Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum showed his campaign continues to have life by taking two wins on Tuesday in GOP primaries in Minnesota and Missouri.

In Minnesota, with 73 percent of precincts reporting, Santorum had captured 44.6 percent of the vote late Tuesday. In Missouri, with more than 99 percent of precincts reporting, the former U.S. senator had won 55.2 percent of the vote.

In his victory speech at St. Charles, Mo., Santorum declared, “Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota,” and took the opportunity to dig at Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney.

“Your votes today were not just heard loud and wide across the state of Missouri and Minnesota, but they were heard loud and louder all across this country, and particularly in a place that I suspect may be in Massachusetts they were heard particularly loud tonight,” Santorum said.

The Minnesota and the non-binding Missouri primaries were two of three contests that were held across the country on Tuesday. The Colorado caucus took place on the same day, but a winner hadn’t been declared in that state by the time of this posting.

Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Santorum’s wins are evidence the “non-Romney wing” of the GOP is still the dominant force in the party and “yet more proof that Republicans can’t stand Mitt Romney.”

“Conservative Republicans may love Rick Santorum’s unwavering sanctimony and seething anti-intellectualism, but his narrow, regressive brand of politics will turn off independents and even many moderate Republicans,” Davis said.

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of National Log Cabin Republican, dismissed Santorum’s wins because he said the candidate can’t unify the Republican party.

“As former RNC chairman Governor Haley Barbour has observed, ‘purity is the enemy of victory,’” Cooper said “The ability to secure the vote of the general electorate is necessary to succeeding as the Republican nominee. The divisive Rick Santorum is not capable of winning a general election and will not be the Republican nominee.”

The wins for Santorum in Minnesota and Missouri are largely symbolic. Missouri isn’t awarding any delegates at the Republican National Convention. Minnesota and Colorado will award their delegates at a later date.

Still, Santorum’s victory is sure to be a thorn in the side of frontrunner Mitt Romney, who last week seemed poised to claim the Republican nomination after his victory in the Nevada caucuses. Observers say the results in Minnesota and Missouri raises questions about whether Romney can close the deal for the Republican nomination.

GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia, who’s endorsed Romney, declined to comment on the Santorum wins.

Stonewall’s Davis expressed amusement about the prospects of gay conservatives having to rally around Santorum as the Republican presidential candidate.

“He’ll never be the nominee, but it would definitely be fun to watch gay conservatives contort themselves to find a way to support a Santorum candidacy, wouldn’t it?”

Santorum, who backed away from anti-gay rhetoric after his opposition to same-sex marriage drew media scrutiny in New Hampshire, again incorporated it as part of his campaign when in Missouri.

Last week, a gay man in Fulton, Missouri asked Santorum why he thinks gays should face discrimination and not have either marriage or adoption rights.

“Who are you, or any individual to tell me that I don’t have the same rights as anybody else in this country and to put me in a group that I’m discriminated against in the workplace … and in other situations?” the questioned asked, eliciting applause from the audience.

Santorum initially told the questioner he “shouldn’t be discriminated against” and is “entitled to equal treatment under the law.” But Santorum continued that the questioner isn’t entitled to “special treatment under the law,” eliciting even greater applause from those in attendance at the event.

Pressed further by the questioner, Santorum added he shouldn’t have access to marriage because the institution is a “privilege” that only should be offered to couples whose unions “benefit” society.

“Constructions of a relationship that is honored in society — marriage — that’s not a right,” Santorum said. “It’s something that has existed since the beginning of human history, men and women coming together, marrying, every society and civilization that has existed since the history of man, Christian and not, have recognized this institution as an institution where men and women come together for the purposes of forming a natural relationship as God made it to be.”

Santorum that marriage exists for the “purposes of having children and continuing that civilization,” saying union that can be bestowed marriage should have an “intrinsic good” for society.

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship?” Santorum said. “Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman.”

The results for the next contest will be announced Saturday, when Maine will finish its weeklong caucus. Observers have said Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has yet to win a caucus, may pull off a win in the state.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced a flurry of questions Tuesday about President Obama’s evolving position on same-sex marriage and his reaction to the court decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

In response to the questioning, Carney said he didn’t have a comment on the decision, although he noted the president has ”long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts that deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.”

A total of six news outlets asked Carney about marriage and the Proposition 8 decision: Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, NBC News, the Huffington Post, American Urban Radio and the Washington Blade.

