Sen. John McCain (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

McCain spoke out against the inclusion of repeal in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill in an exchange with Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on the Senate floor.

Levin asked for unanimous consent to bring to the floor in September the defense bill to which the Senate Armed Services Committee already attached repeal, but McCain objected and said he wouldn’t allow the Senate to proceed.

“I’m not going to allow us to move forward,” McCain said. ”I will be discussing with my leaders and the 41 members of this side of the aisle as to whether we’re going to be moving forward with a bill that contains that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy repealed before, before a meaningful survey of the impact on battle effectiveness and morale of the men and women who are serving this nation in uniform.”

McCain called the inclusion of repeal in the defense legislation without the completion of this study a “disgrace.”

Levin, a proponent of repeal, responded by saying allowing the bill to come to the floor would allow the Senate to consider amendments to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language.

“The main point is that the place to debate these policies is on the floor of the Senate,” Levin said. “The Senate will determine, if we can get this bill to the floor, whether or not we make that conditional change in the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ or whether we do a number of other things.”

Levin further noted the language in the bill makes repeal conditional on completion of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study currently underway at the Pentagon, which is due Dec. 1, as well as certification from the president and military leaders.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, accused McCain of flip-flopping on his position, noting an article in Congressional Quarterly earlier on Thursday quoting McCain as saying he wouldn’t support a filibuster.

“In less than 24 hours, Sen. McCain seems to have changed his mind on blocking a critical defense bill in order to score some political points with his base,” Solmonese said. ”Our country needs the best and brightest men and women in uniform and no one should play politics when it’s time to get down to doing the people’s business.”

Continuing to rail against the inclusion of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language, McCain recalled his discontent over the inclusion of hate crimes protections language in the previous year’s budget legislation.

 ”I’ve only been a member of this committee, Mr. President, since 1987,” McCain said. “I never seen what the chairman of the committee did last year by bringing a totally irrelevant and very controversial issue and put it on the defense authorization bill.”

The attachment of hate crimes legislation to the defense authorization bill happened at least twice before last year in the Senate in 2004 and 2007. Supporters of the hate crimes measure at the time said this method helped to protect the legislation against dangerous amendments.

Solmonese also addressed McCain’s remarks in opposition to inclusion of hate crimes protections in the defense bill.

“He tried his hardest to prevent Americans from being protected from hate crimes and lost,” Solmonese said. ”His attempt to prevent qualified openly lesbian and gay service members from serving will be a failing effort as well.”

Following his floor speech, McCain elaborated to the Blade on his opposition to repeal language in the defense authorization bill.

“I just think that a survey needs to be conducted as to the effect on morale and battle effectiveness before the repeal is voted on, and everybody’s entitled to their own views, but to repeal it before before we get that assessment, I think, is really a serious mistake,” he said.

Asked whether he would introduce a motion to strike or a substitute amendment with regard to that langauge, McCain replied, “We don’t yet know exactly what we’re going to do.”

On Friday, West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) announced Carte Goodwin, his former general counsel, would fill the Senate seat vacated by Byrd upon his death earlier this month.

At a press conference at the statehouse in Charleston, W.V., Goodwin reportedly said he has “no agenda” in the Senate other than “working to fight hard every day for West Virginia families,” according to the Hill newspaper.

Goodwin, who didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment, is seen as a temporary replacement for Byrd because the West Virginia Legislature is considering a change to state law to allow for a vote to fill the Senate seat this fall.

At 36 years old, Goodwin will become the youngest member of the Senate when he’s sworn into office this week, according to the Hill newspaper.

Stephen Skinner, board president for Fairness West Virginia, said he had no information on Goodwin’s background on LGBT issues, but he thinks the senator would be open to discussion.

“I think he’s certainly someone who would be open to engaging in discussions on LGBT issues,” Skinner said. “But that, of course, doesn’t mean that we know any of his public stances.”

Michael Mitchell, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said Goodwin appears to be a “very smart and energetic choice” to represent West Virginia.

“I just hope that he remembers that he will be a senator for all West Virginians — including LGBT West Virginians — as well as remember that he can be a leader, and should be a leader, for those West Virginians who aren’t necessarily there yet on LGBT issues,” Mitchell said.

Many political observers are expecting Manchin to pursue a run for the U.S. Senate in November and that Goodwin’s past work with the governor means he would be aligned with Manchin in terms of ideology.

Skinner said believing Goodwin’s positions on LGBT issues to be similar to Manchin’s is “absolutely” a safe assumption.

