The Maryland Senate has postponed debate over a bill to bring marriage equality to the Free State, allowing opponents extra time to determine a strategy and draft amendments to the bill in hopes of postponing its passage in the upper chamber.

The bill, HB 438, passed the House of Delegates on a narrow 72-67 vote last Friday and passed out of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Tuesday by a margin of 7-4. All three Republicans on the committee, and Sen. Norman Stone, Jr. (D-Baltimore Co.), a longtime opponent of marriage equality, voted against the bill.

Senate Minority Whip Edward Reilly (R-Anne Arundel Co.) offered an amendment that would change the date when the bill takes effect from Jan. 1, 2013 to October 1, 2012. If such a change was adopted, it would force the bill, once passed by the Senate, to go back to the House. 

The bill's advocates would rather avoid a second House vote because of the close margin of victory, as well as fears that they might lose delegates on the issue. Two delegates, A. Wade Kach (R-Carroll, Baltimore counties) and Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's Co.) voted in favor of it after amendments were adopted changing the effective date to Jan. 1, 2013; making the bill not severable, meaning if one part is found unconstitutional, the whole bill will be found to be; and preventing any same-sex marriages from occurring before litigation surrounding the referendum process has concluded.

Reilly also asked Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Calvert, Prince George’s counties) to "lay over" the bill by delaying debate until Thursday. Under the rules of the Maryland Senate, a senator may make a motion to postpone the consideration of a bill with pending amendments for one day or one hour, but only one senator can ask the bill to be laid over one time. Miller agreed to allow the bill to be laid over until Thursday, Feb. 23.

The delay allows opponents of the bill to regroup and consider a strategy by which they would offer multiple amendments in an attempt to derail the bill or make its progress through the legislature more difficult. But Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery Co.), the state's only openly gay senator, told Metro Weekly on Tuesday that such procedural moves were expected from opponents.

However, Madaleno said he was confident supporters of the bill would be able to defeat the amendments and pass the measure by the end of the week. No senator who voted for last year's marriage equality bill, which passed 25-21, has indicated they are considering switching their vote, meaning eventual passage is expected. If passed by the Senate, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has vowed to sign it into law.

The proponents of Proposition 8 have filed the necessary paperwork today asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the three-judge panel's decision on Feb. 7 in Perry v. Brown that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The lead attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8 told Metro Weekly earlier today that they would be filing such a motion. After the judges receiving a full briefing from the parties as to whether the matter should be reheard, all active circuit judges will vote as to whether an en banc rehearing should be held.

If a majority vote in the affirmative, the chief judge of the circuit, Alex Kozinski, and 10 other randomly selected circuit judges will hear the appeal.

The move almost guarantees that the U.S. Supreme Court will not consider the case before this November's presidential election.

In the summary of the argument filed today seeking en banc review, the lawyers for the proponents state:

The panel majority erred in breaking with the uniform and binding precedent upholding the constitutionality of laws adopting the traditional definition of marriage, and the Court, sitting en banc, should rehear this profoundly important case.

The primary argument brought forth by the proponents in today's filing is that Romer v. Evans, the case used by the three-judge panel to hold that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, was misapplied here.

The panel majority concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans directly "governs" and "controls" this case because it struck down a "remarkably similar" constitutional amendment—Colorado's Amendment 2. This conclusion, however, rests on a patently implausible reading of Romer.

Specifically, the proponents argue that the "root of the panel majority's error" was its determination that the timing of the enactment of the provisions -- Amendment 2 in Colorado and Proposition 8 in California -- was relevant to the provisions' constitutionality. The panel opinion found it relevant that the ability of same-sex couples to marry in California was taken away by the enactment of Proposition 8. Of that, today the proponents argue:

[I]n declaring a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court not only overturned the statutory will of the People in Proposition 22, it also refused to defer its decision until the constitutional will of the People could be expressed on Proposition 8 at the ballot. And that decision, according to the panel majority in this case, rendered the will of the People irrelevant in any event; for once the California Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the People of California were powerless, as a matter of federal constitutional law, to exercise their reserved right to [amend their state constitution.]

Then, the proponents argue: "Putting aside the red herring of its timing, it is plain that Proposition 8 differs sharply from Amendment 2 in every material respect." Writing about the narrow scope of Proposition 8, the lawyers for the proponents write:

The panel majority, however, turns Proposition 8's virtue into its vice, reasoning that its narrowness "makes it even more suspect" than Amendment 2. This assertion simply cannot be reconciled with Romer. A critical part of the Romer Court's reasoning was that Amendment 2's "sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects."

Later they add: "Proposition 8 does not single out a 'named class' for disparate treatment. Rather, it simply preserves the definition of marriage that has prevailed throughout human history."

In a streak of populism, the proponents state, "To its credit, the panel was unwilling to join the Plaintiffs and the district court in defaming the People of California by attributing their support for traditional marriage to "a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group,'" one of the holdings of the Supreme Court about Amendment 2 in Romer.