Under questioning from the Blade, Carney dodged an inquiry about whether Obama — who came out against Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 and called it “unnecessary” — also believes the measure is unconstitutional.

“I’m not going to comment on litigation particularly as here where we are not party to it, but the president’s positions on these issues writ large are well known, and he’s long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny right and benefits to same-sex couples,” Carney said.

Pressed by the Blade further on whether Obama’s lack of support for marriage equality but opposition to “divisive and discriminatory” efforts such as Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage, represents an inconsistency, Carney said he didn’t have an update on the president’s position on same-sex marriage, but explained the distinction.

“I can tell you that divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits is something this president has long opposed,” Carney said. “And I think that’s an important point to make. These are proactive and deliberate efforts to deny benefits and to be discriminatory.”

Asked by NBC News whether the Ninth Circuit court decision will inform Obama’s evolution on marriage, Carney said the ruling had come out too recently for him to provide an answer.

“The decision was made within the hour before I came out here, so I haven’t had that conversation,” Carney said.

American Urban Radio pressed Carney further about when Obama’s evolution would come to an end and whether that would take place before June or the general election. Carney, however, said he “doesn’t have a timetable.”

“As the president discussed when he answered this question a while back, this is a process that involves his faith and the way he views these issues,” Carney said.

Asked whether he’s had conversations with members of the LGBT community on this issue, Carney said he isn’t aware of any talks.

“The president has a lot of conversations with a lot of people, and I can’t say one way or the other whether or not he’s had that discussion with anybody,” Carney said. “He may have, but I’m not aware of it.”

Meanwhile, GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney condemned the Prop 8 court ruling.

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,” Romney’s statement said. “This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, said Romney was issuing a “kneejerk” reaction to the ruling.

“In a time when conservatives agree that the institution of marriage is in need of support, Republicans should celebrate gay and lesbian Americans embracing the ideals of marriage and creating families,” Cooper said. “Gov. Romney’s comments attacking the court for striking down Proposition 8 reflect an unfortunate kneejerk opposition to expanding liberty and a poorly calculated political effort to appeal to a shrinking base of primary voters opposed to marriage equality.”

A transcript of the exchange between reporters and Carney on the marriage issue follows:

Reuters: Does the White House have a reaction to the appeals court ruling on California’s gay marriage ban?

Jay Carney: I don’t have a comment on litigation in general, and this litigation, to which we are not a party. Beyond that, I can say that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts that deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

…

Washington Blade: I just want to follow up on the Prop 8 ruling. Back in 2008, candidate Obama came out against Proposition 8 when it was on the ballot, calling it “unnecessary.” I’m just wondering if the president shares the belief that the measure is also unconstitutional.

Carney: Well, again, I’m not going to comment on litigation particularly as here where we are not party to it, but the president’s positions on these issues writ large are well known, and he’s long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. But I don’t have anything more for you on that.

Blade: I want to follow up really quickly on that, though. You said the president opposes “divisive and discriminatory” efforts against same-sex couples, but the effort here — the issue in question is marriage, so isn’t it inconsistent for the president to not support same-sex marriage and also to be against such measures?

Carney: Well, I don’t have any update for you on that particular issue in regards to the president’s views. I can tell you that divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits is something this president has long opposed. And I think that’s an important point to make. These are proactive and deliberate efforts to deny benefits and to be discriminatory.

…

Wall Street Journal: On Proposition 8, just in general, is it still the president’s view that same-sex marriage is an issue that should be decided by the states — each individual state?

Carney: However you might want to tease out an evolutionary position on this —

Journal: I’m just asking you what his position is. Has his position changed that states should make these decisions?

Carney: I have no announcement of any changes.

Journal: Given that that is his latest position that states should make the decision, why would he not be supportive of California making the decision through the vote of Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage?

Carney: Well, because he opposes divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Again, I’m not commenting on specific litigation. I’m talking about his general opposition.

Journal: All sorts of states have banned same-sex marriage. Are all of those divisive and discriminatory as well?

Carney: I can’t at this moment stand here and analyze each one. I can just tell you the president’s long opposition to divisive and discriminatory efforts — you know his position. You know where it stands now with the issue of same-sex marriage, so I really don’t have much to add on it.

