- Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has teamed up with Freedom to Marry for a campaign that will highlight the effects of the Defense of Marriage Act on military servicemembers. The campaign is called ‘Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Serve.”

- Manny Pacquiao, a world-famous boxer, is recently reported as saying gay people should be put to death and he opposes President Obama’s marriage equality position. The National Organization for Marriage highlighted his views on the president’s statement approvingly.

- Via press release, an FDA committee has recommended the approval of a rapid, in-home HIV test:

FDA Committee Recommends First Ever Rapid In-Home HIV Test

Could Significantly Increase Proportion of Americans Aware of HIV Status, Reduce Transmission

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Blood Products Advisory Committee recommended approval of the first ever in-home rapid HIV test. The product – the OraQuick In-Home HIV Test – is manufactured by OraSure Technologies, Inc. and is the same device as the OraQuick Rapid Test, which is already approved for use in a broad range of health care settings and is the standard of care at most testing sites around the country. Its accuracy, ease, and efficiency have been repeatedly demonstrated in national studies.

“Approximately 50,000 individuals in the U.S. are newly infected with HIV each year,” said National Minority AIDS Council Director of Legislative and Public Affairs Kali Lindsey. “Even more alarming is the fact that one in five people living with HIV in America do not know it. The OraQuick In-Home HIV Test would provide an important tool to supplement current HIV screening efforts by providing an accessible, relatively inexpensive device that can be used in the privacy of one’s own home. This is especially important for minority communities, where HIV stigma often prevents individuals from utilizing traditional testing services.”

Recently, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examined the extent to which current policies and practices present barriers to HIV testing. It concluded that minority populations are not only infected at a higher rate than their White counterparts, they shoulder a considerably higher percentage of undiagnosed HIV/AIDS cases. While the percentage of unrecognized HIV infection among Whites is 18.8, that number is 29.5 among Asians and Pacific Islanders, 25.8 among Americans Indians and Alaskan Natives, 22.2 among Blacks and African-Americans, and 21.6 in Latinos.

“Individuals with unrecognized HIV infection are more likely to unknowingly transmit the virus to others,” continued Lindsey. “In fact, they are as much as three and a half times more likely to transmit the virus than those who know their status, accounting for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. Research shows that most individuals take steps to reduce the risk of transmitting the virus following an HIV diagnosis. Expanded access to testing, including through accurate in-home screening, is an essential tool in slowing the spread of HIV. At the same time, we must ensure that those who do test positive can easily access care and support services, much like those included in the OraQuick testing package.”

“NMAC believes the OraQuick In-Home HIV Test would provide a critical expansion of current prevention efforts, particularly among minority populations isolated by the persistent stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS,” concluded Lindsey. “We applaud the committee’s decision today and urge the FDA to approve its use.”

- Law professor Michael Dorf credits the right wing for the launching of the marriage equality movement.

- In a round-up yesterday I noted that the New York Times seemed to be blaming a transgender murder victim for the attack on them. GLAAD says they are doubling down.

- The gay son of a Colorado lawmaker who helped kill the civil unions bill is speaking out.

- Apparently Mitt Romney is on video saying in 2006 that the price of same sex marriage is paid by the children.

- Civil disobedience actions continue in North Carolina after its passage of Amendment 1.

- There was a bomb threat scare at the HRC and other LGBT rights organizations’ buildings yesterday.

- A Senate committee will vote on the Domestic Partnerships Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBOA), which would ensure same-sex partners of federal government workers receive some federal benefits. UPDATED: They voted.