The proponents' lawyers go on to address how they view the panel opinion as ignoring certain Supreme Court precedent that they view as contrary to the Feb. 7 decision, including rulings on whether states' decisions to "do 'more' than the Fourteenth Amendment requires" can later be rescinded and whether the "traditional definition of marriage" as between one man and one woman is constitutional.

Additionally, the proponents argue that the panel, like U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker below, was wrong to find that Proposition 8 lacked a rational basis -- from "responsible procreation" or "childbearing" to "proceeding cautiously when considering a fundamental change to the very definition of a vitally important social institution."

Finally, the proponents continued their quest to have Walker's trial court decision vacated because, as they argue today:

Unbeknownst to the parties, at all times while presiding over and entering judgment in this case, former Judge Walker, like Plaintiffs, was a "resident[] of California ... involved in [a] long-term ... relationship with [an] individual[] of the same sex."

They argue: "Judge Walker effectively conferred upon himself and his partner the right to marry."

Other parties now will have time to respond to today's filing.

READ the proponents' filing: ProponentsEnBanc.pdf

The Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted largely along party lines Tuesday, Feb. 21, in favor of HB 438 (pdf), a bill to legalize marriage equality. The bill, supported by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), is now expected to go before the full Senate for a vote on Wednesday, Feb. 22.

Seven of the eight Democrats on the committee, including Chairman Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery Co.) and Vice-Chair Lisa Gladden (D-Baltimore City), voted to approve the bill. All three Republicans on the committee and Sen. Norman Stone, Jr. (D-Baltimore Co.) voted against the measure. No amendments to the bill were adopted by the committee.

The committee's actions come just four days after the House of Delegates narrowly passed the bill on a 72-67 vote after adopting two amendments, including one by Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's Co.) that prevents any same-sex marriages from occurring before litigation surrounding the referendum process has concluded. The other amendment, by Del. A. Wade Kach (R-Carroll, Baltimore Cos.) makes the bill take effect on Jan. 1, 2013, rather than on Oct. 1, 2012, as the legislation originally proposed.

Out gay Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery Co.), a strong supporter of marriage equality, tweeted that the bill would come to the Senate floor for a full vote Wednesday, where passage is expected. Opponents have vowed to seek a referendum placing the measure on the ballot during the 2012 presidential election in hopes of repealing it.

Last year, a marriage equality bill passed the full Senate, 25-21, but was sent back to committee after proponents realized they did not have enough votes to pass it in the House. This year, bolstered by support from and intense lobbying of legislators by O'Malley, who has made its passage part of his 2012 legislative agenda, the bill was able to garner the votes necessary for passage. No senators who voted in favor of last year's bill have indicated they are considering switching their votes.

Following passage by the committee, the pro-equality coalition, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, released a statement praising the vote.

"We're grateful to the members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee -- particularly chairman Brian Frosh -- who today approved the Civil Marriage Protection Act," said Ezekiel Jackson, political organizer of 1199 SEIU, one of the member groups of the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition. "Members who support the bill understand that this is about making all Maryland families stronger -- that it's about protecting them equally under the law while preserving cherished religious freedoms."

Equality Maryland, another organization in the coalition, noted in a tweet that Stone, who voted against last year's bill in committee and on the floor, was one of seven senators, all Democrats, who voted against repealing a Maryland state law that had banned interracial marriage in 1967.

[UPDATE: The specifics of House amendments were clarified.]

Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8, tells Metro Weekly that the proponents of the California marriage amendment will be asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review the three-judge panel decision issued on Feb. 7 holding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

[UPDATE @ 7P: READ Metro Weekly's report on today's filing, "Prop 8 Proponents: Ninth Circuit Was Wrong, Should Reconsider Case."]

Although Cooper, of Cooper and Kirk PLLC, told Metro Weekly the filing has not yet been made, the filing is expected later today as today is the deadline for the filing to seek en banc review.

The move almost guarantees that the U.S. Supreme Court will not consider the case before this November's presidential election.

Usually, en banc review involves all of the active judges on the court, but the Ninth Circuit -- due to the more than 20 active judges on the circuit -- has adopted a unique "limited en banc" procedure in which all the active Ninth Circuit judges vote whether en banc consideration will be given but only 11 judges hear the en banc consideration. That will be the request made by today's filing by the proponents.

If a majority of the court's judges support en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal, which can involve briefing and oral arguments.

After that decision is reached, theoretically, a party dissatisfied with an en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit can ask for the entire panel of Ninth Circuit judges to review the en banc panel's decision, but the court has not agreed to do so since adopting the "limited en banc" procedure.

After en banc consideration, the unsuccessful party could then petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. At that point, the parties submit written arguments explaining to the court why the justices should or should not hear the case. Then, if four of the nine justices agree to hear the case, another round of briefing occurs, with the parties and outside organizations and individuals arguing the merits of the case to the justices. Oral arguments are then set and held at the Supreme Court, and some time later a decision is handed down.

