. Like so many other politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — O’Malley privately supported same-sex marriage all along but was afraid to say so publicly. It’s the same position Obama finds himself in now. No one believes that Obama opposes marriage equality and he’ll certainly express his support after the November election. Kudos to O’Malley for finally going public and for his important testimony in support of the bill and his staff’s behind-the-scenes lobbying that helped bring about the positive outcome Friday.

There are many others who deserve credit and our gratitude for the House vote: Kittleman for demonstrating that this isn’t a partisan issue; the Assembly’s openly gay and lesbian members for their visibility and passion; the supportive clergy who went public and testified for the bill; Equality Maryland staffers and board members past and present for never giving up; the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition led by HRC; and the couples who sued unsuccessfully for marriage rights in a case that culminated in 2007.

One of those couples, Lisa Polyak and Gita Deane, has remained a key part of the fight ever since. Polyak serves as board chair for Equality Maryland, an organization that was on the verge of total collapse when she took over last year. Since then, thanks in large part to her smart leadership, the statewide LGBT advocacy group is back on its feet with a capable new executive director in Carrie Evans. Polyak and Deane bravely put their family in the public spotlight in the name of equality and justice. It’s a scary thing to do when you have children and Maryland’s LGBT residents owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their sacrifice and courage.

The news, of course, isn’t all good. In all the seesawing that went on with the marriage debate, no one proved more disappointing than freshman Del. Sam Arora, a Democrat from progressive Montgomery County, who campaigned in support of marriage equality and took LGBT votes and money as a result, then stabbed his constituents in the back by changing his position. He is a slimy, two-faced politician of the worst order who should quietly slink away from public life when his term expires. If not, the challengers are already lining up to take him out. One and done for Sam Arora.

And the fight goes on, first to the Senate, which is expected to pass the bill as it did last year, then to state voters in a likely November referendum. No matter the outcome of that referendum, the tide has turned in Maryland and marriage equality for state residents is a matter of when, not if. Supporters should celebrate this historic moment, confident that we are on the right side of history.

Team DC, an umbrella organization made up of LGBT and LGBT-friendly sports teams in the area, held a casino night at Buffalo Billiards near Dupont Circle on Saturday.

(Washington Blade photos by Pete Exis)

Del. Sam Arora changed his mind on the marriage bill, which he once sponsored, and voted against it last week. (Courtesy photo)

Maryland Del. Sam Arora’s decision to vote against the same-sex marriage bill last week proved unpopular with many in his progressive Montgomery County district, but no one was more disappointed than Arora’s own state senator, Roger Manno.

Sen. Manno (D-District 19), in a lengthy interview with the Blade, recalled his ultimately unsuccessful efforts to persuade Arora to support the bill, stretching back to last year.

“It’s a very tough situation,” Manno said. “I’m extremely concerned and disappointed and have spoken to constituents who are confused and concerned. I’m so … deeply disappointed and sad that Sam could not get there for whatever reason.”

Manno said he began meeting regularly with Arora shortly after he was elected in 2010 and heard that the freshman delegate was struggling with the marriage issue. Arora had campaigned on a pledge of support for the bill and even co-sponsored it initially before changing his mind last year.

“I could sense there could be a problem,” Manno said. “And I tried to mentor him. Freshmen make mistakes here and it’s easy to do things that are damaging to your career and that hurt people.”

So Manno and several other members of the Montgomery County delegation to Annapolis tried “to get him to see the issue as we saw it.”

“In my heart, marriage equality is an important and timely issue of emancipation for loving families who happen to be of the same sex,” Manno said.

After the marriage bill died in the House last year and the session ended, Manno said Arora took time off to study for the bar exam. Then last summer the two colleagues met again to discuss marriage.

“We sat for several hours and talked about his thoughts on marriage equality and where he was on the bill and he represented it was a crisis of faith,” Manno said.

At that point, Arora expressed a range of concerns about the bill, Manno said, including religious, moral and constitutional objections. Still, Manno urged Arora to keep an open mind because he knew that Gov. Martin O’Malley was planning to introduce the marriage bill in 2012. In late summer, Manno asked Arora to join him at a press conference where O’Malley announced his plans for the marriage bill, but Arora failed to show up.

When the 2012 session started last month, Manno said he continued to reach out to Arora, culminating with an hour-long meeting last week before a joint committee vote on the marriage bill; Arora serves on the Judiciary Committee, which was considering the measure.

“I didn’t know where he was going to go that week,” Manno said. Arora ultimately abstained from voting in committee at which point, “I put my head in my hands and said, ‘oh no,’” Manno said. After the committee sent the bill to the House floor, Arora received multiple calls from senior Democrats seeking his support, including O’Malley and former President Bill Clinton.

“When he went to the floor, I was there in the House chamber to give him a hug and let him know he had my support to vote for equality,” Manno said. “The vote came Friday, I was on the floor, I sent him a text a minute before the vote. I believed at the end of the day he would put a green vote on the board and he didn’t. The chamber erupted in jubilation, rightfully so, but I was standing on the floor with my head hung because Sam had disappointed a lot of people.”

Arora has yet to publicly disclose his reasons for opposing the bill after once sponsoring it. He has refused repeated interview requests from the Blade and other media outlets since last year.

Joshua Lapidus, Arora’s legislative director, quit in protest Friday night just after the marriage vote in a scathing resignation letter obtained by the Blade.

“I respect you and your beliefs, however I cannot respect your decision to place personal religious belief over the roles and responsibilities of the stewardship the people of District 19 entrusted unto you,” Lapidus wrote. He added, “It saddens me that you are standing against the tide of history and ending your career over an issue that will no doubt be decided in the affirmative, with or without your vote, over the next couple years.  So, I write this letter to inform you that if you vote don’t vote for HB 438 l can no longer work under your employ.”

Arora issued a brief statement to the Blade in response to Lapidus’s resignation.

“I don’t comment on personnel issues,” Arora wrote. “That said: Josh continues to be a friend, and I wish him well.”

Another one-time friend of Arora’s, columnist and Democratic strategist Karl Frisch, praised Lapidus for stepping down.

“I think it’s gutsy,” Frisch said. “It’s the right move and shows that we had allies working on our behalf in his office.”

Frisch, a D.C. resident, donated $100 to Arora’s campaign in 2010 and said he knew Arora socially for several years. But after rumors emerged that Arora’s marriage position was changing, Frisch said his calls and emails went unreturned.

“I feel personally betrayed,” Frisch said. “I don’t take candidates’ word for it — he was listed as a co-sponsor of the bill and filled out an Equality Maryland questionnaire [on marriage]. … I’m used to politicians lying, I’m not used to being lied to by a friend.”

After Friday’s vote, Frisch said he took part in a conference call with a group of “national and Maryland-based political operatives to discuss every tool we can deploy to send Sam packing in 2014.” Manno said he wasn’t on that call but noted that politicians have to answer to their constituents.

“A former boss of mine once said that politics is about loyalty — to people, ideas, communities. At the end of the day, that’s really what we do,” Manno said. “Politicians have to answer for what we do in the next election and we all have to answer for what we do in the next life and I try to keep that in the forefront of my thoughts everyday.”

