Openly gay Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart was all over the news Thursday after his morning sparring with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on “Morning Joe.” I disagree with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell here that co-host Joe Scarborough “did all he could to moderate” the exchange. Christie was did his usual bellicose bullying act and overwhelmed Capehart while smugly mugging for the TV hosts and the camera.  I applaud “The Last Word” host for bringing Capehart back so he could finish his point about the difference between Christie and President Obama on civil unions, DOMA, and marriage rights for same sex couples.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Love these online straw polls that pretend to be significant but don’t compensate for the fact that ANYONE can vote, including those intent on screwing up or skewing the results. I mean – what does it mean if Ron Paul’s supporters swarm the poll and the Family Research Council is forced to say the libertarian Texan won – even though Paul supports legalizing drugs and prostitution? Of course, the point of the poll is for FRC – officially designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center – to capture names and emails to add to their collection and thus pretend they are “supported” by all these people. This is from FRC president Tony Perkins:

Whether or not you’ve already voted in a 2012 presidential primary, you know just how important your voice is in keeping all the candidates attuned to the foundational issues of faith, family, and freedom. An America without our God-given right to life, the institution of marriage, and religious freedom would be unrecognizable to its founders.

Please, review our 2012 presidential voter guide, and then vote in FRC Action’s 2012 Online Straw Poll for your favorite Republican primary candidate. We’re releasing the full results on Monday, February 27, so it’s not too late to add your vote, and recruit your friends to support your favorite candidate.

Producer/director Paris Barclay at DGA Feb. 22, 2012 (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

Openly gay producer/director Paris Barclay was honored on Wednesday, Feb. 22, by his peers at the Director’s Guild of America. He’s a smart, compassionate man who has contributed considerably to non-profits that benefit LGBT people and people with HIV/AIDS. He is also political and has known Barack Obama since 2004. In a short interview at the DGA, I asked him how coming out impacted his career and the way he directs – and about his friend Obama and what he thinks of the Republican presidential field.

On Obama:

I’m not close friends with Barack Obama and frankly, I’m disappointed with him now.  I saw him briefly at the White House in December but we didn’t get a chance to talk about substantive issues.  I’m hoping that in the second term, free of the shackles of having to run for re-election, we’ll see the man that I know is really there – who is really quite a progressive.  I think he is probably doing his political calculus and knows he can’t win by being who he really is. I believe if he is re-elected, we’ll see who he really is and we’ll be very pleased.

I mention that I was really disappointed in the State of the Union address because, while the President talked about jobs, jobs, jobs, he didn’t talk about doing anything about the job discrimination against LGBT people. I asked Paris if he could pull Obama aside and talk to him about that, what would he say:

I’d say, I’m counting on you and I’d say I’m counting on you and millions of Americans are counting on you to be the man that we thought we were electing when we first elected you in 2008, who is a really progressive, intelligent, constitutional scholar who understands that the laws of the land are the laws of the land. You need to defend them for all of the people of America. And I’m hoping that means that you’ll turn this tide of discrimination the opposite way – you have the power to do that. So I’m counting on you.

I also asked what he thought about the Republican field:

I’m so happy with the Republican field, I, couldn’t tell you! In fact, I’m thinking of moving back to Wisconsin or Michigan so I can vote for Rick Santorum. I’m so excited!

Maryland State Sen. Delores Kelley

After long, long, long but civil filibustering by antigay state senators about school kids learning (“gasp!”) about homosexuality, religious organizations and business people maybe perhaps sometime in the future maybe being challenged by same sex couples demanding the Christians violate their religious conscience and right to discriminate against gays by providing the marriage gay couple some service —- some of the senators who supported Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012 had a chance to speak.

Among the moving pro-bill testimony – including from gay State Sen. Rich Madaleno about his family and why he wants that marriage license – Sen. Kittleman noted that “45 years ago this month, Maryland legislature voted to repeal inter-racial marriages.” But those following the debate live on Twitter fell in love with Sen. Delores Kelley who took on “the other side” – noting that Adam, not God, named things so that includes the definition of marriage; and “God didn’t create everybody to procreate. What should happen to those of us who are long past the age of fertility?” And, “Let the Lord judge – I think we are not all that capable.”