[Image, above: Screen shot from ABC News's This Week on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2012. Image, below: Gibbs.]

The question of whether marriage equality will be a part of the Democratic Party platform this year was placed to the Obama campaign squarely today. The response: "I don't know."

ABC News's Jake Tapper, guest hosting This Week, today asked former White House press secretary for President Obama and senior campaign advisor Robert Gibbs the question. Citing Metro Weekly's exclusive report about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)'s support for the plank's inclusion, Tapper asked whether, in the context of Obama's "evolving" thoughts on marriage equality, the platform would include such a plank.

Gibbs: "I don't know the answer to that."

In answering, he said that he hadn't spoken with Obama on the issue and focused in on opposing employment discrimination, but he said, more broadly, that people shouldn't be judged based on their sexual orientation when "applying for a job or doing anything."

Left unstated is whether "getting married" is a part of Gibbs's "anything."

The exchange was at the end of the interview before a commercial break, so Tapper had no chance to ask a follow-up question right then and there.

The full platform plank, proposed on Feb. 13 by Freedom to Marry, states: "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples."

Since Pelosi's announcement, made in response to a question asked about the plank by Metro Weekly, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus also announced their support for the plank.

The platform -- a detailed statement of the party's positions that will be finalized at the Democratic National Convention to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina, this September -- has never included language in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Obama, opposed marriage equality in the 2008 campaign. He said in December 2010, as referenced today by Tapper, that his position on marriage equality was "evolving" but that he still "struggle[s]" with it. Obama's current White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said this past week of Obama's position, "You know his position, where it stands now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don't have much to add on that."

Obama currently supports much of the Freedom to Marry plank language -- outside of the marriage equality language itself. He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and, as Carney and Gibbs have said repeatedly, opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples" such as California's Proposition 8.

Gibbs's response to Tapper today marks the first on-the-record response from the Obama campaign on the issue of the platform plank. Metro Weekly had made several requests previously for comment about the platform plank to the campaign.

READ the exchange between Tapper and Gibbs:

TAPPER: Very quickly -- we have about 20 seconds left -- Nancy Pelosi came out and said she supports a plank in the Democratic Party's official platform that would say, quote, "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation with equal respect, responsibilities and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry."

I know the president says he's, quote, unquote, "still evolving" on this issue. Will there be a same-sex marriage plank in the Democratic Party platform this summer?

GIBBS: Jake, I don't know the answer to that. And I don't know -- I haven't talked to the president at all recently on this issue.

I think we all look to and want to live in a world where, if you're applying for a job or doing anything, you're not judged on your sexual orientation. You shouldn't be. And I think living in a society where that doesn't happen is a society we all want to live.

WATCH the exchange (at 7:50 in the interview):

The Phoenix New Times published an article dated Feb. 16 detailing a relationship gone sour between conservative Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu (R), who is running for Congress in Arizona's 4th District and has made a name for himself as what the article calls an immigration hawk, and an immigrant from Mexico, who the article claims Babeu threatened with deportation because the man threatened to reveal the soured relationship. 

[UPDATE @ 2:50P: At a news conference held today to address the allegations, Babeu denied the allegegation about the threat -- and came out.

He said, "All these allegations ... are absolutely completely false ... except for the issues that refer to me as being gay, because I am gay."

Later in the news conference, he said, "At no time did I or anyone who represents me threaten deportation."

He says that he, on the other hand, has faced threats of being outed back for 20 years, including while in the military. "It's almost as if there is a relief today ... to not be threatened," he said.

Babeu's chief deputy sheriff calls the matter of him being gay "not very important," and he adds, "I'm proud that this man is my sheriff." 

Several other members of the sheriff's office and community members also spoke at the news conference in support of Babeu, with many noting that Babeu's sexual orientation was unimportant to them.]

From the New Times article:

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu — who became the face of Arizona border security nationally after he started stridently opposing illegal immigration — threatened his Mexican ex-lover with deportation when the man refused to promise never to disclose their years-long relationship, the former boyfriend and his lawyer tell New Times.

Today, the Arizona Republic followed up on the New Times piece, in which Babeu denied that he threatened the man identified as Jose but acknowledged that they knew each other and the sheriff "had seen [Jose] on a personal level." Asked to expand, he said:

"My personal life is exactly that."

The New Times article reported that Babeu had maintained an adam4adam profile while dating Jose, which led to Jose setting up a fake profile to determine that Babeu was cheating on him. The article reports that the two had first met years ago on gay.com and that Jose later worked on the web site and similar web-based aspects in Babeu's campaigns.