Mitt Romney and the Republican party seem to have nearly retreated entirely on the issue of LGBT rights and marriage equality. When you look at what the party was doing just a few short years ago in 2004-06, you see a party highlighting their homophobia and announcing it at campaign stops all across the country. Even President Bush was unafraid to call attention to his anti-gay positions and his support for opposite-sex-only marriage. Republicans didn’t think LGBT people deserved equal rights, nor did they even believe people who are LGBT should be able to fight and die for our country if they choose, unless they stayed in the closet. This strategy was pushed particularly hard in Ohio but its effects reverberated all over. Of course, studies would later show that anti-gay campaigns and ballot initiatives have long-term effects on mental health and family stability. And they incite violence against those of us who are the most vulnerable. The party would become so homophobic during those years that when President Bush himself suggested that gays and lesbians deserve to have access to civil unions, it led to much disagreement within the party.

Now, the GOP has become silent over the issue and even its leaders like Speaker John Boehner are facing constant criticism for not speaking to issues that seem to be important amongst a certain set of conservatives. Rick Santorum recently even suggested that the party should re-fight gay rights issues once more to rally the base. And Mitt Romney had an opportunity to do that recently – he gave a speech at Liberty University – and didn’t take it. He mentioned marriage one time, saying it is “a relationship between a man and a woman.” And even on the rare occasions he addresses it, he suggests that people have different views that should be respected.

There is only one way in which the GOP has expressed its anti-gay sentiments: through passage of House bills with added homophobic language, or with language stripping provisions in favor of gay and lesbian families. Recently this happened with two bills: the House put forward a version of the Violence Against Women Act that stripped provisions that would protect gays and lesbians from domestic violence. There are LGBT victims of domestic violence as well, and there is no good reason to exclude them from receiving help and protection when they need it most. It’s nothing more than an attempt to delegitimize the relationships and families of people Republicans don’t like. The White House’s veto threat states, in part:

The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. No sexual assault or domestic violence victim should be beaten, hurt, or killed because they could not access needed support, assistance, and protection. In addition, H.R. 4970 does not include important improvements to the Clery Act found in the Senate-passed bill that would address the high rates of dating violence and sexual assault experienced by young people in college and other higher education institutions. The bill also weakens critical new provisions in the Senate-passed bill that would improve safety for victims living in subsidized housing.

The House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act also has several anti-LGBT provisions. Think Progress says:

In its one Statement of Administration Policy, the White House outlined numerous reasons it opposes the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains a military “license to bully” provision and restricts same-sex marriages or similar ceremonies from being held on military bases.

After the president’s announcement that he supports marriage equality, I think some people, including myself, expected the president to make that statement and then pivot to other issues facing the American people. It has not turned out that way – he has done interviews reiterating his position, and he is now including “marriage equality” in some campaign speeches, reminding voters that it strengthens families. Republicans might have become quieter on these issues but it’s clear they are willing to work on passage of unnecessary and hateful anti-LGBT bills. Fighting back against this onslaught should be a priority. And calling them out for it is necessary.

H/t to Kathleen for posting these in Quick Hits

Yesterday saw a flurry of filings in three of the marriage equality cases currently wending their ways through the court system.  In the military DOMA case McLaughlin v. Panetta, the Department of Justice filed a response to BLAG’s motion to intervene essentially arguing that BLAG should not be allowed to intervene in the cases substantive due process arguments.  As the DOJ writes, because the Executive Branch is still actively enforcing DOMA, “there remains a live case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants.” In addition, the defendants in the case (which are representatives of the federal government) plan to continue filing in such a way that BLAG will be able to argue for the constitutionality of the law.  BLAG also filed an unopposed motion to submit a consolidated reply memorandum supporting their motion to intervene and an accompanying memo supporting their motion.

In the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, which filed by Lambda Legal in Nevada and seeks a right to marriage equality in that state, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the case.  The Coalition was one of the proponents behind the ballot initiative, Question 2, that put a marriage ban in the Nevada state constitution in 2002.  Because of that, the Coalition argues that it has a stake in the outcome of the case and should be allowed to intervene.  It will be interesting to see how the district court handles this application, which is similar in some ways to other applications for intervention made in the Prop 8 case in California.

Finally, in the DOMA case Blesch v. Holder, filed by Immigration Equality on behalf of several binational couples, BLAG has moved to intervene.  We’ll have links to those documents as they become available!