Manno, 45, is straight and married but credits his upbringing in the diverse and gay-friendly neighborhoods of Chelsea and Greenwich Village in New York for influencing his views on marriage. He once interned in the Clinton White House for Richard Socarides, who advised Clinton on gay-related issues.

“Marriage is a terribly uncomplicated issue,” he said. “If you love people and want to see that spark ignite, you have to love everyone.”

Jim Kolbe (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A gay former congressman is throwing his support behind Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, days after the congressional candidate came out as gay.

In an interview with the Washington Blade, former Rep. Jim Kolbe, who served in Congress from 1985 to 2007, endorsed the candidacy of his fellow Arizonian Republican, who came out over the weekend after he was outed by the Phoenix New Times.

“I endorse Paul Babeu based on his distinguished record of service to his country both in the military and as a law enforcement officer,” Kolbe said. “I think he has a solid understanding of the short and long-term economic problems that face this country and is willing to make the necessary, tough decisions to tackle them.”

In the New Times piece, Jose, whose last name wasn’t disclosed, alleged Babeu threatened him with deportation after their relationship soured. The article included shirtless photos of the candidate allegedly sent to Jose and a picture that appeared to be his adam4adam profile.

But Babeu denied the allegations against him at a news conference held on Saturday — except the news about his sexual orientation — and came out as gay. In a later interview Monday on CNN, Babeu admitted to dating Jose, but said the allegations about deportation threats aren’t true because he doesn’t have the authority to deport undocumented immigrants, only the authority to arrest them.

Kolbe, now a fellow at the German Marshall Fund think tank and a consultant at Kissinger McLarty Associates, came out as gay himself in 1996 after LGBT rights groups criticized him for voting in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.

But Kolbe said he wouldn’t draw a comparison between his coming out and Babeu’s announcement because “every person has a different story of coming out.”

“The obvious similarity for Paul and myself is that we are both in public office, while the obvious difference is that I was already in Congress, while he is seeking election to the Congress,” Kolbe said. “Beyond that, every person faced with a similar situation has a unique story of how and when they decide to come out and how it is dealt with.”

Kolbe said he knew about Babeu’s sexual orientation prior to the candidate’s announcement on Saturday based on conversations the two had previously.

“I knew he was gay,” Kolbe said. “That is the only thing that I can say that I knew. We had several little discussions about that in my conversations with him. That’s all I would say about that.”

Even though he was in a relationship with an immigrant, Babeu has taken a hard line on the issue of immigration during his political career. During an appearance at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, Babeu criticized the Obama administration for fighting in court the state’s strict law against illegal immigration.

Babeu, whose campaign didn’t respond to an interview request from the Washington Blade, could break from conservative ranks on LGBT rights if elected to Congress. He suggested that he supports same-sex marriage during his CNN interview, saying “this is where I go Ron Paul on people” and adding that the issue should fall to the states.

“This is where our government needs to get the heck out of the way, and if it’s not harming somebody, then what does it matter?” Babeu said. “And you can’t legislate love.”

Babeu added that he believes in freedom of religion and “there are faiths and religions that our government shouldn’t get involved in that absolutely do not condone gay marriage” while saying he doesn’t believe the government should tell other faiths they can’t support it.

The candidate’s coming out means four openly LGBT candidates are running for Congress in Arizona — more than any other state in the country. Besides Babeu, Democratic Rep. Matt Heinz and state Sen. Paula Aboud are running to succeed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Former state Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who’s bisexual, is also running. On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund endorsed Sinema.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu (Photo by Gage Skidmore via wikimedia commons)

Whether Babeu, elected as sheriff in 2008 and once considered a rising star within the GOP, can remain viable is an open question. In a conservative state with a large evangelical Christian and Mormon population, he’s come out, faces allegations that he tried to deport someone and has acknowledged being in a same-sex relationship with an immigrant. Babeu stepped down from his position as co-chair of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in Arizona after the allegations broke.

Sean Theriault, a political scientist at the University of Texas, Austin, said Babeu faces difficulties because of the allegations against him in addition to being an openly gay candidate, but said Arizona has a surprising track record on LGBT issues and candidates.

“I’m not sure I would make the same assessment in other states, but Arizona Republicans have a record with the gays,” Theriault said. “At the end of his life, Sen. Barry Goldwater was a big proponent of gay rights and Jim Kolbe, a gay Republican, represented Gabby Giffords’s district before she did.”

When asked during the CNN interview whether he would become active with the Log Cabin Republicans, Babeu replied, “I’m sure.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin, said he has spoken with Babeu as he has with other Republicans seeking election to Congress.

“We had a relationship with the candidate and the campaign prior to him coming out, so there’s no change there,” Cooper said.

Cooper said his group doesn’t endorse candidates in the primary season. After the nominees are decided, Cooper said Log Cabin will announce its endorsements in the fall.

Asked where Babeu stands on LGBT issues, Cooper pointed to an editorial he wrote for The Washington Times. The piece says Babeu is “already making the case for equality in a way that resonates with Republicans” by being openly gay and notes his service in the armed forces while serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Chris Barron, chief strategist of the gay conservative group GOProud, said he isn’t aware of his organization having had any conversations with Babeu and said his campaign hasn’t reached out to the organization.

“Our efforts here have been on the presidential election, not on reaching out to congressional candidates,” Barron said. “We hear from candidates all the time, and it’s very early in the election season to be talking about House and Senate candidates, especially with a presidential election going on.”

Denis Dison, spokesperson for the Victory Fund, said his organization hasn’t had any conversations with Babeu and that he wouldn’t be able to talk about any interactions the candidate would have with the organization at a later time.

“If we do work with him, we’d do it privately and we wouldn’t be able to talk about it in the press, but I can confirm that we have not talked to him,” Dison said.

Asked whether Babeu would be eligible for a Victory Fund endorsement, Dison pointed to the criteria on the organization’s website, which states candidates the organization supports must be openly LGBT; demonstrate community support and a realistic plan to win; show support for efforts to advance LGBT rights; and demonstrate support “to safeguard privacy and reproductive freedom.”

HRC declined to comment for this article. If the group is interacting with Babeu, it wouldn’t be the first time it has helped a public official with the coming out process. In 2004, then-New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey reportedly sought HRC’s advice when writing his coming out speech.

Kolbe said he wasn’t aware of contact between LGBT advocacy organizations and Babeu’s campaign.

“That’s a decision that those organization have to make and he has to make — whether he wants that coordination or not, or that assistance,” Kolbe said. “I think he’s quite capable of putting together a pretty substantial campaign on his own with the people and the volunteers that he’s got.”

The Baltimore County Council passed a bill Tuesday in a 5-2 vote that would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. All Democrats voted in favor of the measure.

“It’s highly significant in that 800,000 people in Baltimore County are now covered,” said Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland. “That brings the total in the state to 2.5 million or over half the population of the state. It’s also indicative of the momentum we’re building for trans protections in that we passed two [trans non-discrimination] bills in the past three months. And that gives us an opportunity to work this thing in Annapolis and hopefully get the State Senate president’s attention and his permission to let this through.”

A statewide gender identity non-discrimination bill is pending in the General Assembly where Senate President Mike Miller has resisted bringing it to a vote, saying he can only deal with “one gay issue at a time.” A bill that did not include public accommodations died in the Senate last year.