As far as Manchin’s views on LGBT issues, Skinner said the governor has been “thoughtful” about LGBT issues and twice came out publicly against a state constitutional amendment in West Virginia banning same-sex marriage.

“However, he did that in the context of saying that our state [Defense of Marriage Act] was sufficient,” Skinner said. “So although the end result was certaintly something that we wanted from him, he’s clearly not in favor of marriage equality.”

Skinner said Manchin has “indicated at least privately” that he would support a state law prohibiting job bias against LGBT people in the workforce.

“The important thing about Sen. Goodwin and Gov. Manchin is that I know that they will have an open door and will be fully engaged with the folks that believe in equality in West Virginia,” Skinner said.

A lingering question for Goodwin is how he would vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when the issue comes before the full Senate. A provision for repeal is in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization pending before Congress, and opponents have vowed to strip out the language from the legislation.

Byrd was a “yes” vote in Senate Armed Services Committee in May on an amendment that would lead to repeal of the law.

The late senator’s support was noteworthy because it came on the condition of adding 60 days between the time for when the president and defense leaders would certify that the U.S. military is ready to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the time for when repeal would go into effect.

Skinner said he’s expecting Goodwin to follow through on Byrd’s commitment to repealing the ban on open service.

“I think it’s reasonable for the LGBT community to expect Sen. Goodwin to follow through on Sen. Byrd’s commitment on the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Skinner said.

Paul Guequierre, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is among the issues his organization plans to discuss with Goodwin when the new senator takes office.

“As you know, HRC has done a lot of work on the ground throughout West Virginia with Fairness West Virginia and other organizations to help secure Sen. Byrd’s vote to repeal ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” Guequierre said. “We will work just as diligently to secure Sen. Goodwin’s support.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the importance of Goodwin’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” stands “somewhere on the middle” in terms of possible obstacles on the way toward repeal.

“In the full chamber, he’s certainly important,” Nicholson said. “We need every vote we can get and we’re not taking any vote for granted, but it’s not going to come down to one vote.”

Nicholson added that Goodwin would need “an extraordinarily strong anti-repeal view” for him to oppose an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“If he’s supportive, he’s going to vote with us,” Nicholson said. “I think if he’s neutral, he’s going to default to party standard, which is to vote for the amendment and against any attempts to strip it.”

Nicholson said any opposition to repeal from Goodwin would be unusual because of Byrd’s role in negotiating the language.

“It would be a big slap in the face, I think, for the senator to have negotiated a position he feels comfortable supporting … and then have this 36-year-old whipper-snapper successor come back and say that was wrong,” Nicholson said. “I think that would be an extraordinary change of course and I think that’s unlikely.”

The survey was issued last week and is intended to gather perspectives from 400,000 non-deployed active duty service members on lifting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The results of the survey are aimed to help inform a Pentagon working group that’s developing a plan to implement repeal of the 1993 law banning gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military. The group’s work is due Dec. 1.

The survey was created and administered by the research firm Westat in conjunction with the Pentagon Working Group, and, according to Servicemembers United, came at a cost to taxpayers of $4.4 million.

A copy of the survey obtained by the Blade and other media outlets is 32 pages. The survey uses the term “homosexual” interchangeably with the term “gay or lesbian” in its questioning.

One question asks responders if they “currently serve with a male or female” service member that they believe to be gay or lesbian.

Other questions address “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your family feels about your military service be affected?” and “Have you shared a room, berth or field tent with a Service member you believed to be homosexual?”

Another question asks service members how they would respond if they were assigned to share bathroom facilities or an open bay shower with an openly gay or lesbian person. Possible responses include “take no action,” “use the shower at a different time than the Service member I thought to be gay or lesbian,” “discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves” or “talk to a chaplain, mentor or leader about how to handle the situation.”

No question on the survey asks service members about their sexual orientation or asks them whether they think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed.

In a statement, Alex Nicholson, executive director for Servicemembers United, said imaging a survey with “such derogatory and insulting wording, assumptions, and insinuations” on any other minority group is impossible.

“Unfortunately, this expensive survey stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design and will only make the Pentagon’s responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder,” he said. “The Defense Department just shot itself in the foot by releasing such a flawed survey to 400,000 servicemembers and it did so at an outrageous cost to taxpayers.”

Nicholson cited as among the flawed aspects of the survey the use of the term “homosexual” and a focus on potential negative aspects of repeal, with little attention to potential positive aspects.

He also noted what he called a “repeated and unusual suggestion” that a service member may need to talk to military comrades and leaders about appropriate behavior and conduct.

Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, also expressed concern about the questions, but said the survey is important for the Pentagon working group to complete its examination on implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“While surveying the troops on the issue like this is problematic from the start and the questions exhibit clear bias, the fact remains that this study exists,” Cole said. “We urge the [Defense] Department to analyze the results with an understanding of the inherent bias in the questions and use it as a tool to implement open service quickly and smoothly.”

According to Reuters, Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesperson, addressed the notion that the survey had anti-gay bias at a press conference last week, saying he “absolutely, unequivocally” rejects the accusations as “nonsense.”

“We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t address these kinds of [privacy-related] questions,” Morrell said.

Morrell reportedly added that more training, education or facility adjustments may be needed required to prepare the U.S. military if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed.

One LGBT advocate familiar with the working group, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Pentagon doesn’t intend to make the results of the survey public once they are compiled. Still, the advocate noted that the Defense Department expects they will be leaked or known through the Freedom of Information Act.

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, said the survey is sending a “complicated mixed message” with regard to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

On one hand, Belkin said, the survey is “is part of an education process” in which the Defense Departmant is “just starting to talk with the troops and hear from the troops” about the impact of repeal. Still, Belkin noted that the Pentagon is asking questions about LGBT people that wouldn’t be asked about other minority groups.

“You would never ask a survey question [such as] what would it be like to share a tent with a Chinese soldier, or would you take orders from a Catholic officer, or how would your husband or wife feel if you lived on post next to a Jewish family?” Belkin said. “And the reason we don’t ask questions like that is because those questions, by their very nature, constitute the group you’re asking about as a second-class citizen.”

Belkin said he didn’t think male service members bunking with female troops would be an appropriate analogy for the survey questions because that isn’t as germane as serving with people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.

“The troops are already living next to and serving with and showering with and sharing tents with and doing everything with gays,” he said. “This is not a change that is any different from civilian society. It would be a change if we were asking them to shower with and share tents with women.”

Belkin said that advocates shouldn’t be focusing on the survey, but on an upcoming “leadership moment” in which the president and defense leaders would have to certify that repeal should happen.

“The question is not, ‘Does the survey say 46 percent will share a tent or 42 percent will share a tent?’” Belkin said. “That’s not what this moment is about. This moment is about whether leadership steps up and certifies that it’s time for repeal and implements non-discrimination — that’s what we should be focusing on.”

SLDN to LGBT troops:
Don’t take this survey

Also sparking debate among advocates is whether LGBT service members would be at risk of being outed under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if they participated in the survey.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network issued a statement July 8 warning LGBT service members about a potential risk if they participate in a Pentagon survey over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, said his organization “cannot recommend” that LGBT service members “participate in any survey being administered by the Department of Defense, the Pentagon Working Group, or any third-party contractors.”

“While the surveys are apparently designed to protect the individual’s privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy and DOD has not agreed to provide immunity to service members whose privacy may be inadvertently violated or who inadvertently outs himself or herself,” he said.

The statement says SLDN asked the Pentagon working group for information about the survey, including the survey texts, possible certificates of confidentiality, and whether the Pentagon could guarantee immunity for people inadvertently outed by the surveys. According to SLDN, the Pentagon was unable to satisfy this request.

Sarvis advised LGBT service members who participate should do so in a way that doesn’t identify their sexual orientation.

In contrast to SLDN, Nicholson issued a statement encouraging LGBT service members to take part in the study.

“Servicemembers United encourages all gay and lesbian active duty troops who received the survey to take this important opportunity to provide their views,” Nicholson said.

Nicholson added his organization is “satisfied” sufficient safeguards are in place to “protect the confidentiality of any gay and lesbian servicemember who would like to fully and honestly participate in this survey.”

Cole said HRC likewise is encouraging LGBT service members to take part in the survey.

“It is critical that voices of lesbian and gay service members are included in this study and we feel that the privacy safeguards are sufficient to maintain anonymity,” he said.

Nicholson told the Blade that as part of its contract, Westat has to “strip out information about survey respondents” before the company delivers the information to the Defense Department and “destroy” any personally identifying information.

“They cannot contractually give DOD any personally identifying information about any of the survey respondents,” Nicholson said.

At a press briefing last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates also maintained that LGBT service members wouldn’t be in danger of discharge if they participated in the study.

“I strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms,” he said. “We’ve organized this in a way to protect their privacy and the confidentiality of their responses through a third party, and it’s important that we hear from them as well as everybody else.”

The LGBT advocate familiar with the Pentagon study, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said a member of the Defense Department working group found SLDN’s response “jaw-dropping.”