- Brian Brown of the race-baiting National Organization for Marriage calls the vote in North Carolina “the end of Obama.” He predicts certain doom and things of that sort:

If Obama gets his way and DOMA is overturned, it’s only a matter of time before marriage is redefined for the entire country. Now he has signed up as an official cheerleader for that outcome.

As if that wasn’t enough, same-sex marriage radicals will descend on Charlotte and demand that the cause become a central plank of the Democratic Party platform. Nancy Pelosi is already enthusiastic about the prospect.

- Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer announced his support for marriage equality recently, following the president’s announcement of full support. It appears all the Democratic leaders are in support of marriage equality at this point.

- Democratic senate candidate in Nebraska (and former senator) Bob Kerrey also announced his support of marriage equality.

- Is marriage equality driving a wedge in the Republican party?

- Virginia’s General Assembly has rejected a qualified judge because he’s gay.

- Mitt Romney is intent on ignoring the issue of marriage equality.

- Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) recently made a joke about the president and marriage equality, and many aren’t happy with his comments. Tony Perkins of known hate group Family Research Council said:

“I don’t think it’s a laughing matter. I don’t think this is something we should joke about,” Perkins said. “We are talking about individuals who feel very strongly one way or the other, and I think we should be civil, respectful, allowing all sides to have the debate. … It’s not something to poke fun at other people about. This is a very serious issue.”

To see some of Tony Perkins’ comments on gay people, see GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project.

- A big GOP donor gave the maximum amount to Mitt Romney, and now that the president has announced support for marriage equality and Romney has announced opposition to even civil unions and gay adoption, the donor is switching to Obama and is asking for his money back. More here.

- A GOP representative says firing someone because of their sexual orientation is fine.

- Do Republicans support ENDA or not?

Writing in The Week, Democratic advisor Robert Shrum, who worked on both the 2000 and 2004 presidential race as well as many senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns, takes a close look at the possible electoral effect of President Obama’s announcement in support of marriage equality last week.  Since Obama’s ABC interview with Robin Roberts, pundits have been quick to predict how the president’s move will either help or harm him, pointing to the passage of Amendment One in North Carolina and George W. Bush’s 2004 victory on the coattails of a marriage ban in Ohio as proof.

But as Shrum points out, the individual dynamics of the swing states that will be up for grabs in November show that any backlash against Obama that might come from anti-gay voters is likely to be minimal:

Not only do a majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, but 50 percent of Ohio Republicans favor it or civil unions.  And the Ohio outcome this time is likely to be shaped far less by Obama’s position on marriage equality and far more by Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout — which would have devastated the Buckeye State.

Iowa and Virginia are frequently cited — but it very likely won’t happen there. Obama has a 10-point lead in Iowa, where voters wouldn’t do again what they did in the tea-fouled year of 2010, removing three of the state’s Supreme Court justices who had joined a unanimous opinion striking down a ban on same-sex marriage. That decision still stands. And the old Virginia of Jerry Falwell is increasingly outweighed by the new Virginia that stretches from the Washington suburbs to Richmond.

Well, then, what about North Carolina, which just passed an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment? The implicit assumption is obvious, simple, and wrong. Here is the bottom line: In any swing state, voters for whom animus to marriage equality is the single, burning issue aren’t casting a ballot for Obama anyway. If you are so intent on discriminating against gay Americans that this issue alone determines your presidential choice then you are almost certainly uncomfortable with an African-American in the White House.

Shrum also points out the illogic in two other predictions of marriage equality fall-out: that Obama’s announcement will rile up the religious right and that it will lose him support amongst African-Americans.  While some have said that making marriage equality an issue will cause religious conservatives who are skeptical of Mitt Romney to rally behind the Republican nominee and break up the apathy they’ve been feeling (and showing) during the Republican primaries, it’s hard to imagine these conservative voters would have sat out the election rather than come out to the polls in favor of whatever alternative to Barack Obama they were presented with.