Journal: But there’s a fundamental inconsistency. Correct me if I’m wrong. If he says on one hand, it’s up to the state to decide, but those states who decide that they’re against it are divisive and discriminatory. So, I just wanted you correct me if I’m missing something.

Carney: Well, again I’m not offering a blanket. I’m talking about general efforts that are divisive and discriminatory. I’m not making an assessment on specific states or state laws.

Journal: How is this not just complete hypocrisy if he’s saying that it’s up to states to decide, but he won’t back a state that does make the decision?

Carney: Laura, I’m not going to comment on specific litigation or a specific state. I can say the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny right and benefits to same-sex couples, and his overall record on the issue of LGBT rights is well known and is one that he’s very proud of.

NBC News: I want to try just one more on Proposition 8. How does today’s ruling on Proposition 8 inform the president’s view on same-sex marriage, which he said is evolving?

Carney: I just don’t have anything to add about that. The decision was made within the hour before I came out here, so I haven’t had that conversation.

NBC News: Without getting into the decision —

Carney: I don’t know. You’re asking me how his view is changed by this decision. I don’t know.

…

Huffington Post: I’m just curious how the president can be proactively against divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny people civil rights and not proactively be for the concept of marriage equality?

Carney: Sam, I totally appreciate the question. But I’m not here to announce a new position.

Huffington Post: I want just to illuminate the current position a little bit better.

Carney: Again, I would refer you to the comments the president had made on this issue. I don’t have any changes to provide to you.

…

American Urban Radio: When will we have a firm decision on this evolution? You have strong groups, groups that have strong thoughts and convictions on this, LGBT groups, you have religious groups, you have civil rights groups and so many others. Will we see a decision by June or before the general election on his evolution and his mindset on this?

Carney: I just don’t have a timetable to provide to you, April. I appreciate the question. As the president discussed when he answered this question a while back, this is a process that involves his faith and the way he views these issues. And as he said, and I won’t go beyond that, his views are evolving. But I don’t have an end point to announce to you or a date certain to tell you that he’ll have to say about that issue.

American Urban Radio: He has strong support from the LGBT community. Is he in consultation with many members of the community about this evolving mindset? When is the last time —

Carney: The president has a lot of conversations with a lot of people, and I can’t say one way or the other whether or not he’s had that discussion with anybody. He may have, but I’m not aware of it.

Watch the video of the Blade’s questioning with Carney here:

In a two-to-one decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in a federal case challenging California’s marriage ban.

The opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, affirms Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling that the law passed by California voters at the ballot violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The court also rejected the argument that Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case because of his sexual orientation and relationship status.

Legal experts began to weigh in on the meaning of the decision immediately.

“I think the biggest story is how narrow [the majority decision] really is,” Douglas NeJaime, associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, told the Blade Tuesday. “Which in some ways I think that might disappoint some folks who were hoping it would expand to more states, but I think in terms of setting it up for a Supreme Court review — either the Supreme Court not taking it, or approving it — for supporters of same-sex marriage, this is actually the most strategically sound way for the case to proceed.”

Legal experts agree that the decision represents a big win for same-sex couples in California, even though it was a narrow decision limited to California. The Ninth Circuit encompasses multiple Western states and some Prop 8 opponents had hoped the court’s decision would impact a wider swath of the country.

“The decision is a very narrow decision striking down Proposition 8 on grounds that are very unique to California,” NeJaime told the Blade. “What this doesn’t do is directly affect the laws of the majority of states that don’t allow same-sex couples to marry. It doesn’t announce that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the federal Constitution, and it doesn’t engage the question of whether sexual orientation-based classifications should be subjected to some heightened form of scrutiny under the federal Constitution. So it’s a very narrow ruling that only directly impacts the law in California.”

If left to stand, however, what the decision would do, NeJaime says, is allow same-sex couples to marry in California.

“What you would likely have happen is a bunch of other people would file cases in other states, and you would have more litigation, and the states that have a system most directly related to the court’s ruling here, would be states that have domestic partnership or civil union statues that allow same-sex couples to have all of the same rights and benefits of different-sex couples,” NeJaime said. “So Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, those states’ laws would probably be the first to be challenged.”

Though the court sided with the plaintiffs, the ruling is stayed until the decision goes into effect, in what is called a “mandate.” This means that same-sex couples will not be able to marry in California until the Ninth Circuit lifts the stay, the Supreme Court decides to uphold the ruling or pass on the case, or the state voters decide to overturn the law at the ballot.

