The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to issue a ruling on Tuesday by 10 am Pacific Time on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, according to the court website.

The lawsuit, Perry v. Brown, came to the appellate court on appeal after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against the same-sex marriage ban in 2010.

An executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies would cover up to 16 million workers, according to a new study.

The report, published Monday by the Williams Institute at the University of California of Los Angeles, discusses the implications of a directive prohibiting federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination protections as well as policy requiring them to provide health insurance to same-sex partners of employees.

M.V. Lee Badgett, the author of the report and the Williams Institute’s research director, said in a statement the study highlights “the powerful impact” of federal policy prohibiting LGBT discrimination and “continued progress already made toward protecting LGBT workers through state law and voluntary corporate policies.”

The study finds state laws or company policies already in place at federal contractors protect 61 percent of employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and 41 percent from discrimination based on gender identity.

But an executive order from President Obama spelling out that companies receiving federal money can’t discriminate against LGBT workers would significantly expand protections, the report finds.

“We estimate that 11 million additional employees would gain protection against sexual orientation discrimination and 16 million employees would be protected against gender identity discrimination,” the report states.

Still, not all of these up to 16 million workers would identify as LGBT. Based on numbers that LGBT people make up 4 percent of the country’s workforce, the report estimates that the number of LGBT people who would gain protections as a result of the directive would be between 400,000 and 600,000 people.

The report also finds that a non-discrimination directive wouldn’t disproportionately affect defense contractors. According to the report, state law or company policy already covers 95 percent of employees at the companies from discrimination based on sexual orientation, while 69 percent of workers are protected based on gender identity.

Additionally, the study says the order wouldn’t place a heavier burden on small businesses because existing non-discrimination policies already equally cover employees in small, medium and large federal contractors — although Fortune 1000 employees have higher rates of coverage.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said the report is important because it shows millions would gain non-discrimination protections “once President Obama puts pen to paper and signs the document that is now sitting in the White House ready to go.”

“With an LGBT fairness record as impressive as Mr. Obama’s, I can’t think of a single legitimate reason he might not sign the order that two of his cabinet agencies have already recommended he sign,” Almeida said.

Multiple sources have told the Blade that the Labor and Justice Departments have cleared an administrative measure that would bar federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination protections and have sent their recommendation to the White House for final approval. The White House hasn’t said one way or the other whether Obama will issue the directive.

The measure is sometimes known as the “ENDA” executive order because it would accomplish the same goals as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress that would bar job bias against LGBT people in the public and private workforce. The executive order would only apply to companies doing business with the federal government.

The study also finds an order mandating that contractors provide domestic partner health benefit would have an impact, but come at little cost to companies.

Should the U.S. government require contractors to provide domestic partner benefits, between 14.3 million and 15.3 million more employees would have access to same-sex partner coverage. However, the study estimates between only 40,000 and 136,000 employees would sign up for coverage because not all of these employees are likely to have a same-sex partner, and even those that have them may not elect to receive benefits.

“Given the small number of employees who would take advantage of domestic partnership benefits across the tens of thousands of federal contractors, the ultimate burden on business for providing these benefits would be minimal,” Badgett concluded in a statement.

Findings in the study are based on on 2009 data from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission’s EEO-1 reports, which are required for federal contractors with 50 or more employees that contract for at least $50,000, and for non-contractor employers with 100 or more workers.

Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney claimed another victory on Saturday in the GOP primary contests by coming out on top in the Nevada caucus.

With 45 percent of precincts reporting, Romney captured 42.6 percent of the vote. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich came in second with 26 percent, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in third with 18.5 percent and former U.S. Sen. Santorum in fourth with 13 percent.

The former Massachusetts governor was expected to win because polls throughout the week  placed him well ahead of his competitors. In 2008, Romney won the caucus by taking 51 percent of the vote.

The win gives Romney extra momentum from his win in Florida last week after he lost the previous contest in South Carolina to Gingrich.

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, said Romney’s win in the Silver State shows the candidate has viability across the country.

“Gov. Romney has now won in the North, South, and West,” LaSalvia said. “Tonight is yet another indicator that he will be the Republican nominee.”

LaSalvia, who’s endorsed Romney, said the continuing wins for Romney demonstrate Gingrich — who’s had one win and four losses — should drop out of the race now.