“He has complete faith that the agreement they have with their third-party vendor, which is administering the survey, the anonymous drop-box option, and the other pieces of the survey that are designed to protect the anonymity of respondents are pretty air-tight,” he said.

The advocate said he was told if gay or lesbian troops don’t respond, it would remove a significant number of service members from the sample who would respond favorably to repeal.

On the other side, the advocate said, the Marine Corps and religious groups are “really making a major effort” to get anti-repeal comments to the Pentagon working group.

“The responses that they’ve gotten thus far have been overwhelmingly anti-repeal, and the attempt by SLDN to keep gay service members from responding is not going to help,” he said.

Belkin said the Palm Center is deferring to SLDN on whether taking the survey would be safe for LGBT service members and he had no recommendation for service members. Still, he noted that the Palm Center has an assessment of the risks.

“On the one hand, we think the Pentagon has actually been pretty careful about dividing privacy protections, and so we think that the risk of participation is minimal, but at the same, we don’t think it’s zero,” Belkin said.

The proposed regulation — issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — would require hospitals that receive funds under Medicare and Medicaid to allow patients during a hospital stay to designate a same-sex partner as a visitor.

“Every patient deserves the basic right to designate whom they wish to see while in the hospital,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today’s proposed rules would ensure that all patients have equal access to the visitors of their choosing — whether or not those visitors are, or are perceived to be, members of a patient’s family.”

The new announcement comes on the heels of a letter Sebelius sent to hospitals on Tuesday calling on hospitals to go forward with the change even before the rule-making process is complete

President Obama directed HHS to develop these new rules in an April 15 presidential memorandum. In the same directive, Obama also asked HHS to develop policy to require hospitals to comply with directives giving LGBT Americans the authority to make emergency medical decisions for their partners. The memorandum also asks for additional recommendations on ways to address LGBT health issues in 180 days.

Don McLeon, an HHS spokesperson, said a group within the department is “actively working” on ways to implement other parts of the president’s memorandum.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, praised HHS for starting the process for issuing the hospital visitation change.

“Today’s announcement brings us a step closer to providing a critical protection for LGBT Americans and their families,” Solmonese said.

The proposed rules would mandate hospitals have written policies for patients’ visitation rights and specify instances in which the hospital may restrict patient access to visitors based on reasonable clinical needs.
 
According to HHS, one key provision of the proposed rules spells out that visitors chosen by a patient must have the same visitation privileges afforded to immediate family members.

The proposed regulations will be available for public comment for 60 days and are set to become final after CMS has considered the comments.

On Friday, the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety & Availability, which provides recommendations to the Department of Health & Human Services on blood safety and blood products, voted 9-6 against recommending to allow gay and bisexual to donate blood. The committee cited insufficient scientific data to support a change.

Still, by a 14-0 vote, the committee acknowledged that the current policy is imperfect and recommended additional research to support a policy that would allow low-risk gay and bisexual men to donate.

The committee came to the conclusion after hearing two days of testimony on whether testing proceedings and societal changes have advanced enough to permit for a change in policy.

The FDA instituted the blood donor ban in 1983 in response to the AIDS crisis. The policy prohibits any man who’s had sex even once with another man since 1977 from donating blood. At the time, the policy was deemed necessary because gay and bisexual men have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS infection.

LGBT rights supporters have been seeking to overturn the ban on the grounds that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men — and that testing procedures for HIV/AIDS have improved significantly since 1983.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, the committee’s recommendations will go to Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh for consideration.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization is “disappointed” the committee chose to preserve a policy that “turns away healthy gay and bisexual donors.”

“However, the Committee recognized that the current policy is inadequate and the Department of Health and Human Services must immediately commit its resources to research that will allow our nation to adopt a fair and safe blood donation policy,” Solmonese said.

Expressing anger the committee’s decision was Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.

“This decision is outrageous, irresponsible and archaic,” she said. “We expect more out of this advisory committee and this administration than to uphold an unnecessarily discriminatory policy from another era.”

The Blade will have a more complete report on the way forward for lifting the blood donor ban next week.

In the wake of successful votes late last month to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Congress could see momentum to pass other major legislation, such as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said in an interview with the Blade this week that she had renewed optimism about the domestic partner benefits bill, which she sponsors in the House.

“One issue that got renewed momentum over this Memorial Day recess was my bill to provide domestic partnership and obligations to federal employees and their partners,” she said.

Baldwin, the only out lesbian in Congress, said the issue received additional attention last week when President Obama enacted limited partner benefits for federal employees through administrative action.