In terms of the African-American vote, Shrum predicts the opposite of the conventional punditry wisdom that socially conservative blacks may become less enthusiastic in their support of the president.  To the contrary, he argues that Obama’s leadership could persuade more of the African-American community to rethink its position on marriage equality, which could end up having an significant effect on marriage referendums in states like Maryland.

In the end, the electoral effects of last week’s announcement will probably be limited: marriage equality will not be a central issue on voters’ minds come November.  And in a way, that’s a real victory.  With any luck, once Democrats (and other politicians) see that supporting equal rights isn’t the electoral albatross that it may have seemed, they will be persuaded to campaign for those rights more aggressively, creating a kind of virtuous cycle that will speed up the progression of LGBT equality in our country.

UPDATE: Writing in The Daily Beast, Allison Samuels examines the possibility of the shift amongst black voters that Shrum lays out in his article.  Also, in a Pew Research Center poll released yesterday, 68% of black respondents said that Obama’s interview had no effect on their opinion of him, while 16% said it made them view him more positively and only 13% said it made them view him less positively.  Those numbers are even better than the overall numbers, and the numbers for white voters, demonstrating that marriage is unlikely to be a wedge issue between Obama and the African-American community this election.

By a party-line 5-4 vote, Republican members of the Colorado House of Representatives State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee voted tonight to kill a civil unions bill during a special legislative session.  Although the bill passed three Republican-led committees with bipartisan support and was guaranteed passage in the full House had it been brought up for a vote in the regular session, House Republican leadership ran out the clock on the bill last week, denying a floor vote on it and 37 other bills.  For more about the incredible battle over civil unions last week, check out P8TT’s full coverage here.

Even though Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, a strong supporter of the legislation, called a special session in part so that the civil unions bill could receive a full vote on the House floor, House Speaker Frank McNulty condemned the bill to almost certain failure in the conservative State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.  Republicans on the committee who opposed the measure frequently described it today as a ‘gay marriage bill,’ rather than the civil unions legislation that it actually was.

Rep. Mark Farrandino, the openly gay Democratic leader in the House and a co-sponsor of the bill, told the AP that he and other advocates remain undeterred:

“If it fails this year, we’re going to work hard to make sure the public understands what happened, the games that were played, and next we’re going to push it again.  And as I’ve said a number of times, it’s not a matter of ‘if,’ it’s a matter of ‘when.’ And the ‘when’ keeps getting sooner and sooner. This will happen.”

Democrats plan to make the Republicans’ obstructionism a center-point of their electoral strategy in the fall.  What has taken place in the last two weeks in Colorado is truly appalling: no bill that enjoys majority support should be forced to pass four different committees, and no bill should be sent to a specific committee as a strategy to kill it off.  We can only hope that this blatant political gamesmanship has some effect on the chamber’s make-up after the November election.

Obama endorses marriage equality. We’ll look at what that means for LGBT Americans and for the future. Colorado’s civil unions bill looked dead in the water last week, but this week the Governor’s found a way to give it one last shot at passing in 2012.

Well the big news this week is President Obama supporting marriage equality. Like a lot of Americans, Obama came to support equality after meeting gay and lesbian citizens and seeing how comfortable young people are with LGBT families.

We won’t know the full effect of his announcement for some time. But we can already see an impact on peoples’ lives around the country. As AFER Board President Chad Griffin said, “For the millions of young gay and lesbian Americans across this nation, their President’s words provide genuine hope that they will be the first generation to grow up with the freedom to fully pursue the American dream.”

AFER’s lead co-counsel Ted Olson had similar remarks. He said, “President Obama’s words remind us that marriage and equality are universal values that unite us all. They remind us that we are all — as a People and a Nation — striving to form a more perfect Union.”

By standing up for our rights, Obama is setting an example for other politicians’ evolution on marriage. One day after the announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the highest-ranking Mormon in the US government, announced that “people should be able to marry whomever they want.” He added even he’d voted in the past to ban marriage equality, but now he’ll vote for it.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is another politician who struggled with the issue for years before shepherding a marriage equality bill in New York. This week he tied Obama’s announcement to “the march of freedom that has sustained our country since the Revolution of 1776.”

Public support on marriage is growing rapidly. This week, a Gallup poll became the ninth national survey to show that a majority support the freedom to marry. We’ve seen a lot of major milestones in the fight for marriage lately, and Obama’s announcement is one of the big ones.

Now this policy announcement isn’t tied to any particular legislation. But the first law for which it might inspire more bold stances from legislators could be the civil unions bill in Colorado. The legislative session ended last week before lawmakers could vote on the measure, so it looked like there was no hope of passing it until next year. But Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has announced that he’ll call a special session starting this week. The votes are there to pass the bill, and the Governor says he’ll sign it. The only obstacle now is House leadership like Speaker Frank McNulty, who says he opposes debate.

We’ll be following the Colorado situation closely this week — you can subscribe on YouTube to get regular updates on the fight for marriage equality. And visit AFER.org for more on the federal fight to overturn Prop 8.

- Breaking just now is news that the governor of Rhode Island has issued an executive order recognizing same-sex marriages from other states:

Governor Chafee is preparing to sign an executive order making it clear that marriages that take place out of state are recognized in…

— Marriage Equality RI (@MERhodeIsland) May 14, 2012

More from the Associated Press.

- In case you missed it: a GOP pollster says in a leaked memo that Republicans should support marriage equality along with other LGBT rights.

- The New York Times wrote a story about the suspicious death of a transgender woman and seems to be victim-blaming in its piece.

- The National Organization is spinning polling that is continuing its trend toward the equality side.

- The Wall Street Journal discusses the president’s support of marriage equality and its effects on the pending legal cases. There is not much the president can do to make marriage equality a reality nationally, other than the steps he has already taken, but the administration could join some of the pending cases in court.

- The Washington Post questions if a majority of Americans really do support marriage equality, and to what extent it depends on how the question is asked.

- Colorado’s special session to hear civil unions and other bills began today, and Out Front Colorado is providing a live blog. Unfortunately early reports as of this writing suggest the bill is headed for a “kill committee” to die:

The bill has been assigned by McNulty to the State Affairs Committee. It is widely known as a kill committee.

- RNC Chairman Reince Priebus says gay people deserve “dignity and respect”, and even went so far as to say gays should not face employment discrimination. His party still opposes ENDA and marriage equality; their candidate Mitt Romney opposes civil unions and while he supported gay adoption for a short time last week, he opposes it now.

- The chairman of the DCCC, the group responsible for recruiting Democratic House candidates, says the president’s support for marriage equality was the right decision, and that it won’t impact House races.

Back in 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Varnum v. Brien that same-sex marriage is legal in the state, as the legislative ban violates the equal protection clause in the state’s constitution. Since then, three justices have faced retention votes and have lost, mostly because of an intense right-wing campaign to ouster them following the unanimous decision:

After the 2009 ruling, Iowa voters in November 2010 denied three justices the opportunity to remain on the bench. David Baker, Michael Streit and Marsha Ternus became the first Iowa Supreme Court justices not retained by voters since Iowa adopted a merit selection and retention system for judges in 1962.

The three former justices gained national recognition last week when they accepted the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award at the Kennedy presidential library in Boston. Bob Vander Plaats, who led the campaign to oust them, called the award “a slap in the face to the people of Iowa” and an incentive to lead more campaigns to boot the other justices who joined the ruling.

Now, Justice David Wiggins will be the next justice facing a retention vote later this year, and he won’t go quietly. He told an Iowa newspaper he isn’t going to let the right-wing bullies intimidate him:

“If someone wants to attack me, I’m not going to let them bully me. If asked to, I’ll speak up for myself. The others didn’t do that last time. I will. [...] The court has sort of changed the way it did business since the last retention vote. We’re more open, we’re more transparent, and we’ve made a huge effort to reach out to the people of Iowa.”