The article notes, "Babeu's presence on the national stage reached a new high in May 2010, when he was featured in U.S. Senator John McCain's 'complete the danged fence' TV ad. Babeu's inclusion was meant to bolster the senator's credibility on border security during a heated Republican primary race against former Congressman J.D. Hayworth."

Notably, the story could reach beyond Babeu. On the last page of the extensive article, it details a connection between Babeu and out gay state Rep. Matt Heinz (D), who recently announced that he was going to run for the U.S. House seat from which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) resigned.

The New Times reports:

Openly gay Tucson state Representative Matt Heinz was one of two Democratic lawmakers who broke ranks with the party in March 2011 and voted to give Babeu $5 million to combat border violence. Other lawmakers opposed the measure, in part, because Babeu's county is at least 70 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. The measure finally was pared down to $1.7 million and passed by the Legislature.

About a week after Heinz's nod to Babeu, the sheriff spent the night at Heinz's home, text messages that Jose shared with New Times show.

"I'm at Mat Heinz and his boyfriend for dinner & ice cream . . . we are going out to bar and . . . to their house. [Am] staying over," Babeu texted to Jose at 1:04 a.m. last April 2.

UPDATE @ 2:20P: Talking Points Memo reports that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign released a statement announcing that Babeu "has stepped down from his volunteer position with the campaign so he can focus on the allegations against him."

UPDATE @ 6P: Watch Babeu's news conference: 

Sheriff Paul Babeu Press Conference from Paul Babeu on Vimeo.

[Photo: Screen capture of Babeu at today's news conference.]

WATCH Babeu defending Arizona's anti-immigrant bill, S.B. 1070, at CPAC this past week:

By Justin Snow, reporting from Annapolis.

Gathering in the hall outside the chamber of the Maryland House of Delegates, supporters of marriage equality beamed with excitement on Friday evening. After nearly two hours of debate, the Maryland House of Delegates voted 72-67 to pass the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012, all but ensuring the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Free State.

It was a major achievement for supporters, who faced disappointment last year when similar legislation was sent back to committee after extensive debate on the House floor. At the time, supporters believed they were only two or three votes shy of the 71 needed for passage.

Choking back tears, Carrie Evans, the executive director of the leading LGBT equality organization in the state, Equality Maryland, said it was hard not to become emotional thinking about how hard everyone had worked. Evans became executive director last fall and has been in Annapolis daily lobbying legislators for their votes.

Evans said she expects quick passage of the bill in the state Senate as soon as next week. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Md.) has vowed to sign the legislation when it reaches his desk.

O'Malley made a similar vow last year, but took a much more hands-on approach this year, making the bill one of his key legislative priorities and placing his chief legislative officer, Joseph Bryce, in a lead role in the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition.

Sultan Shakir, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition, said in a statement, "Today's vote is a huge step forward for all of us working to make marriage equality a reality in Maryland. There's a lot of work left to do, but momentum continues to grow -- and quickly."

Part of that work involves the likely referendum effort that would follow O'Malley's promised signing of the bill, should the Senate pass it. Opponents have vowed a referendum on the legislation and likely will have little trouble securing the more than 50,000 signatures necessary to place the issue before voters on the 2012 ballot. Both sides have anticipated a multi-million dollar campaign to ensue if the referendum is on the ballot.

This night, however, was about celebrating a job well done.

Speaking to reporters after the session, O'Malley said that the issue was about the dignity of every citizen.

"Our leaders that we elect are moving us forward as one people with care for one another, with love for one another, with understanding and respect for one another," he said.

On Twitter, O'Malley wrote, "Today, the House of Delegates voted for human dignity. Love is an unalienable right. At its heart, their votes were votes for Maryland's children."

Looking forward, he added: "Now, as the Senate prepares to vote, all of us are needed & we're prepared to redouble our efforts."

O'Malley was joined outside the chamber by House Speaker Michael Busch (D- Anne Arundel), who has presided over the House for nearly a decade and played an integral role in the bill's passage.

"To be a part of this historic event is significant," an emotional Busch said. "This is the right thing to do," he added, "I'm convinced in my heart."

The bill's passage in the House came after a relatively civil debate. Although Democrats remained divided on the issue, with those representing largely religious African-American districts in Prince George’s County and Baltimore City voting against the bill, two Republican delegates -- Bob Costa (R-Anne Arundel) and Wade Kach (R-Baltimore County) -- broke with their party to vote in favor.

One Democrat who changed her vote in favor of the bill was Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's). Last year, Alston was a cosponsor of the bill but voted against it after negative reaction from her constituents. Although Alston voted against the bill in committee again this year, she voted for the bill on the House floor after an amendment she proposed was adopted. Alston's amendment forbids same-sex marriages from taking place as long as litigation is pending over referendum petitions.

A Democrat opposing the bill both last year and this year is Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery), who had run on a platform that included support for marriage equality but enraged activists in 2011 by opposing the bill when it was being considered. Although advocates had been pushing for him to support the bill this year, he voted "nay" tonight.