Proponents of Prop 8 now have 15 days to ask for what is called an ‘en banc’ decision by a larger random panel of 11 of the court’s 24 judges — a crap shoot for proponents of the law who could not guarantee the judges assigned to the panel are sympathetic. Proponents also have 90 days to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, if they so choose to skip the ‘en banc’ rehearing.

Though at the onset of the case, gay rights advocates were excited about the prospect of the case advancing to the Supreme Court where they hoped it could be used to strike down same-sex marriage bans across the nation, some legal experts say it’s not so simple.

“Everyone thought this case was going to Supreme Court, but given how narrow this ruling is, the Supreme Court might very likely just not take the case,” NeJaime told the Blade. “The Supreme Court does not have to take the case. And they might decide ‘this only affects California. We’ll let it stand. And we’ll take a case down the road.’”

“If they take the case, then the decision by the Ninth Circuit has really set it up so that the Supreme Court can affirm the decision, meaning strike down Proposition 8, by not having to reach very far.”

NeJaime said that the Reinhardt opinion, much like the Walker opinion, borrows heavily from the case law history of swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom NeJaime says the opinion “aims” for. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the Romer v. Evans case that struck down an anti-gay constitutional amendment in Colorado’s Constitution nearly 20 years ago, but that doesn’t mean the justice will help the plaintiffs change the law across the land.

“So basically because its a narrow ruling, and because the court applied the lowest form of scrutiny for equal protection purposes, the Supreme Court could affirm the decision without having to expand much on its current case law, and without having to comment on the laws of the other states. It could issue a ruling that would allow same-sex marriage in California but doesn’t affect anything else directly. That’s the preferred course of the court, is to issue narrow, incremental, case-by-case rulings, rather than broad sweeping rulings, that invalidate the majority of states’ laws in one decision.”

In 2008, more than 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California during a brief period following the decision by the California Supreme Court that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the California Constitution. The weddings were halted by the November 2008 voter-enacted law, but the court ruled that the 18,000 marriages performed should remain valid.

For now, same-sex couples in California who did not get married during the narrow 2008 window are in legal limbo, waiting for the stay on the original Judge Walker decision to be lifted once and for all, but that could take some time.

“The mandate would issue seven days after the time for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or seven days after the denial of a petition for a rehearing,” NeJaime told the Blade. “They have 14 days to file the petition, so technically, it could issue as soon as 21 days. But more likely it will be later than that, and if they take it for a rehearing, it would be even later than that, so the soonest would be within three weeks.

“But in the meantime, there’s probably going to be additional motions to stay, so that doesn’t mean that once the mandate is issued, same-sex couples can marry,” NeJaime added.

Despite the continued wait, LGBT rights organizations were quick to hail the victory.

“Today’s decision heartens and gives hope to the 15,698 loving couples in California who are raising more than 30,000 children,” said Family Equality Council Executive Director Jennifer Chrisler. “They, like all Americans, understand that while love makes a family, there is no denying that marriage strengthens it. These parents have raised their children to love their country, support their friends and treat their neighbors with respect. Now they only ask for the fundamental American freedom to demonstrate their love and commitment to their family through marriage.”

California-based Courage Campaign also weighed in minutes after the announcement of the ruling upholding Judge Walker’s decision.

“The 9th Circuit did what it must: it ruled that Judge Walker is competent, not somehow diminished for being gay and it ruled that the Constitution of the United States indeed provides equal protection and due process to all Americans, not just some Americans,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the Courage Campaign.

Even the LGBT military group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network weighed in with a statement by outgoing executive director and Army veteran Aubrey Sarvis.

“SLDN welcomes today’s important ruling by the Ninth Circuit affirming the lower court decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional; indeed, fairness and equality have carried the day,” said Sarvis. “This victory strengthens our case on behalf of married gay and lesbian service members and veterans as we seek to gain equal recognition, support, and benefits for them and their families. This is an historic win for supporters of full equality in the military and in our country.”

“We’re thrilled that today the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that under our Constitution, all loving couples must be allowed to marry, regardless of the gender of either partner,” said Transgender Law Center Executive Director Masen Davis. “The state should not be in the business of policing who can marry based on gender. I’m optimistic that full equality for all our families is on the horizon.”