The Baltimore County bill was introduced by Council member Tom Quirk of Catonsville on Jan. 17 and a hearing was held Feb. 14. Opponents claimed that the legislation would allow men to dress as women to enter public restrooms to attack women. No such outcome has been documented in jurisdictions where similar laws have been passed.

But when the hearing took place on Feb. 14, supporters of the bill outnumbered opponents 44-14. And the day before the vote only a dozen or so, including Republican Rep. Andy Harris, demonstrated outside Quirk’s Catonsville office.

There had been fear on the part of the bill’s supporters that an amendment would be introduced that would exclude public accommodations, but that did not materialize.

Quirk acknowledged that the beating of transgender woman Chrissy Lee Polis in a Rosedale McDonald’s, which was caught on video and went viral, was a factor in introducing the measure.

Similar legislation was passed in Howard County in December; Baltimore City and Montgomery County already provide trans protections in Maryland.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Obama campaign has tapped Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese for a position as a national co-chair to advocate for the president based on his work for the LGBT community and the country as a whole.

On Wednesday, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying Solmonese had been selected for the role as part of a group of 35 individuals who had been chosen as national co-chairs.

In a statement, Solmonese praised Obama’s work on LGBT issues over the course of the more than three years the president has been in office, saying the president’s leadership “has brought about great change for LGBT Americans.”

“From ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ to prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in the federal government, to signing the hate crime prevention act into law, the Obama administration has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than ever before,” Solmonese said. “President Obama has made it clear that LGBT Americans deserve a fair shot and has taken steps across his administration to make the lives of those most in need in our community better.”

Others on the list include Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and actress Eva Longoria, who stars on ABC’s “Desperate Housewives.”

In a statement, Jim Messina, Obama for America’s campaign manager, said the national co-chairs “will be tremendous assets on the ground as we build the biggest grassroots campaign in history.”

“They each share the president’s vision for a future where every American can have a fair shot at success, where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded,” Messina said.

According to the Obama campaign statement, the national co-chairs are charged with serving as ambassadors for the president, advising the campaign on key issues and helping to engage and mobilize voters. The positions are unpaid.

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said Solmonese’s role with the Obama campaign won’t be LGBT-specific and he’ll advocate for the president based on the entirety of his work.

“I think that Joe, obviously, will be most impactful in terms of speaking on behalf on the issues important to our community, but Joe will be able to speak to the entirety of the president’s record,” Sainz said.

Solmonese is slated to leave his post as HRC president when his contract expires on March 31, 2012. Sainz said Solmonese will begin his role with the Obama campaign immediately and continue his role for the president after he’s left the organization.

The complete list of the 35 national co-chairs follows:

·         Lynnette Acosta – OFA volunteer leader from Florida

·         Marc Benioff – CEO of Salesforce.com

·         Senator Michael Bennet – U.S. Senator from Colorado

·         Mayor Julian Castro – Mayor of San Antonio

·         Governor Lincoln Chafee – Governor of Rhode Island

·         Ann Cherry – Retired teacher and OFA volunteer leader from North Carolina

·         Representative Judy Chu – Representing the 32nd District of California

·         Representative Emanuel Cleaver – Representing the 5th District of Missouri

·         Bill Daley – Former White House Chief of Staff to President Obama, former U.S. Secretary of Commerce

·         Maria Elena Durazo – Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO

·         Senator Dick Durbin – U.S. Senator from Illinois

·         Mayor  Rahm Emanuel – Mayor of Chicago

·         Senator Russ Feingold – Former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin

·         Representative Charles A. Gonzalez – Representing the 20th District of Texas

·         Loretta Harper – High School Counselor and OFA volunteer leader from Nevada

·         Attorney General Kamala Harris – Attorney General of California

·         Sai Iyer – Student at Virginia Commonwealth University and OFA volunteer leader from Virginia

·         Caroline Kennedy – Author/President of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation

·         Eva Longoria – Actress and Philanthropist

·         Felesia Martin – OFA volunteer leader from Wisconsin

·         Bishop Vashti McKenzie – African Methodist Episcopal Bishop

·         Attorney General Tom Miller – Attorney General of Iowa

·         Kalpen Modi – Actor/Former White House Associate Director for the Office of Public Engagement

·         Admiral John Nathman – Retired U.S. Navy Admiral

·         Governor Deval Patrick – Governor of Massachusetts

·         Secretary Federico Pena - Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation and U.S. Secretary of Energy

·         Elaine Price – Retired Ohio resident and OFA volunteer leader from Ohio

·         Penny Pritzker – Founder and CEO of PSP Capital Partners

·         John Register – U.S. Army Veteran and Paralympian

·         Representative Jan Schakowsky – Representing the 9th District of Illinois

·         Senator Jeanne Shaheen – U.S. Senator from New Hampshire

·         Joe Solmonese – President of the Human Rights Campaign

·         Alan Solow – Partner at DLA Piper LLP and past Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

·         Governor Ted Strickland – Former Governor of Ohio

·         Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – Mayor of Los Angeles

So Glee happened. Yeah, that’s still on. I know, I forgot too. Meanwhile Sheriff Babeu tells Arizona prosecutors, “please investigate me,” according to JoeMyGod. And now the news:

• Supporters of anti-gay Prop 8 have found a way to prolong the Federal court case even longer: ThinkProgress reports they’re asking for an ‘en banc review’ by a larger panel of judges… but Courage Campaign says that could open the door to the plaintiffs asking for the stoppage on same-sex marriage to be lifted in the mean time.
• The Australian Prime Minister has finally dined with the same-sex couples who paid fair and square for the honor months ago.
• Conservative talk radio host, Michael Berry, caught on tape in drag bar, in hit and run after gay bar: my enemies are besmirching my good name (Towleroad).
• OutSports reports the UK Football association finally launches anti-homophobia campaign after what seems like every pro soccer athlete tweeted something homophobic in the last two months.
• ThinkProgress reports that the New Jersey Senate President called Gov. Christie veto “1000 percent wrong.”

 

In video, In The Life presents a day in the life of a homeless LGBT youth:

A powerful story that only now is getting attention.

Finally, are you a carnivore dating a vegetarian in the Nation’s Capital? Fear not, OutRageDC has your eating guide!

Knights of Columbus, a conservative Catholic fraternal organization, protests the marriage bill at the Md. Capitol Feb. 17. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Maryland Senate is poised to vote on a bill to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples this week, after a committee approved the bill in a 7-4 vote on Tuesday.

A second reading of the bill was delayed Wednesday by one day at the request of opponents. The delay was anticipated and is allowed by Senate rules to give opponents time to plot their strategy. Debate is expected to take place on Thursday, according to Sen. Roger Manno (D-Mont. Co.).

Last year the Senate passed the marriage bill 25-21 before it was scuttled in the House. Same-sex marriage supporters expect passage again this year. Senate President Mike Miller said on Wednesday that he believes there are sufficient votes for passage.

Kevin Nix, communications director of Marylanders for Marriage Equality — the coalition of LGBT rights groups that led the lobbying effort on the bill — said he expects the Civil Marriage Protection Act to be sent to Gov. Martin O’Malley for his signature by the end of this week.

According to legislative rules, though a House bill being voted on by the House of Delegates is only eligible for amendments on the second reading, if the Senate takes up a House bill, the bill is up for amendments on both the second and third readings, prior to a final vote. This means that opponents of the law have an additional opportunity to attach hostile amendments, though several sources told the Blade they doubt this will occur.