“At the same time as he signed this presidential memorandum, he called on the Congress to send [my bill] to his desk because he can’t provide some of these very important benefits like health insurance and certain pension benefits without our passing legislation,” Baldwin said.

In a statement commending Obama for issuing the benefits, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also spoke favorably about the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act as one way to offer additional benefits to federal workers.

“Congresswoman Baldwin’s bill will continue to move forward in the House and we look forward to its progress in the Senate,” Pelosi said.

The domestic partner bill had significant momentum late last year when House and Senate committees reported it to the floor in each chamber. For a time, the legislation had stalled due to cost offset questions, but congressional leaders have said they’ve since received the necessary information.

Baldwin said staffers of the House and Senate leaders on the legislation met Monday to discuss the bill’s path, and lawmakers in both chambers are ready to move forward.

In a statement to the Blade, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said the bill would be ready for floor consideration “within weeks.” Lieberman noted this estimate was for when the bill would be ready to go to the floor, not when a vote would occur, and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is “responsible for setting a timetable for consideration of legislation.”

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said a vote hasn’t yet been scheduled.

Baldwin said she couldn’t offer a more specific timetable for when she expects the legislation to advance.

“A lot happened over the course of this recess in terms of adding momentum for the legislation,” she said. “Because it happened over the recess, and I’ve been in Wisconsin, and not in Washington, and not able to have conversations with my leadership and with the other players in this, I can’t tell you if there’s a timetable yet.”

Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, also said she doesn’t know when Congress would bring the measure to the floor for consideration.

“Again, the question is how to move forward and what’s the timeframe for moving it forward, so we continue, as we have been for the past year, advocating to get this bill done,” she said.

ENDA faces obstacles

LGBT rights supporters have also strongly pushed for Congress to take up ENDA, which would bar employment discrimination against LGBT people in most public and private workplace settings.

The legislation remains pending in House and Senate committees. Capitol Hill observers have said ENDA supporters lack the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

Still, supporters have expressed optimism about moving forward with the bill in the House. Baldwin said the LGBT Equality Caucus has been “counting the votes” and asking lawmakers how they would vote on the legislation or a harmful motion to recommit on the measure.

“It’s looking strong,” Baldwin said. “I’m hopeful that we can see committee consideration and floor passage very shortly.”

Rep. Barney Frank, who’s sponsoring the bill in the House, has told media outlets that a vote could take place this month or next.

But a more specific time for when Congress might take up ENDA is unclear. Aaron Albright, a spokesperson for the Education & Labor Committee, said he didn’t have an update or estimate on the schedule for committee action on the legislation.

Baldwin said her “crystal ball has been very unclear” for ENDA consideration and that she couldn’t offer a more definite timeframe.

“I was hoping it would be some months ago, but we continue to go through the vote counts, try to make sure they’re as solid as possible,” she said.

Herwitt was similarly unsure about when ENDA would come to the House floor, although she said HRC was pushing for it to come before lawmakers.

“Obviously, HRC wants a committee markup and a floor vote as soon as possible,” she said. “We would like to continue the momentum on moving LGBT equality forward and we would like a House vote as soon as possible.”

One danger for ENDA in the House is a legislative maneuver known as the motion to recommit, which could derail the legislation once it comes to the floor. A successful vote on the maneuver on the floor would enable opponents to send the motion back to committee.

Supporters have said opponents could target the bill’s gender identity provisions in the motion to recommit, although what’s targeted wouldn’t necessarily be such language.

Baldwin said “there are a lot of meddlesome things” that ENDA’s opponents can do through a motion to recommit when the bill comes to the floor.

“So we have been really trying to ask colleagues how they would vote in a wide variety of scenarios, so that we can feel confident that we have the votes to defeat such a motion to recommit,” she said.

Herwitt noted there’s “still some concern” and “vote counting” happening around the motion to recommit.

“We remain concerned to the extent that we want to continue working with leadership to shore up the votes that we need, so that when the bill comes to the floor, we have the ability to beat back a motion to recommit,” Herwitt said.

Herwitt said Pelosi has expressed a commitment to move ENDA to the floor, but wants to “make sure that we’re looking at angles in terms of what the motion to recommit would be, to protect the integrity of the bill.”

“If she brings the bill to the floor, she doesn’t want to lose,” Herwitt said. “So, she’s an expert vote-counter. She was a whip for many years, and so she knows what it takes to get a bill to the floor. From everything I’ve heard from her people, she wants to get it done, but she wants to get it done right.”