Chuck Wolfe, the president of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which works to elect out LGBT candidates, noted the role of out lawmakers in a statement.

"We're very proud of the gay and lesbian delegates whose leadership has been crucial in this debate," he said. "Maryland's lawmakers understand better the necessity of legal marriage for all couples because they serve alongside gays and lesbians whose loving, committed relationships reflect their own."

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery), one of seven out LGBT delegates, said she didn't know for sure if the bill would pass until Alston confirmed her support on the House floor. A practicing Catholic, Mizeur lowered her head in prayer when she entered the chamber earlier in the afternoon.

"Love makes a family but it's marriage that protects it," Mizeur said after the vote. "Every LGBT family in this state is going to go to bed tonight easier knowing that the state’s behind them."

[Photo: Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) speaks with reporters following the House passage of the state's marriage equality bill. (Photo by Justin Snow.)]

Justin Snow is a freelance writer and investigative reporting intern for MarylandReporter.com. Follow him on Twitter at @journosnow.

[CLARIFICATION AND UPDATE: The initially reported "yes" vote count was 71, but, as had happened in New Jersey, a lawmaker in support of the law had a technological glitch that prevented the "yes" vote from being counted. This post was expanded and updated, with the final update at 11 p.m.]

The Associated Press reports that, as expected, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has vetoed the bill passed on Thursday, Feb. 16, that would have allowed for same-sex couples to marry in the state.

State legislators have until January 2014 to secure two-thirds veto-proof majorities needed in each chamber to turn the bill into law.

Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein, anticipating today's expected veto, issued a lengthy statement this morning. In part, he wrote:

As I have said before, where we agree with them on the issues, Governor Christie and his Administration have treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we'll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help.
 
And that's precisely why Governor Christie’s veto of the marriage equality bill will hurt so badly.

It's why I chose not to waste a breath in pleading with the Governor not to veto -- and have put Garden State Equality immediately to work to achieve an override. The great news is, we have until the end of the legislative session, in January 2014, to do it.  
 
That doesn't obviate the pain of the Governor's veto.  Because I do know him, I also know he is not some anti-LGBT nut. He is no Rick Santorum. Frankly, I don't think Chris Christie has an anti-gay bone in his body, however much I cannot say the same about his impending veto. His veto will be a brutally anti-gay act, pure and simple.

Read the full statement below the jump.

The Department of Justice sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) today stating that the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments would not be defending the government's laws preventing equal treatment for servicemembers who have same-sex spouses, a decision confirmed by Metro Weekly that was first reported by Talking Points Memo's Ryan Reilly.

A White House spokesman tells Metro Weekly the decision is "consistent" with President Obama's determination, made a year ago, that the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

The move by Attorney General Eric Holder comes in the context of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's lawsuit in McLaughlin v. Panetta, which asserts that several statutes impacting such benefits are unconstitutional themselves or are unconstitutional as interpreted in light of DOMA. Metro Weekly reported on Thursday, Feb. 16, that the parties to the case had agreed a day earlier to a 60-day delay in the government's deadline for filing a response to the lawsuit.

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

SLDN legal director David McKean tells Metro Weekly, "We're very pleased that the attorney general has decided not to defend DOMA in the military context. We're also delighted that, for the first time, the attorney general has said that separate definitions that apply to military veterans are also unconstitutional and will not defend them."

The letter sent to Boehner is required by 28 U.S.C. 530D, which states the Justice Department must inform Congress whenever it determines to "refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute."

Holder sent a similar letter to Boehner on Feb. 23, 2011, alerting the House leader that he and President Obama had decided that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional when subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny, which they explained they believed was merited when laws such as DOMA's Section 3 classified people based on their sexual orientation. Such action violates, they told Boehner, the Constitution's equal protection guarantee. The cases involved in the 2011 letter -- Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management -- were not in a military context.

Because of this decision, Holder wrote then that DOJ would no longer be defending Section 3 of DOMA when it was challenged in court. Boehner and other Republican leaders who constitute the majority of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, intervened to defend DOMA in several cases where DOJ was no longer going to defend DOMA -- including Gill and Massachusetts. All of the appellate briefs have been filed in the cases, and the parties are awaiting the First Circuit's announcement of when oral arguments will be held.

McLaughlin raises challenges involving several provisions of U.S. law providing for servicemembers and veterans benefits that SLDN's attorneys argue are unconstitutionally impacted by DOMA and two additional statutes -- 38 U.S.C. 101(3) and 38 U.S.C. 101(31) -- that, even independent of DOMA, SLDN argues also should be found to be unconstitutional. Today, Holder reaffirmed the DOJ's position as to DOMA itself and told Boehner that the other two provisions also "violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."