“It’s clearly the end of the road for Gingrich,” LaSalvia said. “If he can’t win the home state of his biggest supporter, where can he win?”

Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson gave $10 million to Newt’s Super PAC, which has aired ads against Romney criticizing the candidate for his practices while running Bain Capital.

Nevada awards its delegates proportionately based on the vote percentages won by each candidate. The 28 delegates allotted to the state will be distributed among the different contenders, but Romney will receive the lion’s share for winning the caucuses.

One Democratic LGBT advocate based in Nevada pounced on Romney for his policy positions despite the candidate’s win.

Laura Martin, spokesperson for the Stonewall Democratic Club of Southern Nevada, said Romney may have won over Republicans in the state, but his positions that aren’t in line with Nevada’s population as a whole.

“Mitt Romney’s anti-job, anti-housing, anti-immigrant agenda coupled with his inability to connect with real people spells trouble for him in November,” Martin said. “And by clinging to the GOP’s failed economic principles of the past — the same anti-government anti-tax principles that have caused Nevada to have the highest foreclosure and unemployment rates in the country — Mitt Romney and the Republican Party has made themselves a risky bet very few Nevadans are willing to take.”

The next contests in Republican primary will take place on Tuesday in three states: Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.  The caucus in Maine started on Saturday and will continue until Feb. 11.

Sean Holihan and his partner Danny Barefoot. (courtesy Sean Holihan for City Council)

A local gay Democratic activist in Virginia is pursuing a seat on the Alexandria City Council.

Sean Holihan, communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia and former president of the Young Democrats of Virginia, launched his bid last month during a meeting of the Alexandria Democratic Committee.

Holihan, who’s 30 and lives in Alexandria with his partner of three years, Danny Barefoot, said he wants to pursue a seat on the Council to be part of the change underway in Alexandria.

“We’ve got a new city manager, we’ve got developments in every center of the city,” Holihan said. “We’re going to have new members serving our Council because of two retirements, so I feel like it’s a good time to work and make an impact on the city.”

Among the projects that Holihan said he wants to pursue are protecting core services such as public safety education, and shepherding through a new Metro stop in Potomac Yard. As far as LGBT issues, Holihan said he’d like to help raise money to elect LGBT people to political offices throughout the country.

“We’re a huge state; we’ve got 11 congressional seats, and we’ve only got six members of the LGBT community elected to office and most of them are on the local level,” Holihan said.

If elected, Holihan would be the second sitting openly gay person to sit on the Alexandria City Council. The other gay member is Paul Smedberg.

The Democratic primary in which Holihan will compete is currently scheduled for June 12, but redistricting could delay the election until Aug. 21. The top six vote winners in the Democratic Party will face off against Republican challengers in the general election.

Mitt Romney speaks at high school rally in Bedford, N.H. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has been criticized as a flip-flopper during his presidential campaign — and although he’s defended himself against accusations that his positions have pivoted on LGBT rights, his record shows that he’s also changed on these issues.

During a Dec. 15 debate in Sioux City, Iowa, when Fox News moderator Chris Wallace said Romney has changed his positions in the last 10 years on abortion, gay rights and gun control, the candidate took exception to this list and said his positions have been consistent on gay rights.

“I’m firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation,” Romney said. “At the same time, I oppose same-sex marriage. That’s been my position from the beginning.”

But an examination of Romney’s previous statements reveals any assertion that he’s held the same positions on LGBT rights — including opposition to same-sex marriage — since the beginning of his political career is false.

From marriage to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to civil unions to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Romney’s positions have wildly changed as he has pursued different offices and public opinion has grown to support LGBT issues.

Most of Romney’s earlier pro-LGBT positions can found in a 1994 letter that he wrote while running as a U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts against the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. In the missive, Romney boasted he could go further on gay rights than Kennedy, saying “I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.”

“If we are to achieve the goals that we share, we must make, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Romney said. “My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”

Romney pledged to co-sponsor a version of ENDA, and if possible to expand the measure to include housing and credit. The then-Senate candidate also called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which had been recently signed into law by former President Clinton, a first step in a process that will “ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”

But prior to the 2008 election when Romney began pursuing his presidential ambitions, his support for employment non-discrimination legislation and open service vanished.

For example, in a 2006 interview with the National Journal, Romney said when asked about his previous support for that he doesn’t “see the need for new or special legislation” because passage of the bill would open a floodgate of litigation.