Another pro-LGBT bill pending before Congress is legislation that would enable same-sex bi-national couples to remain together in the U.S.

Current immigration law prohibits LGBT Americans from sponsoring their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Consequently, some LGBT Americans are faced with losing their partners after visas expire, while others expatriate with their partners to other countries with more favorable immigration laws.

Standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act would rectify this situation. But supporters of the measure see its inclusion as part of upcoming immigration reform as the optimal path for passage.

Heading the legislative effort for comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate is Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). His office didn’t respond to a request to comment on the timing for immigration reform or whether UAFA would be included in the legislation.

Still, Schumer has spoken favorably about the inclusion of UAFA in comprehensive immigration reform, and advocates are expecting him to include the provision in the bill once it’s introduced.

According to the news website IrishCentral.com, Schumer said last week at a fundraising event for Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform that he thinks Congress will finish immigration reform by March 2011 — if not by the end of this year.

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said supporters of the legislation have been assured Schumer wants UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform.

“I would even say, at this point, that the expectation is that UAFA will be part of comprehensive reform,” Ralls said. “I think Immigration Equality and other immigrant advocates fully expect it to be an inclusive bill when it’s introduced.”

Still, when Schumer will introduce the legislation in the Senate remains unclear. Since the Senate Judiciary Committee would handle both immigration reform and U.S. Supreme Court nominations, many Capitol Hill observers believe the Senate will first approve the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court before taking up the immigration issue.

If Schumer includes UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform, the larger bill could find opposition from conservative groups that say they won’t support immigration reform with language benefitting same-sex couples.

Last week, the Liberty Counsel issued a statement signed by other Christian evangelical leaders saying comprehensive immigration reform that includes UAFA would not advance in Congress.

“Same-sex domestic partnerships will doom any effort for bipartisan support of immigration and will cause religious conservatives to withdraw their support,” said Mat Staver, founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel. “If same-sex domestic partnerships are included, the immigration bill will have no chance of passing.”

In response, Ralls said the “cornerstone” of the U.S. immigration system has been family unification and that LGBT families “should be part of that noble commitment.”

“Despite the protests of a few, many people, including many faith communities, continue to support an inclusive immigration reform bill,” Ralls said. “Methodists, Episcopalians, Jewish organizations, Unitarians and others are holding strong to a belief that a truly pro-family bill must include every family.”

Other bills on deck

Other pro-LGBT bills also could come up for consideration by the end of this year.

One bill, known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act, would bar schools from discriminating against LGBT students or ignoring harassing behavior against them. Potential penalties for discrimination could include a loss of federal funding or a legal cause of action for victims.

As standalone versions of the legislation remain pending in the House and Senate, supporters have said they envision passage of the bill as part of the upcoming Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization.

Still, it’s unclear when Congress will take up this major education budget legislation. A House Democratic leadership aide noted the bill hadn’t yet been introduced, and “we can’t determine the timeline until that happens.”

Should Congress begin work on the education bill, Herwitt said HRC would push for the Student Non-Discrimination Act’s inclusion as part of the larger legislation.

“If the ESEA bill moves forward, you will see HRC and other groups like [the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network] working hard on the bill to make every effort to have it be part of the reauthorization bill,” Herwitt said.

Herwitt said she’s heard conflicting stories on the education reauthorization, though, and was unsure time remains in this year’s legislative calendar to tackle the legislation.

Baldwin said the Student Non-Discrimination Act’s “brightest prospect” is inclusion as part of this larger legislation, but she noted if the process stalls, congressional hearings would help educate members of Congress on the importance of the issue.

“One of the things I would really hope for is hearings on that legislation to really educate members and the public on what a significant issue this is,” she said. “I think many are unaware, and I think you could build some real momentum for passage of the legislation if it were highlighted in that way.”

Also of interest to LGBT rights supporters is passage of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs reauthorization legislation.

Last year, the House approved a version of the State Department budget legislation that would call for greater U.S. action against LGBT abuses abroad. In the Senate, legislation with identical language has been reported out of committee, but hasn’t yet reached the floor.

The language urges the State Department to task more officers in the Human Rights Bureau to track violence overseas related to sexual orientation and laws criminalizing homosexuality.

Additionally, the provision calls on U.S. embassies to work to reform or repeal laws overseas criminalizing homosexuality and directs the State Department to strengthen its annual human rights report with regard to reporting on abuses against LGBT people.

But whether Congress will manage to pass the reauthorization bill for the State Department remains in question. The last time this legislation made its way to president’s desk was in 2002, and Manley said nothing has been scheduled for when the bill would come to the Senate floor.

Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, was skeptical that the full Senate would find time soon to take up the measure.

“I haven’t heard anything about them being able to find floor time for it,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like there’s any momentum in terms of getting it to the floor in the short term.”

Herwitt noted that passage of foreign affairs authorization has often been a difficult task for Congress.

“There have been many years when the State Department authorization bill never made it to the floor just because it becomes a heavy legislative lift — not because of our issues, but because of the bigger issues that are in the bill,” she said.

Baldwin said she was nonetheless optimistic about the bill’s chances this year because both chambers of Congress have moved forward on it.

“I would be hopeful — given that there’s interest now in both houses of Congress — that we can see it through,” she said.

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces the state’s campaign finance rules, reportedly identified 13 instances of non-monetary contributions — totaling in the amount of $39,628 — that the Mormon Church failed to report on a timely basis in accordance with state election laws.

On Thursday, the recommended action will go before the FPPC commissioners in Sacramento, Calif., for final approval.

The LDS Church is credited with being among the leading forces in the campaign in favor of Proposition 8, which ended same-sex marriage in California in 2008.

Still, last year, the Mormon Church said its total contributions to “Yes on 8″ tallied at $189,904, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the $43.3 million raised by Prop 8 proponents, according to the Deseret News.

Opponents of Prop 8 in California have said they believe the Mormon Church’s support for the initiative is evident in the individual contributions that church members made to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, praised the FPPC for its action. The HRC statement said the fine “may seem inconsequential,” but sheds light on the Mormon Church’s activities in the Prop 8 campaign.

HRC said the proposed fine “provides ongoing evidence that the Mormon Church was a significant leader in the campaign to repeal marriage equality, even while it evaded standard reporting requirements and denied its involvement.”

Scott Trotter, an LDS Church spokesman, was quoted in the Deseret News as saying the church reported all its contributions to the “Yes on 8” campaign, but acknowledged that it failed to report some non-monetary contributions in a brief period before Election Day.

“In the last two weeks leading up to the election, the Church mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement and instead reported those contributions together in a later filing,” Trotter reportedly said.

According to the Deseret News, the FFPC could have imposed of $5,000 fine for each infraction depending on their severity, but settled on a “streamlined enforcement process” and fined the church 15 percent of the value for each late-reported contribution.

In the memo, Obama says for “far too long” federal employees with domestic partners have been denied equal access to “basic rights and benefits their colleagues enjoy.”

“This kind of systemic inequality undermines the health, well-being, and security not just of our federal workforce, but also of their families and communities,” she said.

As a result of the memo, new benefits required by the federal government include making children of federal workers with same-sex partners eligible for federal child-care subsidies and child-care services.

Additionally, same-sex partners and their children now qualify as “family members” for the purposes of employee assistance programs.

The new memo builds off an earlier memo Obama issued in June direecting federal agencies to determine whether the Defense of Marriage Act prohibited the federal government from offering these benefits.

In the new memo, Obama says the U.S. Office of Personnel Management provided him a report recommending that all these benefits can and should be extended.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement the new memorandum is “certainly a positive step” in providing equal rights to LGBT couples.

“The limitations of these new benefits however serve as a glaring reminder that the Defense of Marriage Act ultimately stands in the way of providing true equality to LGBT Americans,” he said.

In another statement, OPM Director John Berry, the highest ranking openly gay person in the Obama administration, praised Obama for going forward with these benefits.

“This is another major step forward for gay and lesbian federal employees,” Berry said. “But it’s also a good business practice — this will help us retain valuable employees and better compete with other employers for top talent.”

The OPM statement says the agency has issued guidance to all the federal agencies to implement the president’s memo.

But even with the new directive, most of the major of benefits afforded to the spouses of straight workers — health and pension benefits — cannot be extended to same-sex couples under current law.

Passage of the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, which is pending for floor consideration in Congress, would rectify this situation.

In the new memo, Obama apparently recognizes the need for this bill and says “legislative action is necessary to provide full equality to LGBT federal employees.”

Solmonese commended Obama’s recommendation for further legislation to offer major benefits to federal workers in same-sex relationships.

“We welcome the President’s renewed call to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act and call on Congress to pass it swiftly,” Solmonese said. “When a majority of the Fortune 500 offer equal benefits, it should be a no-brainer that the federal government catch up.”

According to a recent report from the Williams Institute, an estimated 34,000 federal workers were in open relationships with same-sex partners in 2007. The new changes specified by Obama could assist these federal workers.