Asked by Metro Weekly if Obama agreed with today's decision -- specifically regarding the additional statutes noted by Holder as no longer being defended by DOJ -- White House spokesman Shin Inouye tells Metro Weekly, "The Department of Justice's notification to Congress today is consistent with the President's earlier determination that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional."

As for the impact of today's decision on the plaintiffs in the case, McKean says, "This is a big step for all the plaintiffs and a big step for the case."

SLDN does presume that BLAG, based on earlier filing in the case, will defend DOMA and the other statutes. "We expect that, at the appropriate time, that BLAG will move to intervene," McKean says.

Nathaniel Frank, a scholar whose book, Unfriendly Fire, laid out the case against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," tells Metro Weekly of today's decision, "The administration's admirable decision reflects a growing consensus among experts that there is no legal basis for holding two separate and unequal standards for same-sex and different-sex military couples. Likewise, there are no social or military rationales for such arbitrary distinctions."

Frank, who is a visiting scholar at Columbia University's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, adds: "All uniformed personnel make great sacrifices for the rest of us, and they have all earned the protections for their families that we have rightly promised them. Politicians who continue to defend the indefensible will, I think, quickly be left behind by history."

READ the letter: Boehner 2-17-12.pdf

[NOTE: This post was updated and expanded, with the final update at 6:15 p.m.]

The New Jersey General Assembly has passed the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act by a vote of 42-33, according to The New York Times and the Star-Ledger in New Jersey. The Assembly was 12 votes shy of the 54 votes required for a veto-proof majority, which is expected to be needed because Gov. Chris Christie (R) has said he will veto the bill.

Garden State Equality Chair Steven Goldstein said in a statement, "Since Stonewall, we have been on a 40-year journey toward our freedom. Today, the legislature has brought us to the edge of the promised land. We know the Governor won't let us enter, but we finally behold the view of our dreams and we will never turn back."

While debating the issue prior to the vote, assembly members expressed personal sentiment toward the measure. Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-34th) recalled her childhood years, growing up in a time when interracial marriage was against the law. 

"When I was 3 years old couples of different ethnic persuasion were legally barred from getting married," she said. "We cannot single out any one group of people and deem them to be undeserving of the same legal protections that everyone else has."

On Feb. 14, Christie labeled the Senate's performance as "a good bunch of theater," and said that he expected the bill would pass through the Assembly. "It would be awfully embarrassing if they didn't have enough votes in the assembly to pass it, after they made it day one," he said. "I'm assuming they will have the votes to pass it."

When the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 24-16 on Monday, they were only 3 votes short of the 27 votes that would have been necessary for the protection.

If Christie vetoes the bill as expected, state legislators will have until January 2014 to secure two-thirds veto-proof majorities needed in each chamber to turn the bill into law. Christie also has said that he supports a marriage equality referendum being placed on the ballot this November.

Pro-marriage equality organizations are already geared up to fight Christie's veto, and to ensure that same-sex couples will have the right to marry in the future. 

"Sadly, Governor Chris Christie has planted his feet on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the majority for marriage in New Jersey and nationwide," Evan Wolfson, founder and President of Freedom to Marry said today in a statement. "If the governor sticks with his threat of a veto, Freedom to Marry will work throughout the entire remainder of the legislative session ... to override the veto and do right by these families."  

Despite Christie's expected veto, Lambda Legal executive director Kevin Cathcart says that his organization will continue to fight for New Jersey's same-sex couples in the courts. "We believe there are many paths to justice," he said in a statement. "and Lambda Legal continues to fight for marriage equality in the courts on behalf of seven same-sex couples, Garden State Equality, and all families in New Jersey."

[CORRECTION: The Star-Ledger and New York Times reported that the vote was 42-33, although the vote called by the clerk and announced in organizations' initial news releases was 41-33. Freedom to Marry tweeted that a member's voting button had stuck and that was the reason for the confusion about the vote tally.]

In a growing sign that the Democratic Party could face a significant question this summer over whether it will include marriage equality as a plank in the party's national platform, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced their support for such a plank today.

The co-chairs, Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), released a joint statement announcing that they had signed on to Freedom to Marry's proposed platform language supporting marriage equality one day after Metro Weekly reported that a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced her support for the provision.

Pelosi's spokesman, Drew Hammill, had replied to a request from Metro Weekly about whether the Democratic leader supported the language by stating that she did.

In today's statement, provided to Metro Weekly, Grijalva and Ellison write, "We the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus support the efforts by Freedom to Marry and agree that it is time for the Democratic Party to respect all families in the party platform."

Freedom to Marry's proposed plank states: "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples."

In today's statement, Grijalva and Ellison -- who worked in conjunction with Freedom to Marry and Progressive Congress on the announcement -- write, "Democrats overwhelmingly support the freedom to marry, with polls showing as much as 70 percent support. The Democratic Party is positioned to stand with the majority of Americans, and the super-majority of the party faithful, and help make a real difference for families across the country."