O’Malley has pledged to sign the bill should it pass the Senate as expected.

On Friday, the Civil Marriage Protection Act passed the House of Delegates 72-63, after an emotional day that included the surprise addition of support from Del. Tiffany Alston, who disappointed LGBT supporters with her unexpected rejection of the bill in March 2011. Alston proposed a friendly amendment to the bill that was accepted by the legislature in an overwhelming vote.

Once signed, the law will not go into effect until January of 2013, but first most likely will have to withstand a ballot referendum challenging the law.

So much happening today! At noon, we’ll know whether or not the Senate will be voting on the marriage bill in Maryland. But outside of the Free State, here’s your daily fix:

• We’ve seen Republican Congressional candidate and now openly gay tough-on-border security sheriff Paul Babeu in the news quite a bit lately, but now we’ll see his boyfriend, Jose, who was unmasked by Arizona TV this morning (JoeMyGod/Towleroad).
• Sweden will stop forced sterilization of transgender people, according to AllOut, as reported by Towleroad.
• A study finds an increasing number of young people diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder are getting the go-ahead for surgery, according to the AP.
• Catholic Charities is not happy about the Colorado Civil Unions bill, according to JoeMyGod.
• Finally, from the San Francisco Chronicle: is HIV drug Tenofovir dangerous?

ThinkProgress has a CBS report on homeless LGBT youth:

Come back later for more on Maryland!

A senior adviser to Maryland Del. Sam Arora has abruptly resigned in protest over Arora’s vote against the state’s same-sex marriage bill.

Joshua Lapidus, Arora’s legislative director, quit Friday night just after the marriage vote in a scathing resignation letter obtained by the Blade.

“I respect you and your beliefs, however I cannot respect your decision to place personal religious belief over the roles and responsibilities of the stewardship the people of District 19 entrusted unto you,” Lapidus wrote. He added, “It saddens me that you are standing against the tide of history and ending your career over an issue that will no doubt be decided in the affirmative, with or without your vote, over the next couple years.  So, I write this letter to inform you that if you vote don’t vote for HB 438 l can no longer work under your employ.”

Arora campaigned in 2010 in support of the bill and sponsored the measure last year, before suddenly changing his position and opposing it by the end of the 2011 legislative session. He voted against it Friday.

Arora continues to decline interview requests, but he issued a brief statement to the Blade in response to Lapidus’s resignation.

“I don’t comment on personnel issues,” Arora wrote. “That said: Josh continues to be a friend, and I wish him well.”

Another one-time friend of Arora’s, columnist and Democratic strategist Karl Frisch, praised Lapidus for stepping down.

“I think it’s gutsy,” Frisch said. “It’s the right move and shows that we had allies working on our behalf in his office.”

Frisch, a D.C. resident, donated $100 to Arora’s campaign in 2010 and said he knew Arora socially for several years. But after rumors emerged that Arora’s marriage position was changing, Frisch said his calls and emails went unreturned.

“I feel personally betrayed,” Frisch said. “I don’t take candidates’ word for it — he was listed as a co-sponsor of the bill and filled out an Equality Maryland questionnaire [on marriage]. … I’m used to politicians lying, I’m not used to being lied to by a friend.”

After Friday’s vote, Frisch said he took part in a conference call with a group of “national and Maryland-based political operatives to discuss every tool we can deploy to send Sam packing in 2014.”

He declined to reveal the specifics of what was discussed or who else participated on the call. But Frisch added that he’s heard that Gov. Martin O’Malley personally lobbied Arora and reportedly told him that his career is over if “he doesn’t vote the right way.”

Frisch said he supports Jay Hutchins for the District 19 seat in 2014. Hutchins ran and lost in the Democratic primary in 2010. He recently began recruiting supporters for a 2014 race.

It’s unclear exactly why Arora switched his position on the marriage bill, though the speculation is that his religious beliefs played a part in the decision to vote no. Lapidus addressed the religion issue in his resignation letter.

“We have a right to be religious,” he wrote. “You have a right to disagree with the marital union between not just a man and a woman. But we do not have the right to impose our religious beliefs on the people of Maryland and impede societal progress. You will be on the wrong side of history and l will not have any part in it.”

 

A discussion of the California marriage ruling.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Kwame Brown & openly gay City Council member David Catania. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Homes Norton and Ward 4 D.C. Council member Muriel Bowser on Feb. 16 won the endorsement of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club for the city’s April 3 Democratic primary.

The Stein Club, the city’s largest LGBT political organization, also endorsed Democrat Nate Bennett-Fleming for the post of U.S. shadow representative.

The city created one shadow House seat and two shadow Senate seats in the early 1980s as nonpaid positions with no voting authority for the purpose of advocating for D.C. statehood and D.C. voting rights in Congress.

The club didn’t approve an endorsement for the shadow U.S. Senate seat up for election this year after incumbent Michael D. Brown fell short by less than one percent of the required 60 percent vote of the club membership needed for an endorsement.

Stein President Lateefah Williams said Brown received just over 59 percent of the vote, with the balance of the votes going to challenger Pete Ross and for the ballot option of “no endorsement.”

Williams said Bowser, a long-time supporter of LGBT rights who voted in 2009 for the city’s same-sex marriage law, won the club endorsement with 72 percent of the vote.

Bennett-Fleming and Norton are running unopposed in the primary, with Bennett-Fleming also running unopposed in the November general election.

Bowser faces five opponents. Three of them, along with Bowser, Norton, and Bennett-Fleming, attended and spoke at a club meeting at the Metropolitan Community Church on Ridge Street, N.W., where the endorsement votes took place.

The three challengers to Muriel Bowser that attended the meeting – Renee L. Bowser, Judi Jones, and Max Skolnik – and the other two – Calvin Gurley and Baruti Jahi – submitted responses to a Stein Club questionnaire expressing support for LGBT related issues, including the city’s same-sex marriage law.

The candidates’ questionnaire responses are available for viewing on the Stein Club’s website, www.steindemocrats.org.

No Republican filed to run against Norton in the November election. Statehood-Green Party candidate Natale Lino Stracuzzi is expected to run against Norton in the November general election. Political observers consider Norton the odds on favorite to win another term in Congress.

LGBT activists, along with the Stein Club, the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, and other groups consider Norton one of the strongest LGBT advocates in Congress.

Williams said the Stein Club will vote on endorsements for the Ward 7 and Ward 8 Council seats on Feb. 23 at a location to be announced. She said the club would vote on endorsements in the At-Large Council race on March 1 at the Democratic National Committee headquarters on Capitol Hill.

Ward 7 incumbent Yvette Alexander and Ward 8 incumbent Marion Barry were the only two Council members to vote against the same-sex marriage law but have otherwise supported LGBT related issues during their tenure in office. Alexander faces seven opponents in the April 3 primary. Barry faces four opponents.

In the At-Large Council race, incumbent Vincent Orange, who captured the seat in a special election in 2011, faces three opponents. One of the opponents, Sekou Biddle, ran and lost against Orange in 2011. All four candidates running for the seat in the primary have expressed support on a wide range of LGBT related issues, including the same-sex marriage law.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu (photo by Gage Skidmore via wikimedia commons)

A conservative congressional candidate in Arizona has come out as gay and stepped down from a position on the Romney campaign amid allegations he threatened to deport an ex-boyfriend who’s a Mexican immigrant.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, who’s running for the Republican nomination to represent Arizona’s fourth congressional district in the U.S. House, has come under scrutiny after the Phoenix New Times first reported the allegations against him last week.