Sen. Raskin, who’d been fielding questions from the opposition throughout, put the issue into a different perspective. He talked about having stage three colon cancer as a “misfortune.” But finding someone to love in this life and wanting to have kids together and wanting to be married and have a family – but you can’t do it – “that’s not a misfortune, that’s an injustice. We can do something about it and today we have.” He thanked the body for voting in favor of the marriage bill “for the public good.”

At 3:23 Pacific time, the Maryland State Senate finally voted  25-22 and “received a constitutional vote.” The bill now heads to Gov. O’Malley, who has promised to sign it, after which it may well face a referendum.

Reaction from Marylanders for Marriage Equality:

ANNAPOLIS – Following the successful vote in the House of Delegates last week, the Maryland Senate today approved the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which enables committed gay and lesbian couples to get a civil marriage license. While the Governor has stated his strong desire to sign the bill, the next step is likely to be the November ballot, where voters will support or oppose marriage equality.

“We’re fortunate to be riding a huge wave of momentum as we enter the referendum process,” said Sultan Shakir, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality. “There is still a lot of work to do over the coming months, but we think voters will ultimately agree that all children, no matter who their parents are, should be protected under the law. Marriage equality is about building strong, stable families.”

A Washington Post poll released last month shows a majority of Marylanders support same-sex marriage.
Opponents of marriage equality are expected to begin obtaining the requisite 55,736 signatures necessary to refer the Civil Marriage Protection Act to the general election ballot this November – pending all legal requirements are met pertaining to the signature collection process.
In the coming weeks, Marylanders for Marriage Equality will be undertaking a significant public education and engagement campaign to let voters know the Civil Marriage Protection Act strengthens all families and protects religious liberty.

Each coalition partner, including 1199 SEIU, ACLU of Maryland, Equality Maryland, Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Maryland and others – is grateful to all senators, particularly Senators Ferguson, Forehand, Frosh, Garagiola, Gladden, Jones-Rodwell, Kelley, King, Kittleman, Madaleno, Manno, McFadden, Montgomery, Pinsky, Pugh, Ramirez, Raskin, Robey, Young, and Zirkin who cosponsored the bill.

“We want to thank the senators who cast their votes today in favor of equality for all the families in Maryland. Their unwavering commitment has helped ensure we provide protections and dignity to our families,” explains Carrie Evans, Executive Director of Equality Maryland.

“1199 SEIU members stand with our Delegates and Senators who voted for marriage equality. Their vote makes Maryland and all its working families stronger,” said Ezekiel Jackson of 1199 SEIU.

“We’re one step closer today to full equality for all families,” said Melissa Goemann, legislative director of ACLU of Maryland. “Legislators have voted to protect religious liberty while allowing for equal protection under the law for same-sex couples and their families.”

“Committed gay and lesbian couples and their children are on the road to being protected equally under the law due to the efforts of the Senate today,” said Kate Planco-Waybright, interim executive director of Progressive Maryland.

Maryland Gov. O'Malley has promised to sign the marriage equality bill

Per AP via The Baltimore Sun:

State Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller says his chamber will vote on a bill to legalize gay marriage later Thursday.

Senators are expected to return to the chamber at 4 p.m. [that 1:00 pm Pacific] to wrap up what Miller expects will be an “orderly” debate and take a vote.

Last year, the Senate passed a similar proposal 25-21 and Miller said the vote is not expected to change.

The legislation, which is expected to pass, would make Maryland the eighth state to legalize same-sex unions, when Gov. Martin O’Malley signs the bill.

Last week the House of Delegates passed the bill by a thin margin, courting just one more vote than necessary to pass the measure.

Opponents have vowed to bring it to voters with a referendum on the November ballot.

Click here for a local CBS News affiliate news report.

UPDATE: LISTEN LIVE HERE.