The platform -- a detailed statement of the party's positions that will be finalized at the Democratic National Convention to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina, this September -- has never included language in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry. And the leader of the party, President Obama, opposed marriage equality in the 2008 campaign. He said in December 2010 that his position on marriage equality was "evolving" but that he still "struggle[s]" with it. His press secretary, Jay Carney, said this past week of Obama's position, "You know his position, where it stands now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don't have much to add on that."

Obama currently supports much of the Freedom to Marry plank language -- outside of the marriage equality language itself. He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples" such as California's Proposition 8. After repeated requests by Metro Weekly, including today, the Obama campaign still has not commented on the proposed platform language.

READ the joint letter: CPCltr.pdf

In Washington this past week and New York this past year, Republican lawmakers came out in support of marriage equality to help the bills pass. As the vote in Maryland on the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012 approaches, a similar pattern is appearing in Annapolis -- with three state lawmakers now announced in support of the bill.

On Feb. 14, Del. Bob Costa (R-Anne Arundel County) voted for the bill in committee, saying, "I represent constituents and not a party."

Today, Del. Wade Kach (R-Baltimore County) announced that he would be supporting the Civil Marriage Protection Act. Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the coalition working to pass the bill, issued a statement.

Carrie Evans of Equality Maryland said, "Delegate Kach wants make all Maryland families stronger -- and to ensure all children are protected equally under the law. His support, like Delegate Costa's earlier this week, underscores how marriage equality is not a partisan issue. Thousands of families in his district and all over the state thank Del. Kach."

Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Carroll, Howard counties) was the sole Republican supporting marriage equality last year and, according to Marylanders for Marriage Equality, reaffirmed his unwavering support at a rally in Lawyer's Mall on Monday evening.

Today, the House recessed until 5:30 p.m., at which time a second reading of the bill is expected and any amendments could be offered. The final vote on the bill could come as early as Friday, Feb. 17.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the LGBT military legal advocacy group, agreed to delay its challenge to military policies that the organization says discriminate against servicemembers with same-sex spouses so that a federal appeals court can resolve two pending federal appeals challenging the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Wednesday, Feb. 15, U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns, a federal trial judge in Massachusetts, granted a 60-day additional delay in the SLDN case, giving the government until Apr. 28 to respond to the lawsuit filed by SLDN back in October 2011.

The move in McLaughlin v. Panetta came a day after SLDN and the Department of Justice, which represents the government defendants in the case, filed a motion with the court in which both parties agreed that they were interested in the delay.

Referring to the two cases on appeal, the parties' lawyers wrote, "The parties recognize that this case raises issues that overlap with those raised in Massachusetts v. [Department of Health and Human Services], No. 10-2204, and Gill v. [Office of Personnel Management], No. 10-2207, which are currently pending before the Court of Appeals. Resolution of those consolidated appeals will significantly impact the resolution of this case."

Gill, brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Massachusetts, brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), both challenge the constitutionality of the federal marriage definition, Section 3 of DOMA outside of the military context. In both cases, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, on July 8, 2010, found Section 3 to be unconstitutional.

The government appealed the cases in October 2010. But, on Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced, in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), that he and President Obama had decided that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional when subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny, which they explained they believed was merited when laws such as DOMA's Section 3 classified people based on their sexual orientation. Such action violates, they told Boehner, the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

Because of this decision, Holder wrote that DOJ would no longer be defending Section 3 of DOMA when it was challenged in court. Boehner and other Republican leaders who constitute the majority of the Bi-Partisan Legal Advisory Group, intervened to defend DOMA in several cases where DOJ was no longer going to defend DOMA -- including Gill and Massachusetts. All of the appellate briefs have been filed in the cases, and the parties are awaiting the First Circuit's announcement of when oral arguments will be held.

Although McLaughlin challenges two military-specific statutes and DOMA and could potentially involve other issues relating to the military-specific context, a First Circuit ruling -- affirming or reversing Tauro's decisions in Gill and Massachusetts -- would have a consequential impact on McLaughlin. And, on Nov. 18, 2011, BLAG told the court in McLaughlin that it may seek to intervene in the case, "depending on decisions to be made by the Justice Department, hopefully within the next several weeks."

Speaking with Metro Weekly on Feb. 15 about the decision to seek a delay in McLaughlin, SLDN legal director David McKean said of the agreed-upon action to delay the government's deadline for responding to the lawsuit, "Essentially, the Gill and Massachusetts cases haven't been scheduled for oral argument yet, and both of us [SLDN and DOJ] want to see where that's going, what the timeline for that will be, and so, we decided it would be in both of our best interests to see what that schedule is ... and when we might expect a decision from the First Circuit."

If the First Circuit rules in the Gill or Massachusetts cases before a trial court decision is reached in McLaughlin, then Stearns will have to abide by the First Circuit precedent that will have been set in those cases. As it stands now, Stearns is not bound by the trial decisions issued by Tauro in the cases.