Lawmakers approved the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), by a 234-194 vote after hours of discussion on whether Congress should repeal the statute.

Five Republicans voted in favor of repeal: Reps. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii), Joseph Cao (R-La.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas). Joining other Republicans to vote against the measure were 26 Democrats.

In remarks on the floor, Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, said repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is necessary because the policy hurts national security and has cost the American taxpayer more than $1.3 million.

“When I served in Baghdad, my team did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay,” he said. “With our military fighting two wars, why on earth would we tell over 13,500 able-bodied Americans that their services are not needed?”

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also spoke out in favor of the amendment and said passing repeal was keeping in line with honoring the service of members of the armed forces.

“Today, by repealing the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, we also honor the service and sacrifices of all who dedicated their lives to protecting the American people,” she said. “We honor the values of our nation, and we close the door on fundamental unfairness.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) was among those speaking out against the repeal amendment on the floor, but his remarks were limited.

After reading an April 30 letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging Congress to hold off on repeal, Skelton said “I oppose the amendment.”

Following the vote, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the approval of the measure means House members are standing “on the right side of history.”

“This is a historic step to strengthen our armed forces and to restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly,” he said.

The vote in the House means repeal language is in both the House and Senate versions of defense authorization legislation. Earlier in the day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of attaching repeal as part of its version of the bill.

In debate over the amendment, lawmakers who supported it advocated for its passage as a means to end discrimination, while opponents said the Pentagon study on the issue — due December 1 — should first be complete.

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) was among those urging other House members to vote in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Anyone who’s willing to put on this country’s uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our freedoms deserves our respect and should not be subject to discrimination,” he said. “Repealing this flawed policy is an important way for us to show that respect.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, provided some of the strongest objections to passing the repeal measure.

He said he wanted the Pentagon working group to complete its work in soliciting the input of U.S. service members before any action from Congress.

“After making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the course of eight years, the men and women of our military deserve to be heard,” McKeon said. “Congress acting first is the equivalent of turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying your opinions don’t count.”

On Thursday, various LGBT groups issued statements saying the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of attaching a repeal measure, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

The proceedings of the Senate Armed Services Committee were closed to the public and so couldn’t immediately be verified.

According to sources familiar with the deliberation, Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) voted in favor of the amendment. They had told media outlets earlier in the week they were planning to vote in the affirmative.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) voted against the measure as he had earlier told the Boston Globe.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who never made a public announcement indicating his position on the amendment, also voted in favor of the measure. Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal were expecting him to vote “yes.”

The sole Democrat who voted against the amendment was Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). He had earlier told media outlets he sees no need to preempt the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study currently at the Pentagon by voting in favor of repeal at this time.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote in favor of repeal. Supporters of repeal were expecting her to be a “yes” vote on the amendment for some time.

While the Senate has taken action, the House has yet to attach similar language as part of its version of the defense budget legislation. The House is expected to take up the issue on the floor by Friday morning.

The legislative compromise adopted by the Senate committee would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” only after the Defense Department completes its study on the issue at the end of the year.

Additionally, the president and Pentagon leaders would have to certify that repeal won’t undermine military readiness — and 60 days would have to pass after this certification.

The measure also notably lacks the non-discrimination language for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members that was found in standalone versions of repeal legislation.

In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the Senate committee approved “a historic roadmap” to open service.

Still, he cautioned gay, lesbian and bisexual service members against being open about their sexual orientation while serving in the armed forces.

“It is important for all gay and lesbian, active-duty service members, including the reserves and the national guard, to know they’re at risk,” Sarvis said. “They must continue to serve in silence under the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law that remains on the books.”

Sarvis said he’s hopeful Congress and the Pentagon would be able to finalize repeal by “no later than the first quarter of 2011.”

In another statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the importance of the Senate vote “cannot be overstated.”

“This is the beginning of the end of a shameful ban on open service by lesbian and gay troops that has weakened our national security,” Solmonese said. “The stars are aligning to finally restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly.”

Solmonese said Americans recognize that the sexual orientation of service members doesn’t matter so long as they “get the job done.”

“Those who wish to preserve discrimination in our military will continue to fight this progress but we will be there every step of the way to ensure that qualified men and women are allowed to serve their country, regardless of sexual orientation,” he said.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, also commended the Senate committee for what he said was taking historic action to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“This initial victory today in the Senate Armed Services Committee is an historic first step forward in the drive to finally get the onerous ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law off the books forever,” Nicholson said. “All of us who have served under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and who have been impacted by this law will remember this day as the beginning of the end for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”