In 2007, Romney said during a presidential debate he “was wrong” in thinking “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a silly idea and said “it seems to be working.” The candidate continued to say repeal would be “a social experiment” and that he “wouldn’t change it” during a time of war.

Asked again during his current campaign about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during an editorial board meeting with the Des Moines Register in December, Romney pivoted again, saying he’s “not planning on reversing” open service now that wars are over.

Even on marriage, Romney has changed in his opposition to gay nuptials. In an interview with Bay Windows in 1994, Romney said marriage is “a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”

But that position changed after the Massachusetts Supreme Court under his watch as governor legalized same-sex marriage, prompting him to call for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Still, his vision for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has changed even over the course of his current campaign. In an August debate, Romney said marriage isn’t “an activity that goes on within the walls of a state” and said it “should be constant across the country.”

But in a December interview with the Boston Herald, Romney said his vision of a Federal Marriage Amendment would allow existing same-sex marriages to remain intact.

“I think it would keep intact those marriages which had occurred under the law but maintain future plans based on marriage being between a man and a woman,” Romney said.

That vision of allowing states to maintain existing same-sex marriages would, at least temporarily, result in varying laws with respect to marriage for state throughout the country.

LGBT rights groups on the right and left said Romney’s varied positions on LGBT rights demonstrates either a lack of character or his willingness to reconsider his views on the issues depending on the political alignment of the organization.

Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, commended Romney for repeatedly speaking out against discrimination in debates, despite his changing positions on LGBT issues.

“He’s been consistent in his opposition to discrimination,” said LaSalvia, who’s endorsed Romney. “He has a record of hiring gay people, and, as governor, he appointed gay people to high-level positions.”

Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Romney’s varied positions on LGBT rights demonstrates Romney “clearly has no moral compass and will say anything to get elected.”

“The only thing Mitt Romney stands for is Mitt Romney,” Davis said. “On issue after issue — LGBT or otherwise — he has pandered to the least common denominator and allowed the political winds to guide his every word.”

A roundup of Romney’s statements on LGBT issues follows:

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

In a 1994 letter to Log Cabin Republicans, Romney said he would co-sponsor ENDA:

“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to housing and credit.”

In a 2006 interview with National Review Online, Romney said he no longer supports ENDA:

“I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.”

In a 2007 interview on “Meet the Press,” Romney said ENDA-like laws should be left to the states:

“At the state level, I think it makes sense for states to put in provision of this. I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be implemented at the state level. If you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy. I learn from experience.”

On ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

In a 1994 letter to Log Cabin Republican, Romney called “Don’t Ask” a transitional policy that would lead to open service:

“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue’ military policy. I believe that Clinton’s compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.”

In a 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College, Romney said “Don’t Ask” was working:

“When I first heard of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on. I wouldn’t change it at this point.”

In a June 2011 debate in New Hampshire:

“I believe it should have been kept in place until conflict was over.”

In 2011, he spoke about open service with the Des Moines Register:

“That’s already occurred and I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage. … I was not comfortable making the change during a period of conflict, by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on, but those wars are winding down and moving in that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.”

On civil unions

From a 2003 document found on the governor’s old website:

A day after the Supreme Judicial Court decision, Gov. Romney told reporters that he believed a civil unions statute would “be sufficient” to satisfy the justices’ concerns. Joining Romney in the call for civil unions legislation was Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

In a 2005 interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on the difference between civil unions and marriage:

“I’d rather have neither to tell you the truth. I’d rather have domestic partnership benefits, such as hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. I don’t want civil unions or gay marriage, but there is a difference. Even with just the word, there’s a difference.”

In 2012, a Romney campaign spokesperson reaffirmed the candidate’s opposition to civil marriage:

“[H]e has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage. What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits.”

On LGBT Pride

Text from 2002 Pride flier from Romney’s gubernatorial campaign:

“Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”

In 2012, Romney’s campaign disavowed the letter:

“I don’t know where those pink fliers came from. I was the communications director on the 2002 campaign. I don’t know who distributed them … I never saw them and I was the communications director,” Eric Fehrnstrom said.

On same-sex marriage

Romney in 1994 to gay newspaper Bay Windows:

Same-sex marriage is “a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”

In 2004 testimony before Congress:

I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration.