In January I wrote about why I thought openly gay Republican presidential contender Fred Karger’s candidacy is important. At the time, Karger said he was excited about Michigan, where he is on the ballot and hoped to get on the debate stage with the remaining four Republican presidential contenders.

Unfortunately, Wednesday night’s CNN GOP debate in Arizona seems to have usurped the possibility of a debate in Michigan – though Karger said he’s willing to debate any candidate, anywhere, anytime. So, in a state with an open primary, where Democrats can cross-over and vote Republican and where the Democratic caucus will surely approve Obama as their nominee in May – Karger is doing something different: he’s asking Democrats and moderate Republican voters to “send the Republicans a message” and vote for him in the GOP primary next Tuesday, Feb. 28.

And he has a specific strategy, per his email blast to supporters:

Karger’s campaign will undertake a unique Michigan strategy.  Under the leadership of State Director, Todd Heywood of Lansing, Karger will put his advertising and outreach emphasis in the 8th Congressional District.  Michigan awards three delegates in each of its 14 Congressional Districts to whichever candidate wins that district.

“If we can win one district, then we can walk away with at least three delegates.” said Karger.  “As a first-time candidate who has not been allowed in one national debate, it’s an uphill battle to get known, so we will be blitzing Ingham, Livingston and Oakland Counties, which make up the new 8th district.  We worked hard in New Hampshire and we were able to beat Michele Bachmann by 135 votes in that state’s Primary.”

In the commercial, Karger offers himself up as the moderate alternative to Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.  Karger is described as having the best jobs plan, is pro-choice, supports gay marriage and wants our troops out of Afghanistan now.

Karger is also planning extensive voter contact in the 8th District via phone, direct mail, online ads, facebook ads and other social media platforms.

Here are two campaign spots hitting the Michigan 8th District now:

Karen Golinski (rt) and her wife Amy (Photo courtesy Lambda Legal)

A federal judge on late Wednesday ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management.  9^th Circuit attorney Karen Golinski sued to have public health benefits afforded heterosexual employees of the federal court system extended to her spouse.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White said the Office of Personnel Management’s refusal to extend those benefits under DOMA violated Golinski’s right to equal protections under US Constitution, adding that DOMA reflected a history of discrimination based on sexual orientation. White wrote: “The court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law … without substantial justification or rational basis.”

The Obama administration and Attorney General Eric H. Holder have said they consider DOMA unconstitutional and have declined to defend DOMA in federal court.  That decision has also been applied on a more case-by-case basis regarding the deportation of a foreign born partner in a binational relationship. DOMA is being defended by the conservative, Republican-lead House of Representatives.

Golinski is a Lamda Legal case and here’s their reaction in a press release:

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White today ruled the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, declaring that the discriminatory federal statute violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equality. Lambda Legal and Morrison & Foerster LLP brought the case on behalf of Karen Golinski, a federal court employee denied spousal health coverage for her wife.

“This ruling, the first to come after the Justice Department announced it would no longer defend this discriminatory statute in court, spells doom for DOMA,” said Tara Borelli, staff attorney in Lambda Legal’s Western Regional Office in Los Angeles.  ”The Court recognized the clear fact that a law that denies one class of individuals the rights and benefits available to all others because of their sexual orientation violates the constitutional guarantee of equality embodied in the Fifth Amendment. The Court agreed with us that sexual orientation discrimination by the government should receive heightened scrutiny under the constitution.  It then concluded that DOMA could not meet that standard, and that there was not even a rational justification to deny Karen Golinski the same spousal health care benefits that her heterosexual co-workers receive.”

“The demise of this discriminatory statute is long overdue, and the court’s ruling today makes that clear,” said Rita Lin, associate at Morrison & Foerster.  ”DOMA produces circumstances where certain federal employees are compensated differently than their coworkers because of their sexual orientation.  That’s unconstitutional.”