Moreover, because the government has not yet had to file an answer declaring its position in the McLaughlin challenge, it appears that no action has been taken -- by BLAG or the court -- to follow up on BLAG's Nov. 18, 2011, filing about possibly seeking to intervene in the case.

Of the SLDN strategy behind delaying a case that it had previously been pushing forward quickly, McKean told Metro Weekly only, "We want our case to move as quickly as we can -- as safely as we can."

Although requests for comment from DOJ and BLAG were submitted overnight via email, no responses were immediately available from spokespeople representing either entity.

READ the joint request for delay: Joint 60-Day Stay Motion.pdf

[Photo: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis, left, speaks at a news conference on Oct. 27, 2011, announcing the organization's filing of a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, as several of the lawsuit's plaintiffs wait to speak. (Photo courtesy of SLDN.)]

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) signed a statewide marriage equality bill into law this Monday, Feb. 13. The same day, the New Jersey Senate passed a marriage equality bill by a 24 to 16 vote. But both bills will continue to face political opposition, leaving both states' same-sex couples uncertain about their marriage prospects.

Also this week, the Colorado legislature has begun hearings on a bill to extend more rights currently extended to opposite-sex couples to the state's same-sex civil unions.

Oopponents of Washington's new marriage equality law have begun collecting the 120,577 signatures required by June 6 to get Referendum 74 on the ballot in November. An initiative seeking to restrict marriage equality also could be on the ballot.

Referendum 74 would ask voters to approve or reject the new marriage equality law. The iniative -- Initiative 1192 -- was filed last month by state attorney general candidate Stephen Pidgeon (R) and would ask voters to restrict the state's marriage statute to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. There is, however, little to no organizing regarding Pidgeon's effort, according to organizers in the state.

If Pidgeon's initiative and Referendum 74 make the ballot, marriage equality supporters will have to vote "no" on 1192 and "approve" on 74 — potentially confusing pro-equality voters. In response, local activist Steven Puvogel has begun the Decline to Sign campaign to discourage support of both Referendum 74 and Initiative 1192.

However, if Referendum 74 fails to collect enough signatures by June 6th, same-sex couples could begin marrying soon after.

Gregoire sent New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) a personal letter on Jan. 31, inviting him to discuss her personal journey towards supporting marriage equality as a Catholic. According to Think Progress, however, Governor Christie has not yet responded to the letter.

On Feb. 13, the New Jersey Senate passed the marriage equality bill 24 to 16, with Republican senators Jennifer Beck and Diane Allen voting for it and Democratic senators Jeff Van Drew and Ron Rice voting against it.

On Feb. 14, though, Governor Christie called the vote "a good bunch of theater" saying that the Senate will not secure the 27 votes needed to override his promised veto.

Though the New Jersey Assembly is expected pass the bill tomorrow , it would need 54 "yes" votes and the support of at least five Republicans to override a veto in the House. It also would need three more supporters in the Senate. If Christie were to veto the bill, as expected, state legislators will still have until January 2014 to secure the two-thirds veto-proof majorities needed in each chamber to turn the bill into law.

While a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released Feb. 14 found that 54 percent of New Jersey residents support marriage equality, 53 percent also support a voter referendum on the issue, something which Christie has endorsed in opposition to State Senate President Steve Sweeney (D). A Kean University/NJ Speaks poll from last week also found that residents support marriage equality by 57 percent.

A 2012 Williams Institute study found that legalized marriage equality could add 1,400 new jobs and $102.5 million to the state's yearly wedding and tourism-related business sales as well as $7.2 million to the state’s yearly gross receipt tax revenues.

[CORRECTION: It will take 54 "yes" votes in the new Jersey Assembly to override an expected veto by Gov. Chris Christie (R), should the bill pass. This story originally stated an incorrect number of needed votes.]

In an email to One iowa's supporters, outgoing executive director Troy Price announced that he was leaving the organization to work for President Obama's reelection:

I am writing to you today with mixed emotions to announce my departure from One Iowa. I have been offered and accepted a position as Political Director with the Obama for America campaign. This was not an easy decision, or one that I made lightly, but I could not turn down the opportunity to help re-elect the President and move our country forward.

The Obama campaign confirmed to Metro Weekly that Price would be working on the campaign in Iowa.

Of note in his goodbye email was his mention of the ongoing effort to preserve marriage equality in the state. He wrote, "We have a great plan to preserve equality, led by our new Why Marriage Matters Iowa campaign."

Obama opposed marriage equality in the 2008 campaign. He said in December 2010 that his position on marriage equality was "evolving" but that he still "struggle[s]" with it. His White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said this past week of Obama's position, "You know his position, where it stands now, on the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don't have much to add on that."

Obama, Carney said, opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples" -- which would appear to include efforts, thus far unsuccessful, to overturn marriage equality in Iowa by constitutional amendment.