Friends and family members of a transgender woman who was fatally stabbed last Thursday at a bus stop in Northeast Washington are joining LGBT activists in holding a candle light vigil today to reflect on her life.

Organizers said the vigil for Deoni Jones, 23, was scheduled to be held 5:30 p.m. today at the intersection of East Capitol and Sycamore Streets, N.E., next to the Metro bus stop where police say an unidentified male attacked her with a knife.

“Please join the family, friends, and LGBT community at the site where Deoni lost her life senselessly,” said transgender activist Earline Budd, an official with the local group Transgender Health Empowerment.

Police said a witness flagged down a Metro transit police officer about 8:15 p.m. on Feb. 2 on the 4900 block of East Capitol Street to report an altercation between Jones and the unidentified attacker. According to a police statement, Jones was unconscious when emergency medical technicians arrived minutes later.

She was pronounced dead at 2:35 a.m. Friday, Feb. 3, after being taken to a nearby hospital, police said.

Police, who released a description of the attacker and a video showing him from a distance walking across a street, have appealed to the community for help in learning his identity.

Lt. Robert Adler, an official with the police Homicide Branch, said investigators are looking into whether the incident might be classified as a hate crime.

Anyone with information about the case is asked to contact police at 202-727-9099.

Download the flyer for the vigil here.

This all of the news we will forget about when the Ninth Circuit court of appeals Prop 8 decision comes at around 1:00 p.m. today Eastern:

• St. Petersburg, Russia is preparing to ban for LGBT people what Americans would consider First Amendment rights, according to Towleroad.
• From the Philadelphia Inquirer: CNN correspondent Roland Martin continues to dig himself into a deeper and deeper hole.
• The Smoking Gun has video of a brutal daylight anti-gay beating in an Atlanta neighborhood by alleged gang members. Warning: the video is incredibly disturbing.
• Campus Pride awards LGBT campus activists for making colleges around the country better for people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
• Madonna announced her tour dates today, and she’ll be in D.C. on Sep. 23. JoeMyGod has all the dates.

Finally, a report from Uganda television on the start of the new Parliamentary session where the “Kill The Gays” bill will return, despite assurances it was dead, earlier this year.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZa92mVME9k

Learn more about the current incarnation of the “Kill The Gays” bill from our friends at Box Turtle Bulletin.

The White House, in response to a Washington Blade inquiry about anti-gay adoption legislation moving through the Virginia Legislature, said Monday night President Obama believes adoption placement shouldn’t be “based on discriminatory and irrelevant factors.”

“While the president does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, he has long believed that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals based on their interest in offering a loving home, not based on discriminatory and irrelevant factors,” said Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson. “He recognizes that adoptive families come in many forms, and that we must do all we can to break down barriers to ensure that all qualified caregivers have the ability to serve as adoptive families.”

Legislation is moving through the Republican-controlled Virginia Legislature that would allow private adoption agencies to discriminate in placements conflicting with their religious or moral beliefs, including on the basis of sexual orientation. The Virginia House voted last week 71-28 to pass the bill and the Senate is likely to vote on it in the coming days. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) is expected to sign the bill should it reach his desk.

Current policy in Virginia prevents unmarried couples — straight or gay — from adopting. But critics say the new legislation would codify the policy into law.

Jeff Caldwell, a McDonnell spokesperson, reaffirmed via email in response to the White House statement that the governor supports the adoption legislation because it allows faith-based agencies to place children in homes in accordance with their beliefs.

“If/when it passes the General Assembly and reaches his desk, he will sign it,” Caldwell said. “The governor has expressed his belief that faith-based adoption agencies should not be required to conduct adoption services that run counter to their religious beliefs, understanding that these organizations conduct a large portion of the state’s adoptions and could cease working to find homes for these children if they feel they cannot do it in accordance with their beliefs.”

But, according to committee testimony from the Family Equality Council, the legislation would go beyond faith-based agencies and allow all licensed organizations to make placement decisions in accordance with religious or moral policies. Additionally, the group says the bill isn’t limited to religious beliefs and would allow private entities to withhold placement based on any kind of moral objection.

Federal legislation pending before Congress known as the Every Child Deserves a Family Act would trump the pending anti-gay bill in Virginia by allowing the U.S government to restrict federal funds from going to states that have laws or practices allowing for discrimination in adoption on the basis of LGBT status.