In an August 2011 debate:

“Marriage should be decided at the federal level. You might wonder, why is that? Why wouldn’t you just let each state make their own decision? And the reason is, people move from state to state of course in a society like ours. … Marriage is a status; it’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state. And as a result, our marriage-status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”

In a December 2011 interview with the Boston Herald:

Romney expressed support for a constitutional amendment that could create a complex three-tier system of marriage —maintaining marriage rights for straight couples, allowing gays who have already married to remain married, but barring future same-sex marriages.

“I think it would keep intact those marriages which had occurred under the law but maintain future plans based on marriage being between a man and a woman,” Romney said.

In 2011 he told the Des Moines Register:

“I would like to see a national amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But that was tried maybe three or four years ago. I don’t think that’s likely to receive the necessary support, at least in the near term.”

During a January 2012 debate:

Romney said he’ll advocate for “full rights” for gay people, although he said he remains opposed to same-sex marriage.

“If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me,” Romney said.

A Senate panel approved LGBT-inclusive legislation on Thursday that would extend and strengthen programs working to combat and prevent domestic violence.

The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out the legislation, known as Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, on a party-line vote of 10-8. The bill aims to strengthen and improve programs authorized under the existing law — first enacted in 1994 — to assist victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) spoke highly of VAWA in his opening statement and said no other statute “has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities.”

“As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence,” Leahy said. “Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims. We have come a long way since then, but there is much more we must do.”

According to a statement from the committee, among the ways the bill builds on existing law is  setting aside grant money for programs addressing sexual assault crime and enhancing training for officials to identify high risk offenders who could commit domestic violence homicide.

But the legislation also has enumerated protections for victims of domestic violence in the LGBT community. The bill would make grants available for programs providing services to LGBT victims of domestic violence. Additionally, the bill has non-discrimination language prohibiting VAWA grantees from discriminating on the basis sexual orientation or gender identity.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, thanked the committee in a statement for passing legislation that has specific language related to the LGBT community.

“Victims of domestic violence need assistance, not irrational barriers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Solmonese said. “We thank the members of the Judiciary Committee that have recognized the discrimination LGBT domestic violence victims face when seeking assistance. Specifically, Chairman Leahy has shown great leadership in reauthorizing VAWA and ensuring that the bill would explicitly make grants available for service providers doing innovative work with LGBT victims.”

But Leahy also chided Republican members of the committee for voting against the legislation for reasons that possibly alluded to the LGBT protections in the legislation.

“Some are saying we seek to protect too many victims,” Leahy said. “One thing I know from my time as a prosecutor, and I would hope it is something we can all agree on, is that all victims count. All victims deserve protection. That is a message we have heard loud and clear from our states and something I hope is common ground.”

According to the committee, the panel vote marks the first time when it has reported out any version of VAWA on party-line basis. A statement from the panel says no GOP committee member voted in favor of the bill despite weeks of negotiations and the adoption of three Republican amendments.

When the bill was first passed —and in two subsequent times when the legislation was reauthorized — the measure passed the committee on a bipartisan basis, according to the committee.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the panel, said in his opening statement that the LGBT language was among the reasons why he couldn’t bring himself to support the bill.

“The Leahy substitute would prohibit discrimination by grantees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Grassley said. “Of course, I agree that shelters and other grant recipients should provide services equally to everyone. But advocates of this provision haven’t produced data that shelters have refused to provide services for these reasons. This is true even after we were told they would send a report on the subject. The provision is a solution in search of a problem. Instead, it is only a political statement that shouldn’t be made on a bill that is designed to address actual needs of victims.”

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a survey published last year by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs found LGBT people often experience discrimination when seeking assistance in domestic violence cases.

The survey found 85 percent of service providers say they’ve worked with victims who were denied services because they were LGBT. Among the advocates who’ve worked with LGBT people who were denied services, 91 percent had worked with victims that had been denied direct services from a domestic violence organization and 64 percent had worked with victims that were denied services from law enforcement.

Although no Republican committee members voted for the bill, it does have support from other GOP senators who aren’t on the panel. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) is an original co-sponsor of the legislation. Among the 34 co-sponsors of the legislation are Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

The office for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t immediately to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on when a floor vote for the legislation would take place.

A military contractor that has come under fire for allegedly allowing anti-gay harassment on the job has changed its policy to include non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

DynCorp International LLC, a military contractor and aircraft maintenance company in Fairfax, Va., updated its non-discrimation policy last month to include protections for LGBT workers, according to a company spokesperson.