Jose, a 34-year-old from central Mexico whose last name was not disclosed in the article, told the paper Babeu threatened him with deportation if he were to reveal their years-long relationship.

The Mexican native said he met Babeu in October 2006 on Gay.com, a dating website for gay men. The two allegedly began dating, and Jose helped Babeu with his campaigns by creating and maintaining Babeu’s campaign websites, Facebook page and Twitter account. But after the relationship ended, Jose allegedly faced threats of deportation.

On Saturday, Babeu, first elected as sheriff in 2008 and considered a rising star in the Republican Party, held a news conference and denied all the allegations save one.

“Yesterday, a tabloid article made a number of false allegations about me,” Babeu said. “Only one was true: I’m gay.”

Babeu continued that he should be judged on his service to his country as he continues to pursue election to Congress.

“I want to be judged on my service: 20 years in the military, two deployments — including one in Iraq, a police officer who has responded to thousands of calls for help, and a sheriff who has cut response times while reducing my own budget,” Babeu said. “I hope you will stand with me as we talk about the issues that matter: securing our border and ending the record debt and deficit spending that is stalling our economy and bankrupting the country we all love.”

As part of its report, the Phoenix New Times published text messages Babeu allegedly sent Jose after the relationship ended, including messages saying, “You can never have business after this and you will harm me and many others in the process . . . including yourself & your family” and “You have crossed the line. Better get an attorney. You brother will also be contacted.”

Additionally, the paper published semi-nude photos of Babeu that he allegedly sent to Jose and a screenshot of what apparently is his profile for his adam4adam account.

Babeu later reportedly told the Arizona Republic he knows Jose as a campaign volunteer who improperly accessed his campaign website without permission. Babeu’s lawyer, Chris DeRose, provided the paper with a copy of a cease-and-desist order that he said was sent to the former campaign volunteer on Sept. 6 ordering him to stop accessing the site.

According to Talking Points Memo, Andrea Saul, a spokesperson for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said Babeu has stepped down from his position as co-chair of the campaign in Arizona.

“Sheriff Babeu has stepped down from his volunteer position with the campaign so he can focus on the allegations against him,” she was quoted as saying. “We support his decision.”

The congressional race in which Babeu is running is contested and other Republicans are seeking the nomination. It remains to be seen whether Babeu will be able to win in the district, which is currently represented by Democrat Ed Pastor, after facing these allegations and coming out.

Even though he was allegedly in a relationship with an immigrant, Babeu has a taken a hard line on the issue over the course of his political career. Upon announcing his candidacy for Congress in October, Babeu decried what he said was the lack of action from the Obama administration to confront illegal immigration.

“Rather than secure our border and enforce the law, what did we see from our federal government?” Babeu writes. “Signs in my county warning Americans to stay away, because the cartels were in control; a lawsuit against the people of Arizona; a declaration that the border is more secure than ever. Meanwhile, 400,000 people unlawfully enter our state every year, tens of thousands with criminal records, some from nations that sponsor terrorism.”

Babeu and the allegations against him have received national attention since the Phoenix New Times reported them last week.

According to Politico, the developments will likely raise three concerns with Arizona Republican primary voters: his sexual orientation, the deportation allegation and the revelation Babeu was in a relationship with an undocumented immigrant while positioning himself as a hardline border protection sheriff.

“If Babeu fails to make it to the primary — or through it — some might point to the Republican Party’s reputation of being hostile to gays as the reason,” Politico reports.

In appearance on ABC News’ “This Week,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Babeu his “friend” and said he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“Well of course Sheriff Babeu is a friend of mine,” McCain said. “I do not know the details except what has been published in the media and I am sure there will be a through and complete investigation if there is any allegations of wrongdoing. All I can say is that he also deserves the benefit, as every citizen does, of innocence until proven guilty.”

Babeu has connection to McCain because the sheriff helped with the senator’s re-election efforts. In May 2010, when he was featured in a McCain TV ad, where the two walk along a steel fence delineating the U.S.-Mexican border. Babeu affirms support for McCain’s immigration plan.

Babeu’s inclusion in the ad was meant to bolster the senator’s credibility on border security during a contested GOP primary race against former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

The crowd gathered at the Maryland Capitol cheered ecstatically when the marriage bill passed. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A jubilant crowd erupted into cheers outside the House of Delegates chambers Friday night, as news broke that lawmakers had approved the Civil Marriage Protection Act in a close 72-67 vote.

The dramatic outcome — the bill passed by two votes, triggering a raucous cheer in the chambers — followed an emotional debate over the measure that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the Free State. The bill now goes to the Senate, which passed a similar measure last year, and is expected to vote on the bill in the coming weeks.

MORE PHOTOS AND COVERAGE OF THE DEBATE LEADING UP TO THE WIN FROM THE BLADE.

Gov. Martin O’Malley has made the bill a priority and testified in favor of it at a House committee hearing. Assuming the Senate passes it as expected and O’Malley signs as promised, opponents would have until May 31 to collect 55,736 valid signatures to qualify a measure for the November ballot that would strike down the law.

“I didn’t do anything, we all did it,” Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore) said after the historic vote. “And now we’re sending this bill to Sen. Madaleno in the Senate, and we believe we’ll get this bill passed, and get it to the governor’s desk, and he’ll sign it right away.”

“As a big baseball fan, I’m guessing this is what it feels like to win the World Series,” Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Takoma Park), a lesbian, told the Blade.

Del. Clippinger's speech moved many in the chamber. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Clippinger became emotional as he rose to encourage his colleagues to support extending marriage rights to himself, the six other openly gay and lesbian delegates in the Maryland House, their colleague Sen. Richard Madaleno, and thousands of same-sex couples throughout Maryland.

“I ask you to vote ‘yes’ because the joy felt by two parents raising children shouldn’t be overshadowed by fear that the other parent might not be able to care for that child in a time of crisis,” Clippinger proclaimed to his fellow legislators. “But more, I’m here tonight to ask you to vote ‘yes,’ as I have before. Because I am here as a child of God, perfect in my imperfections. Because I am here — not less than any other person — but a full beneficiary to all of God’s infinite love, just as each and every person is. Because I am here as a Marylander.”

The final floor speech before the close vote was delivered by Del. Tiffany Alston, who angered many LGBT advocates in 2011 when she pulled her support for the bill. Alston spoke to the delegates about the difficulty she had coming to her decision to once again support gender neutral marriage in Maryland.

“I can say that my religion still tells me that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Alston said in a shaking voice, clearly emotional. “And I can tell you I still believe it’s OK for people of the same sex to get married. But what I know, is that as a state it’s time for us to move beyond this issue.”

“Today, I’m going to cast a green vote in support of the bill.” Alston adding, noting that she supports a referendum on the issue.

Upon her proclamation, many of the gay and lesbian lawmakers — including Clippinger, who had been a driving force behind the bill — became visibly emotional.