The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the Senate. President Obama has said he’s generally supportive of adoption rights for all couples, but he hasn’t yet declared support for the measure.

Asked whether Obama would endorse the federal bill as a means of countering the Virginia measure, Inouye said in the same statement, “While we have not reviewed Congressman Stark’s legislation, we share its goals to expand adoption rights and move the dialogue forward on this issue.”

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, said in a statement her organization shares concerns about the Virginia adoption bill and the belief that discriminatory factors shouldn’t prevent children from finding homes.

“We are gravely concerned about the proposed legislation in Virginia because it attempts to place the private religious beliefs of organizations above the best interests of children in the public foster care system,” Chrisler said. “President Obama has long believed that every child deserves a loving family and that all qualified parents who can provide a stable family should be considered and not face discrimination. We join with the president in expressing support for the goals of the Every Child Deserves A Family Act so that our country can open up every available home to the 424,000 children in foster care.”

The Department of Health & Human Services announced on Tuesday it has altered its website promoting the health care reform law to enable users to search for plans that provide benefits to same-sex partners.

The website, HealthCare.gov, now enables individuals searching for health insurance to narrow their results to find plans offering “domestic partner coverage” or “same-sex coverage.”

Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius touted the change in a statement as a way to make health care more readily available to LGBT people.

“Last year, as part of our commitment to work with the LGBT community and be more responsive to the needs of these populations, we promised to improve the Health Plan Finder tool to give LGBT individuals the ability to search for health plans that provide same-sex partner benefits,” Sebelius said. “Today we have delivered on that promise.”

Other filters through which individuals can search for health care plans include categories based on enrollment or out-of-pocket expenses. According to HHS, studies have shown LGBT people are disproportionately uninsured and the ”new filter helps address that issue by linking same-sex couples to carriers that provide benefits for their partners.”

The website had previously enabled small businesses to search for plans that would provide partner benefits to their employees in same-sex relationships. The change that HHS announced on Tuesday is the next step in the process of upgrading the website.

Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, said the change will help same-sex couples overcome difficulties in finding health care plans.

“In the past, many same-sex couples have faced challenges searching for health coverage that suited their needs,” Larsen said. “This tool will eliminate the guesswork, providing an enhanced resource for exploring insurance coverage.”

Michael Cole-Schwarz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said the change demonstrates the administration’s interests in providing health care to all Americans.

“This is an important step that further demonstrates the department’s commitment to ensuring all Americans — including LGBT people — have better access to quality and inclusive health care,” Cole-Schwartz said. “As the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we look forward to continuing to work with the administration so that our community’s interests are addressed.”

Flier On Gay Choice Stirs Controversy: MyFoxDC.com

Students at a Montgomery County high school have received materials from an “ex-gay” organization that promotes the widely discredited theory that sexual orientation is changeable, according to a local D.C. Fox television affiliate.

Fox 5 TV reported students at Einstein High School in Rockville, Md., received the materials along with their report cards during homeroom last week.

The flier publicizes the work of the “ex-gay” organization, known as PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays), which claims it “promotes diversity for the ex-gay community.” According to their mission statement, the organization asserts “ex-gays demonstrate that those with unwanted same-sex attraction can seek help and information,” in order to “transition out of a homosexual identity.”

According to district policy, any organization that can prove that it is a non-profit “community entity” can send materials home with students quarterly when report cards are distributed.

According to Fox 5, licensed clinical social worker and Einstein High School parent Karen Yount-Merrell complained to the Montgomery County school district administration after she found the flier among others when her son brought home his quarterly report card.

“I don’t like it,” Yount-Merrell told Fox 5. “Everything in this flier make it sound like the goal is to be [an] EX-gay, [or an EX]-lesbian. It is not embracing of a different orientation. It reiterates a societal view that there’s something ‘wrong’ with you, if you’re not in the norm. If you aren’t heterosexual. And teenagers have a hard enough time dealing with who they are and feeling good about themselves.”

After Yount-Merrell’s complaint, Montgomery County public schools issued a response saying, “the board of education policy allows materials and announcements from non-profit community organizations to be distributed at four designated times during the school year.”

PFOX’s principles are enumerated at a third-party website called Positive Alternatives To Homosexuality, or PATH, which PFOX’s website links to prominently. On the site, PATH declares it has worked with thousands of “ex-gays” who are now living as heterosexuals, concluding, “[w]hatever their individual circumstances and life goals, they have found from personal experience that there are, indeed, positive alternatives that are right for them rather than living a homosexual life.”