Ashley Burke, a DynCorp spokesperson, said, “In keeping with our goals of maintaining a positive, supportive work environment, a number of our internal policies and our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct were updated and strengthened in January.”

The company’s code of ethics and business conduct details the change on its second page under a heading for guidelines governing daily workplace behavior. A previous version of this guidance lacked the words sexual orientation and gender identity.

“We offer equal employment opportunities and encourage workplace diversity and make employment decisions without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, veteran status, marital status, ancestry, genetic information, disability, or any status protected by federal, state, local or host country law,” the new guidance states.

DynCorp came under pressure to change its policy after the Washington Blade reported last month on a settlement the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached with the company as a result of a complaint was filed on alleged anti-gay harassment on the job.

A straight employee at the company, James Friso, was allegedly harassed in 2006 based on his perceived sexual orientation while on post at Taji, Iraq. According to the EEOC complaint, one of Friso’s male co-workers allegedly called Friso “faggot,” “dick-sucker,” and “queer” on a daily basis. When Friso allegedly complained the company did nothing and sent him to another post with lower pay in Mannheim, Germany. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

As a result of the EEOC settlement, Friso was awarded $155,000, but the contractor wasn’t required to change its non-discrimination policy to include protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Freedom to Work, an LGBT workplace advocacy group, launched an online petition last month urging DynCorp to change its policy to include LGBT protections. As of Thursday, the petition had 54,878 signatures.

Tico Almeida, Freedom to Work’s president, commended DynCorp for updating the policy and said it represents a positive change for a company.

“DynCorp has an ugly history of sex trafficking committed against young girls, racial discrimination against African-Americans, and most recently a hostile work environment with anti-gay epithets like ‘faggot’ and ‘queer’ used on a daily basis,” Almeida said. “I’m very glad to know they’ve seen the error of their ways and have listened to the call of almost 55,000 Americans who signed the Freedom to Work petition on Change.org in the last two weeks asking DynCorp to add sexual orientation and gender identity to their non-discrimination policy. That change was long overdue.”

Almedia noted that DynCorp is now in line with leading military contractors like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, which he said added LGBT protections to their policies years ago.

“Those top government contractors realize that discrimination is bad for the bottom line – and a waste of our taxpayer money,” Almeida added.

Freedom to Work had been drawing attention to the alleged anti-gay practices of DynCorp and its previous lack of LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy to prompt action from the White House. The group, as well as other advocates, have been pushing President Obama to issue an executive order barring federal dollars from going to contractors without non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

DynCorp receives more than 96 percent of its revenue from federal contracts that amount to $2 billion each year, making it the 32nd largest federal contractor, according to Freedom to Work.

Almeida said DynCorp’s ability to change its policy demonstrates that other companies could follow suit if Obama issued the directive.

“If a big corporation like DynCorp can change, then President Obama can certainly create change by signing the ENDA executive order that his staff has already drafted for him,” Almeida said. “The order is sitting on a desk in the White House right now just waiting to be signed, and it’s time for the president to put pen to paper.”

Multiple sources have told the Blade that the Labor and Justice Departments have cleared an administrative measure that would bar federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination protections and have sent their recommendation to the White House for final approval. The White House hasn’t said one way or the other whether Obama will issue the directive.

Tracey (left) & Maggie Cooper-Harris (Blade photo by Michael Key)

An organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in federal court aimed at winning benefits for a disabled Army veteran and her same-sex spouse.

The lawsuit, known as Cooper Harris v. United States, was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the U.S. government and is pending before the U.S. District Court of Central District of California. Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, & Dorr is assisting with the case on a pro-bono basis.

Tracey Cooper-Harris, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, criticized the current law, which prevents her and her spouse Maggie from receiving spousal benefits that flow to veterans in opposite-sex marriages.

“We’re only asking for the same benefits as other married couples,” Tracey said. “We simply want the same peace of mind that these benefits bring to the families of other disabled veterans. And that is why we filed a federal lawsuit challenging this policy. No family should have to go through what we’ve had to experience, and our nation shouldn’t allow the Defense of Marriage Act to deny the last wishes of our veterans, but it is happening.”

Tracey served for 12 years in support of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and received more than two dozen medals and commendations before being honorably discharged in 2003. In 2008, she married Maggie in California before Proposition 8 took away marriage rights for gay couples in that state.