Tiffany Alston (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Alston offered one of two amendments that was accepted by the legislature earlier in the afternoon, which would ensure that the law could not take effect until all legal challenges to the law and any possible referendum were settled. However, according to the Maryland Constitution, a law cannot take effect until any referendum challenge has been settled in any case, meaning the Alston amendment merely restated existing state law.

Supporters of same-sex marriage were happy to back Alston’s amendment if it meant comfort to those lawmakers hesitant to support the bill before them because they feared a referendum would be blocked.

“It was something that could add a level of comfort for some people,” Del. Mary Washington (D-Baltimore), a lesbian, told the Blade, after the amendment was accepted 81-52. “This is something that we could negotiate on.”

Mizeur told the Blade that the fate of Alston’s vote on the bill itself was in the balance up to the afternoon of the vote. Throughout the proceedings, Alston seemed emotional, often resting her head in her hands as she sat at her desk, and looking around the room at her colleagues as they delivered their speeches for and against the bill.

“We talked about it as a possibility yesterday, and we were putting things in play to see if it would work,” Mizeur said. “By this morning, I was told 50/50, and we didn’t exactly know for sure when we were heading into the floor. It was that close.”

Dels. Heather Mizeur and Luke Clippinger embraced following the vote. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The bill’s supporters were grateful for Alston’s vote, as her change of heart in March 2011 elicited a backlash from many in the LGBT community.

Another amendment that the delegates passed was a measure that would have changed the date that the law went into effect from October to January.

A rejected amendment would have changed “civil marriage” to “civil unions,” in the law, a change that at least four of those who eventually voted against the bill said would have helped persuade them to support the measure, including former National Football League quarterback, Del. Jay Walker, who cited his fellow former NFL player, gay defensive tackle Esera Tuaolo in his remarks.

Another rejected amendment would have changed the legal age of consent for same-sex marriage to 18, and a fourth would have allowed parents to opt their children out of same-sex marriage related curriculum that they found offensive, which lesbian Del. Anne Kaiser argued the law already allows.

During the floor speeches Friday night, Del. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore) gave a moving speech about making history in 2001 when she came out as a lesbian to her fellow lawmakers the same year that the House voted to enact a non-discrimination law covering gays and lesbians in employment.

“In 2001, I became legal,” McIntosh said of the vote, calling it a great moment in history.

Throughout the floor speeches, many of the opponents of the same-sex marriage bill began to move on from discussing the impending vote, to instead rallying for the expected ballot referendum, indicating that at least some of the opponents were expecting the bill to pass.

“It ain’t over ’til it’s over,” Del. Emmett Burns told the legislature, referring to the referendum, and insisting the voters must have their say. “The battle is not over. Same-sex marriage no!”

Many of the opponents referred to a legal fight over an immigration-related referendum that opponents attempted to block in Maryland. A judge has recently allowed that referendum to move forward. Referendum supporters wanted to be assured that there would be no impediments to giving Maryland voters an opportunity to overturn marriage, should it pass the Senate.

In contrast to the opposition, many LGBT allies in the legislature stood up to encourage their colleagues to do what they believed was right, with Baltimore Del. Keiffer Mitchell, Jr. calling LGBT rights “the civil rights issue of our generation.”

“I will not vote to deny individuals access to the same legal rights and responsibilities that are given to me and my wife by the state,” said Del. John A. Olszewski, Jr., who said he supported religious provisions that allow faith communities to make their own decisions about which marriages to peform. “As I think about one day when my wife and I look back on our time with our kids when they’re reaching [the marrying age], I know that they’ll be thankful, and I’ll be thankful for what I’ve done today.”

Feelings of relief

Gay Dels. Peter Murphy and Luke Clippinger embrace following the vote. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Bill co-sponsor Del. Nathaniel Oaks described a feeling of relief after the bill’s passage, and that sentiment was echoed by almost every other supporter.

“It’s like a big giant weight that’s been lifted, and now we move on,” Del. Mitchell told the Blade, calling the close vote “courageous.” “It’s great to be a part of this history.”

“Tonight can never be taken from us,” Del. Washington told the Blade after the vote.

Voting against the bill was Del. Sam Arora (D-Mont. Co.) who co-sponsored the failed bill of two years ago, and had in 2010 campaigned on a platform that he would support same-sex marriage.

“We feel betrayed,” said progressive activist Karl Frisch, who said that he supported his friend Sam Arora during his election, and said he speaks for many of Arora’s former friends. “This is about family and doing what’s right.”

Frisch told the Blade that a large group of national and local progressive leaders met via conference call Friday night to discuss replacing Del. Arora in his district with another Democrat.

“But it’s nothing personal, in the same way that Sam would claim it’s nothing personal, it’s just his faith,” Frisch said, telling the Blade that Arora took money from those he promised to support marriage equality. “It’s not personal, it’s just our lives. At the end of the day, I wonder how Sam squares his faith with lying and fraud.”

“I have a friend who bought a house in Maryland — not far from his district — and they regret not buying the house in his district so they would be able to vote against him in the next election,” Frisch said. “I hope he has trouble sleeping at night with the shame on his conscience.”

Another damper on last night’s celebrations was the looming prospect of referendum.

“We know there’s people probably out there right now with their petitions gathering signatures,” said Lisa Polyak, chair of the Equality Maryland board of directors. “We have a strategy that we’ve already been working on for months now about how we’re going to 50 plus 1, but we’ll worry about that tomorrow. Tonight we’re going to celebrate.”

Supporters jubilant, eyes on referendum

Maggie McIntosh lifts a bottle of Champagne after the vote. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

On the subject of a referendum threat, Clippinger said he is confident that same-sex couples in Maryland will see victory there too.

“We are going to win. The only people that are going to keep us from winning are those who doubt that we can.”

“Today, the House of Delegates voted for human dignity,” Gov. Martin O’Malley said in a statement. “Speaker Busch and his fellow delegates deserve a lot of credit for their hard work. At its heart, their vote was a vote for Maryland’s children.”

He continued, “There is still work to be done and marriage equality has not yet been achieved in Maryland. Wherever we happen to stand on the marriage equality issue, we can agree that all our children deserve the opportunity to live in a loving, caring, committed, and stable home, protected equally under the law.”

“We could not be more grateful to the delegates who today voted to make all Maryland families stronger,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “Today, we took a giant step toward marriage equality becoming law – and we are in this position due to the unwavering leadership and resolve of Governor O’Malley, Speaker Busch and our legislative allies.”

Dana Beyer, Gender Rights Maryland executive director, cheered the victory for gay and lesbian Marylanders, telling the Blade she felt “joy.”

“It changes the culture,” Beyer told the Blade. “That’s probably the most important thing. Now we have to do the heavy lifting and deal with the referendum, and that’s why I’m here to do that, and hopefully to get the gender identity bill through, now that this is off the table, so that we can have a duopoly this year.”

The clerk's vote tally just prior to the vote count annoucement. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay rights groups are pinning their hopes on litigation and a possible override vote in the aftermath of Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey.

On Friday, Christie vetoed the marriage legislation after the State Assembly passed it by a vote of 42-33 and the State Senate approved it by a vote of 24-16 earlier in the week.

The governor’s veto of the marriage bill was expected. Christie had pledged to reject the legislation and called for a referendum within the state to decide the issue.