Wayne Besen, founding executive director of “ex-gay” watchdog group Truth Wins Out, said he’s appalled that a school district would allow the PFOX materials to be distributed.

“I follow a lot of these groups, and PFOX is by far the most extreme of all of them,” Besen told the Blade. “They’re pretending that they’re experts when they’re just extremists.”

He continued, “I think it’s always dangerous when you have a group with no credentials to do so handing out junk science to young people telling them there is something wrong with them. I think they’re begging for a lawsuit by even allowing this organization near them.”

Besen says PFOX was established by a collective of anti-gay groups as a foil to the pro-gay PFLAG, but that the group is inappropriate for the school setting.

“The school district is grossly irresponsible, derelict in its duty to protect students from harm by allowing this organization to distribute these materials,” Besen told the Blade. “It’s dangerous, reckless and unprofessional and a threat to the students they’re supposed to be protecting. These are the people they’re going to allow talk to kids?”

PFOX, however, was on the defensive after the controversy erupted, telling Fox 5 that the flier calls for “tolerance.”

“If people were to actually read the content of the flier that we’re distributing, they will see there is nothing in here that is insulting or even critical of homosexuals,” PFOX board member Peter Sprigg told Fox 5. “All it is telling kids [is] that you don’t have to be gay if you don’t want to be.”

Besen says the group may be attempting to sound reasonable, but in his opinion, PFOX is anything but.

“They were started with an $80,000 grant by the Family Research Council as a front group in 1998 …as part of that million dollar ‘Truth and Love’ campaign by 15 anti-gay organizations,” Besen said. “[Their mission is] to try to bully schools into accepting ex-gay literature or even so called ex-gay speakers. They want to portray ex-gays as an official minority that are being persecuted by activists.”

Besen said the school district need look no further than one of PFOX’s preferred speakers, Richard Cohen, who runs the International Healing Foundation, and promotes ‘touch therapy’ and therapy that includes beating a pillow with a tennis racket, according to Wayne Besen.

Richard Cohen showcasing some of his techniques on CNN

“What does the school district say about a group whose guru and current main speaker was kicked out of the American Counselors Association, for malpractice — he was expelled for life,” Besen said. “I can’t imagine any school district official could see a video of Richard Cohen for three seconds and would still distribute that flier. Unfathomable. I challenge any of them to take a look at him and tell me that children are safe in his clutches.”

According to Right Wing Watch, PFOX “tells gay youth to “transition out of a homosexual identity” even though the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers and the American Psychiatric Association all deny the effectiveness, safety and ethics of reparative therapy.”

The full flier by the organization has been obtained by Fox 5 and can be found below:

Parents And Friends Of Ex-Gays Flyer to Einstein High School Students

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.

While the rest of the world nurses their Super Bowl big pro football game hangovers, CNN contributor Roland Martin will be nursing a badly bruised reputation, after lighting up the Twitterverse with several homophobic tweets last night. He’s got a history. And now several angry petitioners are trying to make him history. Even GLAAD wants to see him fired, and Tracy Morgan can tell you, you don’t want to mess with GLAAD!

• The New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 5-2 to advance the same-sex marriage bill to the full Senate on Mon. Feb. 16, according to the Star-Ledger. The Senate takes it up three days earlier on the 13th. Will the Senate give same-sex couples in New Jersey a happy Valentine’s Day?
• Meanwhile, according to Huffington Post, Gov. Christie sends some confusing messages to same-sex marriage advocates in New Jersey, calling his effort to get marriage on the ballot “magnanimous.”
• New Mexico state Rep. David Chavez is trying to get a law passed in the state barring the recognition of same-sex couples. He’s not the best spokesperson for defending marriage, since his wife is divorcing him after accusing him of domestic violence.
• According to Karen Ocamb of Frontiers L.A., one of California’s leading LGBT voices has filed for divorce from her wife of four years. Robin Tyler and Diane Olson were two of the first Californians married under the brief period of time that same-sex marriage was legal in that state, prior to the passage of Prop 8.
• Finally, just when you thought the “Kill the Gays” bill was dead in Uganda, its rearing its ugly head again, according to Box Turtle Bulletin.

Finally, for your viewing pleasure, her majesty, Madonna:

Happy Monday!