After being diagnosed in 2010 with multiple sclerosis, which the Department of Veterans Affairs has determined is connected to her military service, Tracey began receiving disability benefits as a veteran. However, she’s unable to receive spousal benefits that she would otherwise be entitled to if she were in an opposite-sex marriage.

Among the veterans benefits that are denied to the couple are disability benefits the Department of Veterans Affairs extends to veterans in opposite-sex marriages meant to ensure the financial stability of spouses. The couple also won’t be permitted to be buried together in a national veterans cemetery.

The lawsuit seeks to strike down Title 38, which denies partner benefits to veterans if they’re married to someone of the same-sex, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. SPLC contends the laws are unconstitutional on the basis that they violate the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Joseph Levin, SPLC’s co-founder, said during the news conference that the lawsuit has parallels to another lawsuit his organization fought and won in the 1970s on behalf of Air Force Lt. Sharron Frontiero.

As a result of the lawsuit, known as Frontiero v. Richardson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that female veterans should have the same access to benefits as their male counterparts. Levin said the discrimination faced at that time is similar to that faced by the plaintiffs now.

“These men and women made the same and endured the same sacrifices as other members of the military, yet this policy devalues their service, commitment and sacrifice,” Levin said.

Frontiero, who was also present at the news conference, said the lawsuit on behalf of Cooper-Harris is “a logical extension of the case” filed 40 years ago.

“Tracey is fighting the same battle I fought, which is not to have our work deemed second rate or second best,” Frontiero said. “We serve like everybody else, and we deserve what everybody else is getting.”

Levin said after SPLC won the Frontiero case in 1970s, Congress changed the statutes related to military benefits to define spouse as a person of the opposite-sex to ensure female veterans would have access to spousal benefits.

“I never dreamed that statutes we helped change would be used to discriminate against the LGBT community,” Levin said.

Christine Sun, SPLC’s deputy legal director, emphasized the unfairness that Tracey and Maggie face under current law.

“Refusing to grant these benefits to Tracey and Maggie solely because of their sexual orientation is unpatriotic and un-American,” Sun said. “The unfortunate fact is that our nation is not serving our gay and lesbian service members as well as they served us.”

In a response to a question from the Washington Blade, Sun said she couldn’t predict when the district court would make a decision in the case; the soonest the case would come to the U.S. Supreme Court is three or four years.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Veterans Affairs responded on short notice to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the litigation. In February, the White House announced the Obama administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

The litigation is similar to a case that the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network filed at the start of the year known as McLaughlin v. United States, which also seeks to overturn DOMA on the basis that it bars federal benefits from flowing to LGBT military families.

Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, said in a statement his organization welcomes to the SPLC lawsuit and looks forward to coordinating efforts going forward.

“We have worked with the plaintiff, Tracey Cooper-Harris, in the past, and we believe that her case is compelling,” Sarvis said. “This filing today advances the cause of equality for gay and lesbian service members and veterans.”

Government agencies have cleared an administrative measure that would bar federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination protections, according to three informed sources familiar with the process, and have sent their recommendation to the White House for final approval.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Labor Department and the Justice Department have given the OK to amend existing Executive Order 11246 to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Executive Order 11246 already prohibits federal contractors that have contracts exceeding $10,000 from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Now that the measure is at the White House, the last remaining step is for President Obama to take action.

“It is at the White House and is now a political decision,” one source said.

Another source was optimistic about President Obama issuing the executive order before the end of his first term, saying, “I think there are better than even odds we’ll see it this year.”

The measure is sometimes known as the “ENDA” executive order because it would accomplish the same goals as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress that would bar job bias against LGBT people in the public and private workforce. The executive order would only apply to companies doing business with the federal government.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on whether the departments have approved the executive order.

Laura McGinnis, a Labor Department spokesperson, said any approval her department has given to the order is “not something we could comment on” and deferred further inquiries to the White House.

The head of the statewide LGBT rights group in Maine is excited about the prospects for a November ballot measure that would legalize same-sex marriage.

Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine, said during a Washington Blade interview on Saturday that a win in Maine on the initiative — the first voter-initiated pro-LGBT measure to appear on a state ballot anywhere in the country — would be “hugely significant.”

“Our opponents are always saying that we can win marriage in the courts and we can win marriage in the legislature … but when it comes to the people, we can never win marriage,” Smith said. “That’s the biggest thing. If we win at the ballot, it will be through the support of Mainers, of Americans, and that’s a really, really important statement that Americans are now believing that the freedom to marry is what should be the law of the country.”