According to the Associated Press, Christie said in a statement accompanying his veto that he’s “adhering to what I’ve said since this bill was first introduced — an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide.”

“I continue to encourage the legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change,” Christie said. “This is the only path to amend our state constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state.”

LGBT groups condemned Christie in response to his veto and pledged to continue the fight to win marriage rights for gay couples.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said Christie “planted his feet firmly on the wrong side of history.”

“Fortunately, his ‘no’ will not be America’s – or New Jersey’s – last word,” Wolfson said. “It is simply an obstacle we overcome as we continue on the road to liberty and justice for all.

Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, issued a personal statement just prior to Christie’s veto, saying he personally likes the governor, but suspects he vetoed the bill because of his national political ambition.

“He won’t veto the bill because he’s anti-gay,” Goldstein said. “He’ll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay. And if I get flooded with letters now from Charleston, so be it.”

Goldstein also lambasted Christie’s call for a referedum, which he said “everyone knows will never happen in New Jersey.”

A poll published Tuesday by Rutgers-Eagelton found 54 percent of New Jersey residents favor legalizing same-sex marriage. At the same time, 53 percent say they back the idea of bringing marriage to a vote, while 40 percent said marriage is a civil rights issues that shouldn’t be decided by voters.

But Christie’s veto of the bill was conditional. It included the creation of what he called an ombudsman for civil unions that he said would “carry on New Jersey’s strong tradition of tolerance and fairness.”

Christie maintained in his statement that he’s been “adamant” that same-sex couples in civil unions, which are legal in New Jersey, deserves the same rights and benefits as married couples.

“Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen’s right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied,” Christie said.

But Goldstein was critical of the idea that civil unions ombudsman would someone strengthen the state’s civil union law, calling it “the very essence of the political theatre” decried by Christie.

Goldstein raised questions about how a civil union ombudsman would enforce the civil union law. Among them are how the official would help same-sex couples living in New Jersey, but working in New York where same-sex is legal, how it would deal with the children being raised by same-sex couples who feel stigmatized because their parents cannot marry, or how it would help couples in civil unions who aren’t treated fairly by employers and hospitals.

“A civil union ombudsman might well be the country’s first-ever Enforcer of Discrimination — and worse,” Goldstein said. “A civil union ombudsman is nothing more than the shameless dressing up of a veto of people’s dignity and equality — the equivalent of gold-plating a separate water fountain for a specific class of people.”

One option to get around Christie’s veto of the marriage bill is an override vote in the legislature. An override would require 12 additional votes to reach the 54 needed in the Assembly. In the Senate, three more votes are required to reach the necessary 27.

Goldstein said he’s put his organization “immediately to work to achieve an override” of Christie’s veto, noting advocates have nearly two years to do the job.

“The great news is, we have until the end of the legislative session, in January 2014, to do it,” Goldstein said.

Litigation is also underway in New Jersey state courts to win marriage rights for gay couples in New Jersey. In June, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit arguing that barring same-sex couples from marriage and relegating them to civil unions violates the New Jersey Constitution.

Hayley Gorenberg, Lambda’s deputy legal director, said her organization is “disappointed” with Christie, but will keep on the fight to win marriage equality with the tools at hand.

“We’ll continue to make our case for equality with our plaintiffs in court,” Gorenberg said. “We also stand by our colleagues at Garden State Equality, working to gain support for a veto override in the legislature.”

In November, Lambda defeated defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case, and the judge ruled it could proceed. A trial is expected early in 2013.

David Bohnett (Photo by Matthew Imaging via Wikimedia Commons)

A gay philanthropist and major donor to the Democratic Party has endorsed the idea of an executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies.

David Bohnett, who made billions after selling his Internet creation GeoCities in 1990s, chairs the David Bohnett Foundation, a grant-making organization with the stated goal of improving society through activism.

In an email to the Washington Blade, Michael Fleming, who advises Bohnett on political and philanthropic giving, confirmed Bohnett backs the idea of President Obama issuing this directive.

“I will say that David is fully supportive of the President signing an LGBT-inclusive federal contractor executive order as soon as possible, because LGBT people continue to face high rates of workplace discrimination,” Fleming said. “It’s the right thing to do and the right time to do it.”

Bohnett was among the attendees last week at the $35,800 per ticket LGBT fundraiser in D.C.  that raised $1.4 million for President Obama’s re-election. Obama and Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius were in attendance.

In response to a question on whether Bohnett raised the issue of the executive order with the president at this fundraiser, Fleming said any conversation Bohnett may have had with Obama is private.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work and among the chief advocates of the directive, praised Bohnett for throwing his support behind the executive order.

“David Bohnett has an impressive record of speaking up for positive change, and I think it is very significant that he has now publicly endorsed the proposed executive order banning federal contractors from squandering our taxpayer dollars on harassment against LGBT Americans,” Almeida said. “I imagine that as a successful entrepreneur, Mr. Bohnett knows well that banning LGBT workplace discrimination is both good for a company’s bottom line, as well as the morally right thing to do.”

Because the measure is similar in its goal to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the directive has sometimes been referred to as the “ENDA” executive order, although the order would be more limited in scope because it only affects federal contractors. Multiple sources have said the Labor and Justice Departments have cleared such a measure, but the White House hasn’t said whether Obama will issue the directive.

UPDATE: According to Del. Mizeur, Del. John Bohanan also intended to vote for the bill but was not recorded by the voting system. The vote count reflecting that information would be 72-67.

Supporters of same-sex marriage cheer following the passage of the Civil Marriage Protection Act in the Maryland House of Delegates. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

ANNAPOLIS — The Maryland House of Delegates passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage tonight by a razor-thin margin of 72-67.

Del. Tiffany Alston’s (D-Prince George’s) vote in favor of the bill proved critical to its passage. Del. Sam Arora (D-Mont. Co.), a former supporter of the bill, voted against it.

“Today, the House of Delegates voted for human dignity,” Gov. Martin O’Malley said in a statement. “Speaker Busch and his fellow Delegates deserve a lot of credit for their hard work.  At its heart, their vote was a vote for Maryland’s children.”

He continued, “There is still work to be done and marriage equality has not yet been achieved in Maryland.  Wherever we happen to stand on the marriage equality issue, we can agree that all our children deserve the opportunity to live in a loving, caring, committed, and stable home, protected equally under the law.”

“We could not be more grateful to the delegates who today voted to make all Maryland families stronger,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “Today, we took a giant step toward marriage equality becoming law – and we are in this position due to the unwavering leadership and resolve of Governor O’Malley, Speaker Busch and our legislative allies.”

AN IN DEPTH LOOK AT THE VOTE FROM THE WASHINGTON BLADE

EARLIER: At 2:45 the Maryland House of Delegates adjourned after voting down three amendments to the Civil Marriage Protection Act, while adopting two amendments, one by former marriage foe, Del. Tiffany Alston.

Del. Dumais stands in support of Del. Alston's amendment. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Alston amendment, supported by many in the LGBT delegation, including Dels. Clippinger, Mizeur, Cullison, and Washington, as well as the bill sponsor, floor leader Del. Dumais — who spoke passionately in favor of same-sex unions throughout the debate — would make clear that the law would not go into effect until all legal challenges to the law, or any referendum process relating to the law, have been exhausted.

The amendment sparked a heated debate between Republicans and Democrats in regard to the power of the amendment to effect the referendum process and the power of the courts in intervening. Minority leader Anthony O’Donnell sought to move to special order on the bill and the amendment for an opinion on the impact from Attorney General Douglas Gansler, tabling the debate on both until Monday. The motion on the special order was handily defeated 55-79, to the chagrin of many.

Tiffany Alston (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Alston amendment — which could signal a shift in support for that delegate — passed easily 81-52, easing the way for those troubled by the bill to feel more comfortable in voting in its favor.

“It was something that could add a level of comfort for some people,” Del. Washington told the Blade. “This is something that we could negotiate on.”

Though the LGBT lawmakers would not comment on whether or not they think that Alston will now support the law, after her surprise vote against in March of 2011, all indicated a hope that she’s come around.

“We believe that she is raising this in good faith,” Del. Cullison told the Blade in regard to Alston’s possible support after passage of her amendment. “And if that’s what makes her comfortable with the bill, knowing that all of the safeguards for the referendum are in place, then I hope she’ll be more comfortable with voting for the entire bill.”

“We hope it makes her feel more comfortable,” Del. Clippinger added.

On Sam Arora, Del. Clippinger hopes that he’s moved back to the side of supporting same-sex marriage, after his surprise rejection of the law in March of 2011.

“I don’t know where he stands right this second,” Del. Clippinger told the Blade. “I don’t know how he’s going to stand until I see a dot on the board.”

“But at the same time, he’s expressed some misgivings, he passed in committee, he asked questions in regard to Del. Alston’s amendment, we certainly hope that if it will help him fell more comfortable maybe that will move him along,” Clippinger added.

Minority leader, Del. O'Donnell attempted to have Del. Alston's amendment tabled until Monday. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Del. Arora voted against the Alston amendment.

In 2010 when Sam Arora was campaigning for the House of Delegates, he was able to pull massive amounts of LGBT support and fundraising money as a result of his close ties with gay Democratic activists and his pro-same-sex marriage position, at that time. Many of his former colleagues indicated a feeling of anger and betrayal after his 2011 flip on the issue. Since that vote, Arora has been ambiguous about his stance on the current effort.

Washington County Republican Del. Andrew Serafini proposed an amendment that would push the age of consent for same-sex marriages to 18, rather than allow the same-sex marriages to adhere to the current age of consent laws that allow girls under the age of 16 to marry with parental consent and proof of pregnancy. Supporters of the same-sex marriage bill argued that it may be time to change the age of consent in Maryland, but that there ought not to be differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples, should the bill pass and get signed into law. The amendment failed 54-81.

Openly gay Del. Washington celebrates Friday's win. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The delegates also passed on an amendment by Washington County Republican Del. Neil C. Parrott that would allow parents to opt out of allowing their children be exposed to curriculum that they find objectionable in terms of its presentation of same-sex marriage.

“That already is the law,” Montgomery Co. Democrat, Del. Anne Kaiser, argued before the House voted down the amendment 48-73.

Prince George’s Co. Democrat, Del. Aisha Braveboy offered the amendment that same-sex marriage advocates railed hardest against. The amendment would have changed the date the law becomes effective from October 2012 to January 2013, which would prevent marriages from occurring before an expected ballot initiative vote takes place. After impassioned discussion, despite strong opposition, the amendment was passed on a 72-67 vote.

Additionally, a short debate preceded a vote on amending the bill to change the word “marriage” to “civil unions” in the law. After supporters of same-sex marriage presented evidence from around the nation where civil unions were found to be inferior to marriage in offering couples equal protection, the delegates rejected the amendment 45-78.

Yesterday we reported that the Maryland House of Delegates on Thursday put off for at least one day a scheduled debate on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, leading some to speculate that supporters lack the votes to pass the legislation.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Friday in a letter to Congress that the administration would no longer defend in court laws barring married gay troops from receiving spousal benefits.

The statute in question, Title 38, governs employment rights for U.S. service members. Language in the law denies partner benefits to service members and veterans if they’re married to someone of the same-sex, including disability benefits and death compensation.

“The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex spouses of veterans but not to legally married spouses of veterans,” Holder writes. “Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that could warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA.”

In the letter, Holder says he determined that Title 38, as it pertains to same-sex couples married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment and said he’s instructed his attorneys to no longer defend the law. Holder writes he’ll give Congress the opportunity to defend the law in court and keep enforcing the statute as litigation continues.

The letter is similar to one Holder sent to Congress in February 2011 notifying lawmakers that the administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. After the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted along party-line to take up defense of DOMA, U.S. House Speaker John Boeher directed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher to defend the anti-gay statute.

Michael Steele, a spokesperson for Boehner, deferred questions about the letter — including whether the speaker will take up defense of Title 38 — to counsel. Kircher didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment.

Holder said he reached the conclusion that portions of Title 38 are unconstitutional in response to a lawsuit known as McLaughlin v. Panetta filed by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in October on behalf of gay troops against Title 38 and DOMA. The letter also indicates that the Justice Department won’t defend DOMA in the SLDN lawsuit, just hasn’t been defending in other lawsuits.

Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, praised Holder for the letter and called it an important development in the case.

“We are pleased that the Attorney General has decided not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the military context, just as he has declined to defend it in other contexts,” Sarvis said. “We are also delighted that, for the first time, he has said that separate definitions that apply to military veterans are also unconstitutional. This is an important step for the McLaughlin plaintiffs.”

An SLDN spokesperson deferred questions on whether the organization expects Boehner to take up defense of Title 38 to the speaker’s office.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said Holder’s decision that portions of Title 38 are unconstitutional is line with President Obama’s earlier determination that DOMA is runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

“The Department of Justice’s notification to Congress today is consistent with the president’s earlier determination that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional,” Inouye said. “I would point you to the department for further information on today’s letter.”

On Feb. 15, the court in the McLaughlin case agreed to stay the lawsuit for 60 days. The House has until April 28 to decide if it will defend Title 38 against the lawsuit.

Holder’s decision is likely to have a bearing on another lawsuit challenging Title 38 and DOMA,  Cooper Harris v. United States. The lawsuit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center earlier this month on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who’s seeking disability benefits for her spouse.

Christine Sun, SPLC’s deputy legal director, said she believes the Holder letter applies to her organization’s lawsuit in addition to the SLDN litigation.

“There’s absolutely no reason why it wouldn’t apply to our case,” Sun said. “I believe that it was sent in connection to the McLaughlin case because there was the recent stipulation between SLDN and DOJ to extend the deadline for the government to respond to SLDN’s summary judgment case, but we’re certainly interpreting the letter to say that the Department of Justice won’t be defending Title 38 in our case either.”

But Sun added she expects Boehner to take up defense of Title 38 in the administration’s stead.

“I wish our taxpayer money was being used for better purposes, but I do expect that Congress will be intervening to defend Title 38 and Section 3 of DOMA in our lawsuit,” Sun said.

Still, Sun said she thinks the administration’s decision not to defend portions of Title 38 would help her organization’s lawsuit succeed.

“You can never predict these things, but it’s very helpful having the government confirm our position that there absolutely is no justification for treating veterans in same-sex marriages differently than their heterosexual counterparts,” Sun said. “It will hopefully be very persuasive to the court.”