Judge White’s ruling is the latest victory in a battle that began in 2008, when Golinski, a 20-year employee of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sought to enroll her wife, Amy Cunninghis, in the employee health plan.  It is the first DOMA-related ruling since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice had determined DOMA was unconstitutional and would no longer defend it, and the majority leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives hired outside counsel to defend the discriminatory statute.  A similar ruling holding DOMA unconstitutional in a separate case is on appeal in the 1st Circuit.

Golinski’s struggle to enroll her spouse in the family health plan, a benefit routinely granted to her married heterosexual co-workers, travelled a torturous path, including two separate orders by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski directing that Golinski be allowed to enroll Cunninghis in the health plan, orders ignored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), citing DOMA.  In April 2011, Lambda Legal and Morrison & Foerster filed an amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.  Judge White heard arguments on this amended complaint on December 16.

“I am profoundly grateful for the thought and consideration that Judge White gave to my case,” Golinski said.  ”His decision acknowledges that DOMA violates the Constitution and that my marriage to Amy is equal to those marriages of my heterosexual colleagues.  This decision is a huge step toward equality.”

The case is Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management.  Judge White’s ruling is here: http://lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/golinski_us_20120222_order

The Williams Institute's Executive Director Brad Sears and Distinguished Scholar Gary Gates (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

The issue of marriage rights for same sex couples has dominated our national conversation since Karl Rove used antigay initiatives to drive evangelicals to the ballot box for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. The Prop 8 wars and the recent victories and ballot referendums in a number of states since then have lead many to believe that marriage equality is the top priority for LGBT people.

The reality is that the top priority for many LGBT Americans is finding and securing a job, especially one with discrimination protections based on gender identity, as well as sexual orientation.  The question about the status of the languishing Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) surfaced in early January when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) won a $155,000 settlement against DynCorp International LLC, a military contractor and aircraft maintenance company, based in a sex-based workplace discrimination case. After considerable pressure lead by Tico Almeida, a civil rights attorney and founder of Freedom to Work who started the petition signed by 50,000 people on Change.org, DynCorp added sexual orientation and gender identity to its workplace non-discrimination policies.

“It’s terrific that DynCorp has moved to protect its LGBT employees, but let’s also remember that dozens of other government contractors do not protect their workers from anti-LGBT harassment and discrimination,” Almeida said in a press release. “An executive order outlawing discrimination at federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is sitting at the White House. President Obama should take this opportunity, in the wake of DynCorp’s decision, to make sure that no government contractor uses taxpayer money to fund anti-LGBT harassment or discrimination.”

The news that an ENDA-like bill was “sitting at the White House” prompted a new petition to Obama – and a number of stories: I criticized Obama for not including the need for ENDA in his State of the Union address; Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly wrote “From Partner Benefits to Affirmative Action, Proposed Contractor Executive Order Specifics Discussed;” and The Williams Institute’s M.V. Lee Badgett wrote an op-ed for the New York Times: “What Obama Should Do About Workplace Discrimination.”

Wednesday night, Feb. 22, from 6:15-8:00pm The Williams Institute and the City of West Hollywood are presenting an important panel discussion on the topic: “What Happened to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)” in the Community Room at the New West Hollywood Library, 625 N. San Vicente Boulevard. (Free validated parking at the parking structure on El Tovar Place off Robertson Boulevard in between Melrose Avenue and Santa Monica Blvd).

The Williams Institute speakers are: Christy Mallory, Legal Research Fellow; Ilan H. Meyer, Williams Senior Scholar of Public Policy; Jennifer C. Pizer, Legal Director and Arnold D. Kassoy Senior Scholar of Law; and Brad Sears, Assistant Dean & Executive Director, Roberta A. Conroy Scholar of Law and Policy.  Freedom to Work’s Tico Almeida will also be there but is not an “official” speaker.

Much of the discussion will focus on a new study by Mallory. Here’s a quick brief from The Williams Institute:

Local ordinances that require city and county contractors to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination protect thousands of workers without burdening governments or businesses, according to a new study from the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute.