Last week, Equality Maine — as well as allied groups Freedom to Marry and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — submitted more than 105,000 signatures to Secretary of State Charles Summers, Jr., for certification of a ballot measure legalizing same-sex marriage. The number of names required for certification is 57,000, and Smith said she has significantly more than enough valid names to qualify for the ballot.

“There’s not a problem with the signatures,” Smith said. “We have, we think, around 85,000 to 90,000 valid signatures. So, in terms of validating, that’s not an issue.”

The secretary of state has 30 days to review the signatures and validate them, so the office will certify the measure by Feb. 26. Once the measure is certified, it won’t go directly to the ballot but to the Maine Legislature.

The legislature has three options. One would be passing the initiative on its own, an unlikely scenario that would result in the measure becoming law and the legalization of marriage rights for gay couples. Another, which Smith said she’s betting on, is the legislature indefinitely postponing action on the measure, sending it to voters after the lawmakers recess for the year in April.

But another option for the legislature that has drawn concern is the placing of an alternate question before voters alongside the proposition to legalize same-sex marriage. For example, the legislature could approve language asking voters to approve civil unions as an alternative to marriage, or same-sex marriage with extreme religious exemptions.

But Smith said she thinks the legislature won’t pursue this path, which could derail the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine, because neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage will want to go down that road.

“You’d have to have majority support for whatever you want to pass, so if it’s for civil unions, they would need to have a majority support civil unions,” Smith said. “Start thinking about where those votes come from. Well, the pro-marriage folks are not going to vote for it because we don’t want them to, and the anti-equality folks don’t support even civil unions for us, so when you start to add up how they get majority support, even though it’s a Republican legislature, it’s just really highly unlikely.”

But once the voter-initiated ballot measure is certified, the legislature can do nothing to kill it, so same-sex marriage would be on the ballot in Maine one way or the other.

November 2012 won’t be the first time that Maine voters have had to decide on the question of same-sex marriage. In 2009, Maine voters rejected a same-sex marriage law, signed by former Gov. John Baldacci (D), in a referendum by a vote of 53 percent.

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said movement in favor of same-sex marriage within the American public at large and having President Obama at the top of the ticket bodes well for LGBT advocates the second time around at the ballot.

“While Maine is unusual politically, and can go back and forth between the parties and has an independent streak, it is very likely to back Obama again this fall,” Sabato said. “That probably helps passage. On the whole, I’d say it will be a tough fight, but prospects for approval are no worse than 50-50, and potentially could be better if the pro-marriage campaign is well run.”

One small change from 2009 that works in favor of passage is the change in the title for the measure. In 2009, the law was called “An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.” But the proposed title for the 2012 initiative is “An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom.” Smith said research found this language played better with voters.

She said she believes an effective campaign will cost between $4 and $5 million. Although 2012 will be a competitive year and donors will have to make choices to give to the president, congressional races and ballot initiatives in other marriage states, Smith said her organization’s calculations “show we can raise that amount of money.”

But anti-gay forces are already making preparations to block these efforts.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, in a statement last week pledged to fight the initiative and derided efforts to legalize marriage equality in Maine after the state rejected it in 2009.

“NOM intends to vigorously fight this attempt by same-sex marriage advocates to impose gay marriage in Maine,” Brown said. “Maine voters rejected gay marriage barely more than two years ago. What part of ‘no’ don’t gay marriage advocates understand?”

But Smith offered a litany of reasons why the outcome of a ballot measure in 2012 would be different. She said her organization made the decision to go to the ballot in December after it started gathering signatures last summer.

Among them, Smith said, are internal polls showing that support for same-sex marriage is somewhere between 53 and 54 percent.

“We have been running a public education initiative that we ramped up significantly in 2011, including knocking on 110,000 doors, having conversations with around 40,000 Mainers about why marriage matters in an effort to engage them in what we call a persuasion conversation,” Smith said.

Smith added her organization looked at the strength of the coalition and the willingness of volunteers to collect 105,000 names to put same-sex marriage on the ballot, which she said “indicated to us that volunteers are really excited and happy to get back involved.”

“So those are the … things that make 2012 different and led us to make the decision that we have the window of opportunity to win,” Smith concluded.