The man leading the right-wing campaign is Bob Vander Plaats, infamous for a marriage pledge for presidential candidates that claimed African American children were better off under slavery, among other things. The National Organization for Marriage itself did a bus tour and a campaign in the state against the justices, and put tons of money into the race:

Justice at Stake, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group that opposes special-interest and partisan influences on the courts, estimated in November 2010 that roughly $800,000 had been spent on ousting the Iowa justices. All but $103,000 of that money came from conservative groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, American Family Association, Family Research Council, Campaign for Working Families and Citizens United.
[...]
State campaign finance records show the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage spent nearly $114,000 in Iowa in the last three months of 2011 alone.

It seems like the justice is ready for this upcoming fight. Given the long list of anti-gay organizations that will inevitably working for his downfall, it’s good to see him prepared to push back.

Writing in this week’s Newsweek, Andrew Sullivan offers a powerful and engaging look at President Obama’s announcement of support for marriage equality, and argues that this president is better situated than any in our history to make such a historic and far-reaching move.  Sullivan’s first take on the announcement, written on the day of Obama’s ABC interview, said that Obama had “let go of fear,” and that he was putting himself on the right side of an issue as opposed to the politically expedient.  His Newsweek piece, though, is a must-read, a deeply nuanced and brilliantly contextual read of just what Obama’s decision means for the country and for the LGBT movement in general.

Looking back to 2007, before Obama’s election to the country’s highest office, Sullivan recalls the pre-candidate’s answer to a question posed to him by the mother of a gay man.  ”I want full equality for your son,” Obama said, “all the rights and benefits that marriage brings.  But the word ‘marriage’ stirs up so much religious feeling.  I think civil unions are the way to go.”

In tracing Obama’s journey from this ‘separate but equal’ formulation to this week’s evolution to full equality, Sullivan covers some well-trodden ground: the need for campaign cash from all-important gay donors and bundlers, the benefits of including in his campaign an equality issue that would inspire and motivate young voters, the ever-increasing public support in favor of marriage equality.

But in taking a slow route to full equality, Sullivan argues, Obama may have outsmarted us all.  The marriage announcement, he says, is “an inevitable culmination of three years of work,” and a victory that the president accomplished “the way he always does: leading from behind and playing the long game.”   First came the end of the HIV travel ban, then Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, then the Justice Department’s determination that sexual orientation merited heightened scrutiny and then, finally, the marriage interview.  ”In four years,” Sullivan writes, “Obama went from being JFK on civil rights to being LBJ…. And he did so by co-opting the forces of resistance.”

But it’s Sullivan’s final thesis, where he examines just how Obama’s own experience of personal growth and discovery of identity, that is the most extraordinary part of his essay.  Gays and lesbians, he writes, are for the most part born to straight parents and straight families.  Before they can tell anyone about their sexual orientation, and perhaps even before they know their own orientation, LGBT individuals live lives of displacements, experiencing, in his words, “something inchoate, a separateness from their peers, a subtle estrangement from their families.”

In a similar way, a young Barack Obama experienced these feelings growing up as he discovered the history of his racial background.  Raised by a white single mom and white grandparents, he had to discover the identity of his black heritage and reconcile that with the white family in which he lived.  Obama’s experience was like the gay experience, Sullivan writes, “the discovery in adulthood of a community not like your own home and the struggle to belong in both places, without displacement, without alienation.”

And that, indeed, is why the marriage issue matters.  It’s about creating a space for gays and lesbians, and their partners, and their families, and their children, that stands equivalent to the institution of heterosexual marriage that we know so well both in terms of legal rights and, yes, in name.  It’s about creating a new normal–or maybe, an expanded normal.

Check out the following segment of Andrew Sullivan discussing the Obama interview further on The Chris Matthews Show.