“This study provides evidence that a federal executive order that similarly barred discrimination could protect millions of workers while not overburdening federal contractors or the U.S. government,” said the study’s co-author, Christy Mallory, Legal Fellow, Williams Institute.

Currently, only 21 states and the District of Columbia include sexual orientation or gender identity in their statewide non-discrimination laws, and no federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the private sector. A federal executive order that prohibited such discrimination could protect up to 16.5 million workers.

The local governments in the study reported widespread compliance among contractors and very little, if any, resistance to adopting LGBT-related employment policies.  Further, no locality reported that any employees had filed complaints of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination after the policies were implemented.

“Their responses indicate businesses were willing to adopt these policies in order to contract with cities like Raleigh and Indianapolis,” said Mallory. She continued, “This demonstrates that contractors accept the possibility of government enforcement, even when no state law imposes similar requirements.”

The survey responses also indicate that the laws are not burdensome or costly for the agencies to implement and enforce.   No locality reported that it had to hire additional staff to enforce these ordinances, or that there was any cost associated in adding sexual orientation and gender identity to existing non-discrimination policies and practices.

“Our analysis shows that concerns about these laws have not been born out,” said Brad Sears, Roberta A. Conroy Senior Scholar of Law & Policy and Williams Institute Executive Director, “the agencies reported no disruption to the contracting process as a result of passing these ordinances—for themselves or their contractors.  In short, its business as usual after a locality has decided to add these protections for LGBT people.”

The study evaluated data from 29 city and county government agencies that require local government contractors to adopt sexual orientation and gender identity employment non-discrimination policies.  Some cities and counties also require local government contractors to take further steps to protect LGBT workers, such as posting inclusive Equal Employment opportunity policies, training managers and employees to prevent harassment  and discrimination, and including the LGBT community in outreach and recruitment efforts.

For more information about this study, please visit: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/workplace/mallory-sears-govt-contractors-non-discrim-feb-2012/

American Foundation for Equal Rights co-founder and Board President Chad Griffin at the Feb. 7 news conference after the 9th Circuit declared Prop 8 unconstitutional (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

American Foundation for Equal Rights co-founder and Board President Chad Griffin on the request for an en banc rehearing of the 9th Circuit ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional:

The anti-marriage proponents of Prop. 8 are now asking for a wider panel of the Ninth Circuit to review their baseless, discriminatory claims for justifying state-sponsored discrimination. Moreover, they are also continuing their offensive, homophobic attack on the District Court judge who first heard our case and struck down Prop. 8. With this new filing, they are trying, once again, to get the case thrown out because the trial judge was gay and in a relationship.

If they want another round, we are ready.

We won in Federal District Court; Prop. 8 was found unconstitutional. We won again in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Prop. 8 was deemed to “serve no purpose…other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

No matter what path this case takes, we will defend our victory.

A rehearing of our case is completely unnecessary. Because gay and lesbian couples like our plaintiffs have the right to get married, which both the Federal District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vindicated, AFER opposes a rehearing by the Ninth Circuit and will seek to bring that fundamental right to reality at the earliest possible time for the tens of thousands of Californians who are being denied basic justice, due process and equality.

Every piece of evidence and every witness (including the Prop. 8 Proponents’ own witnesses) pointed to one conclusion: the fundamental freedom to marry should not be denied to any American. They failed to present a shred of evidence to justify discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans, and they will fail yet again.

The Ninth Circuit will now have to decide if it will rehear our case. A majority of the Ninth Circuit’s 25 active judges will need to vote on what is known as en banc review. If the request is granted, the case will be heard by a panel of 11 judges. If it is rejected, we can expect the anti-marriage forces to try and take our case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Because the Court has acted swiftly in the past by placing our case on an expedited schedule, there is every reason to believe that it will quickly resolve this issue.

When we filed this case, we knew it would be hard-fought. We knew the anti-marriage forces would try every legal maneuver and stall tactic to prevent gay and lesbian couples from being able to get married.

They have lost at every turn, and they will lose again.

And here’s how AFER’s Matt Baume explains it: