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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday is the South Carolina primary and choosing one of the Republican candidates left in the race must be agonizing. Members of the LGBT community might differ on a lot of issues but opposing candidates who want to enshrine discrimination shouldn’t be one of them.

Republican, libertarian, Democratic or Green, candidates should believe that our basic rights are inviolable. It was laughable when Rick Santorum tried to favorably compare his position on LGBT issues with those of President Obama. The president supports repealing DOMA, passing an inclusive ENDA and same-sex parent adoptions; he pushed for and signed the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Santorum doesn’t support any of that and has said some of the most outrageously homophobic things — like children being brought up by a mother and a father, even if the father is in prison, are better off than children being brought up by two loving same-sex parents.

But then Santorum is only the worst of the current crop of Republican presidential choices. Their stands on LGBT rights do share one thing in common with President Obama: they all oppose same-sex marriage. But that is where the comparison ends. Mitt Romney once said he favored LGBT rights but he just disavowed a flier from a previous campaign in which he said he believed that all people regardless of sexual orientation should have equal rights. Whether he no longer believes that or is just pandering to the bigoted voters who make up a big part of the Republican primary vote is irrelevant. He is asking people to vote for him based on what he says today. The best of the lot was Jon Huntsman, Jr. who dropped out of the race this week. But it was apparent since he is a fairly reasonable guy he would have zero chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Voters decide whom to support on more than just LGBT issues and that is the way it should be. We can and do have many differing views in the community on tax policy, immigration, the federal government’s role in stimulating the economy, healthcare and issues impacting the environment among others. But I find it hard to fathom any member of the LGBT community would vote for a candidate who believes in and backs policies that ensure members of our community will remain second-class citizens during their presidency.

In all likelihood there will be divided government for the next four years. The Founding Fathers understood that would happen and they provided for three distinct roles — the executive, legislative and the judiciary. We have also seen the method devised for the checks and balances between the two houses of Congress. What I don’t think these men foresaw was the unwillingness of elected leaders to communicate and compromise. The result of that unwillingness to compromise has brought us the current do-nothing Congress.

It is my hope that the American people will see fit to change that by electing individuals who may agree with their disparate positions but are also adult, educated and knowledgeable enough to understand the need for real compromise. Clearly, as we heard on a recent edition of “60 Minutes,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) doesn’t know the difference between the words cooperate and compromise. He either thinks they mean the same thing or is merely trying to obfuscate and that is just as bad for the nation.

In the next 20 years — despite the Rick Santorums of the world — the LGBT community will achieve full civil and human rights. People will see through the lies of the Newt Gingriches who blame marriage equality for the Catholic Church’s withdrawal from adoption and other programs in places that have passed it, rather than admitting they were only willing to provide such services if they got government money to pay for them.

In our community, let’s have the same debate as the rest of the nation on the myriad issues that the government faces. But let’s also agree we will not support candidates who support laws that will ensure that we remain second-class citizens.

An LGBT workplace rights advocacy group has launched an online petition to persuade a military contractor to adopt an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy.

The change.org petition, created by Freedom to Work, is directed at DynCorp International LLC, a Fairfax, Va.-based company. The petition, which as of early Wednesday had 62 signatures, calls on DynCorp “to strengthen their non-discrimination policy by including sexual orientation and gender identity.

The company’s policies recently came under scrutiny in the wake of a settlement the company made with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over a case in which a straight employee,  James Friso, was allegedly subjected to anti-gay harassment and called “faggot,” “queer” and “dick-sucker” by a co-worker on a daily basis.

DynCorp allegedly did nothing after Friso complained about the harassment. As a result of the EEOC settlement this month, Friso will be awarded $155,000, but the company isn’t required to change its non-discrimination policy to include protections based on sexual orientation.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said his organization chose DynCorp as its first corporate campaign because of “explosive facts in the form of brutally ugly harassment” that were revealed after the settlement was reached.

“That kind of treatment is just plain un-American, and I think the public is going to have a visceral reaction that this company has to do better if they want to continue collecting billions of dollars in our taxpayer funds,” Almeida said.

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

During a news conference Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t have an immediate answer when asked if the administration has a problem with companies receiving this kind of federal money while not protecting employees from anti-gay bias.

“Why don’t I take that question because I know none of the details that you just described,” Carney said. “I don’t want to make a general statement about it since I know nothing about the specifics. But I’ll take the question.”

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a follow-up email request to respond to the question asked during the news briefing.

Ashley Burke, a DynCorp spokesperson, said in response to the petition, “we are currently examining our policies to determine how they can be further strengthened, including in this specific area.”

Almeida said he thinks persuading DynCorp to adopt an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy is a “winnable campaign” based on the statement from DynCorp and because the company “is going to realize that discrimination is bad for the bottom line.”

“Most of the other military contractors like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and General Dynamics have already adopted LGBT non-discrimination policies, and many of them have specifically said that non-discrimination rules increase efficiency and make them a stronger and more profitable company,” Almeida said.

One way to prompt DynCorp to adopt an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy would be for President Obama to issue an executive order prohibiting federal dollars from going to companies that don’t have sexual orientation and gender identity included in their policies. The White House hasn’t said whether Obama would be open to issuing such an order.

But Almeida said he’s “optimistic” Obama will issue the order early this year because it would fit with the White House’s “recent theme of governance.”

“He’s taken executive actions on politically charged topics like immigration, and he’s done things that have angered the business community such as mandating overtime payments for home healthcare workers and making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board,” Almeida said. “By comparison, the ENDA Executive Order is politically very easy.  ENDA polls very strongly with voters, including with a majority of Republican voters.”

The “ENDA” executive order is so named because it would be similar to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would prohibit workplace discrimination against LGBT people.

Almeida added the executive order could also be a component of a presidential campaign against Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, who backed ENDA in 1994 but said he no longer supports the legislation in an interview in 2006.

“I think President Obama might even use his signature on the ENDA Executive Order as a wedge issue in the campaign against Mitt Romney, who has taken three or four different positions on ENDA, and to this day nobody knows what he stands for,” Almeida said.

UPDATE: The White House has responded to the Blade inquiry about companies receiving federal dollars without having LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination protections and the ENDA executive order with the following statement:

“President Obama has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity,” said White House spokesperson Shin Inouye. “Regarding your question on a potential Executive Order, I don’t have anything to report.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission secured a $155,000 settlement against a federal contractor in a workplace discrimination case last week, triggering a call from one LGBT advocacy group for action from the Obama administration to address the issue further.

On Jan. 6, EEOC announced that DynCorp International LLC, a military contractor and aircraft maintenance company in Fairfax, Va., agreed to pay $155,000 in relief in a sex-based discrimination case.

The case involves James Friso, a straight aircraft sheet metal/structural mechanic working in Taji, Iraq, who was allegedly subjected to gender-based harassment — including anti-gay epithets — by a male co-worker.

According to the EEOC complaint, one of Friso’s male co-workers began making derogatory sex-based comments to Friso on a daily basis around November 2006. The co-worker allegedly called Friso “faggot,” “dick-sucker,” and “queer” on a daily basis.

Other comments allegedly referenced Friso’s stature, who’s five-feet, four inches tall, including “whiney little bitch,” “short little mother fucker” and “short little bitch.”

Additionally, the co-worker accused Friso of engaging in homosexual acts, even though the co-workers knew Friso was married to a woman. The co-worker allegedly made this comment in front of management, but no action was taken.

The complaint states Friso regularly complained to DynCorp management, but no action was taken. After continued complaints, managers allegedly told Friso they “would get rid of him.”

That eventually came to pass. Friso was transferred to Mannheim, Germany to a post with lower pay. The co-worker who allegedly subjected to Friso to sex-based discrimination continued to work at Taji.

EEOC filed a complaint in August 2011 in federal district court in Virginia on the basis that the sex-based discrimination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The announcement on Friday was the result of that complaint.

In addition to agreeing to pay $155,000 in relief to Friso, DynCorp must provide anti-harassment and anti-retaliation training to managers and human resource personnel. DynCorp is also enjoined from engaging in further sex-based harassment or retaliation and has agreed to allow EEOC to monitor it for the decree’s term.

Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for EEOC’s Charlotte District, whose jurisdiction includes Virginia, said in a statement the result of the case is a reminder that sex-based discrimination shouldn’t be tolerated.

“This lawsuit should remind employers that employees have a legal right to a workplace free of harassment, including harassment based on sex-based stereotypes,” Barnes said. “Employers must be careful about allowing comments concerning sexual orientation to be made in the workplace because if those comments are based on sexual stereotyping, they might violate the law.”

But Ashley Burke, a spokesperson for DynCorp, denied the company engaged in any wrongdoing even though it accepted the terms of the settlement.

“The Company was not involved in any wrongdoing and wholly denies all of the allegations contained in the Complaint,” Burke said. “This case involves a personal dispute that occurred five years ago, and the alleged harasser is no longer with the Company. We are pleased to put the matter behind us.”

One LGBT workplace rights advocate said the incident calls for additional administrative action from the Obama administration.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, took issue with the consent decree in the case for not mentioning sexual orientation.

“The company will not have to add sexual orientation or gender identity to its non-discrimination policy,” Almeida said. “Even after this case, DynCorp can discriminate against LGBT employees while getting fat on billions of dollars in taxpayer money.”

Almeida said the action against DynCorp demonstrates the need for an executive order prohibiting federal dollars from going to companies that do not have non-discrimination protections for employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The members of the civil rights enforcement team at the Department of Labor currently have their hands tied and are not allowed to investigate federal contractors like DynCorp for discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation because President Obama has not yet signed the ENDA executive order,” Almeida said.

DynCorp receives more than 96 percent of its revenue from federal contracts that amount to $2 billion each year, making it the 32nd largest federal contractor, according to Freedom to Work. However, protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity aren’t included in the company’s non-discrimination policy.

The “ENDA” executive order is so named because it would be similar to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would prohibit workplace discrimination against LGBT people.

The order would enable LGBT Americans who face workplace discrimination to file complaints with the Labor Department. Possible remedies include payment of back wages or reinstatement for LGBT employees who faced discrimination.

Almeida has called on Obama to issue the executive order before, and now says he’s “optimistic” that Obama will sign the order in early 2012.

“During just the past few months alone, the president has taken more than 20 strong executive actions under the slogan ‘We Can’t Wait’ for the current dysfunctional Congress to act,” Almeida said. “It’s a logical next step to sign an executive order granting LGBT Americans the freedom to work for federal contractors without fear of discrimination or harassment on the job.”

The White House hasn’t said whether it would be open to issuing such an executive order despite the president’s support for ENDA.

DynCorp’s Burke insisted the company already has protections in place for its workers, saying the company “encourages a positive, supportive work environment where harassment or retaliation of any kind is simply not tolerated.”

“In addition to anti-harassment training provided to all new hires, personnel receive refresher training, anti-harassment policies are posted throughout worksites, and our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct clearly states the Company’s zero tolerance of harassment and retaliation,” Burke said.

In the early 2000s, a DynCorp employee who alleged that company workers in Bosnia had purchased young women from brothels and kept them as sex slaves was terminated from her job and later won a $173,000 judgment from an employment tribunal in Britain.

In May 2008, a federal jury ordered DynCorp to pay $15 million to a minority-owned telecommunications contractor that charged DynCorp with terminating a contract on the basis of racial discrimination, according to the Washington Post.

Asked whether the settlement has prompted DynCorp to reconsider its non-discrimination policy, Burke replied, “Although there was no wrongdoing on the part of the Company identified in this case, we are always looking for ways to further strengthen our policies and procedures and this is one area that we are currently examining.”

The story of the year was the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Here are our picks for the rest of 2011’s top LGBT news stories.

#2 N.Y. approves marriage

New Yorkers celebrated same-sex marriage during June Pride. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Empire State became the sixth and most populous state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage in June when the legislature passed and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed into law a bill legalizing marriage rights for gay couples.

Upon passage of the legislation, Cuomo said New York has “finally torn down the barrier that has prevented same-sex couples from exercising the freedom to marry and from receiving the fundamental protections that so many couples and families take for granted.”

The achievement marks the first time that a Republican-controlled legislative chamber — in this case, the New York State Senate — passed legislation in this country legalizing same-sex marriage.

The law went into effect in the state on July 24. Kitty Lambert and Cheryle Rudd, a lesbian couple from Buffalo, N.Y., wed in Niagara Falls at midnight and became the first couple in the state to benefit from the law.

#3 Rep. Barney Frank retires

Rep. Barney Frank announced in November that he wouldn’t seek a 17th term in the House. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The longest-serving openly gay member of Congress announced in November that he wouldn’t seek a 17th term in the U.S. House.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), 71, was first elected to Congress in 1980. The lawmaker made his sexual orientation known in 1987 — becoming the second to do so after Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.).

Frank said redistricting in Massachusetts and his desire to retire before reaching age 75 prompted his decision not to run.

“I have enjoyed — indeed been enormously honored — by the chance to represent others in Congress and the State Legislature, but there are other things I hope to do before my career ends,” Frank said.

The lawmaker is credited with helping shepherd through the passage of hate crimes protections legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the 111th Congress. But Frank was criticized by transgender activists in 2007 for dropping gender identity protections from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The gay-only bill ultimately died in the Senate.

His most enduring legacy will likely be the passage of Wall Street reform legislation commonly known as Dodd-Frank, which he pushed through as chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

#4 Obama won’t defend DOMA; Boehner hires counsel

House Speaker John Boehner announced that he would hire counsel to defend DOMA in court after the Obama administration said it would no longer do so. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Obama administration made a significant reversal in policy in February when it announced it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

In a Feb. 22 letter, the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that laws related to sexual orientation, such as DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

“The president has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder said.

Obama’s decision riled House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who accused the president of abandoning his constitutional duties. In March, Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which on a 3-2 party-line basis voted to defend the law in court in the administration’s stead.

To assist the House general counsel in defending the law, Boehner hired private attorney Paul Clement, a U.S. solicitor general under former President George W. Bush. The cost of the private attorney was initially announced at a blended rate of $520 an hour and total cost cap of $150,000, but Boehner later bumped up the cost cap to $1.5 million.

#5 Giffords shot; gay intern hailed as hero

Gay intern Daniel Hernandez was credited with helping to save the life of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords after she was shot. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The nation recoiled in horror in January after pro-LGBT Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) became one of 20 people shot people by a gunman during a town hall event in her district.

Daniel Hernandez Jr., a gay 20-year-old who had worked as an intern for Giffords for just five days at the time of the shooting, was credited with providing the first aid that saved her life.

“The attitude that I had,” Hernandez said, “was trying to make sure that those who had been injured were going to be OK, so to try to provide whatever first aid I could until someone else could come in and take over.”

Medics arrived on the scene to take Giffords and others to the University Medical Center in Arizona. Giffords slowly recovered and made her first appearance on the House floor in August to vote in favor of the agreement to raise the debt ceiling limit.

At a memorial service, President Obama called Hernandez a “hero” during his eulogy. The White House invited Hernandez — along with his father, Danny Hernandez Sr., — to sit alongside first lady Michelle Obama during the State of the Union address in January.

#6. Clinton, Obama endorse int’l LGBT rights

Hillary Clinton delivered a sweeping pro-LGBT speech in December calling for other nations to respect gay rights as human rights. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December gave a high-profile speech in Geneva, Switzerland in which she spoke out against human rights abuses committed against LGBT people overseas.

During the speech, Clinton reiterated her previously held belief that human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights and said LGBT people overseas “have an ally in the United States of America.”

“It is a violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave,” Clinton said.

Clinton gave the speech on Dec. 6 in observance of Human Rights Day, which recognizes the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948 by the U.N. General Assembly. More than 1,000 diplomats and experts were in attendance.

On the same day, President Obama issued a memorandum to government agencies urging them to step up efforts against anti-LGBT human rights abuses abroad. Among other things, the memo calls on agencies to work against the criminalization of homosexual acts overseas and directs the State Department to lead a “standing group” to respond swiftly to serious incidents threatening LGBT human rights abroad.

#7 Jamey Rodemeyer commits suicide

Year In Review: 2011

A 14-year-old from Williamsville, N.Y. took his own life in September after his parents said he was subjected to bullying in school over his sexual orientation.

Jamey Rodemeyer, who attended Williamsville North High School, took his life in an apparent hanging. Prior to his death, he sent his last message in the form of a tweet to Lady Gaga, which read, “Bye Mother Monster. Thank you for all you have done. Paws up forever.”

Rodemeyer made a video for the “It Gets Better” project, a website dedicated to preventing teen suicide, in which he identified as bisexual and described the harassment he endured from other students.

“I just want to tell you that it does get better [be]cause when I came out for being bi I got so much support from my friends and it made me feel so secure,” Rodemeyer says in the video.

Rodemeyer’s death inspired outrage across the nation. Lady Gaga told her fans via Twitter she spent the days after his suicide ”reflecting, crying and yelling.” She later met with President Obama over the issue of bullying.

#8 GOP hopefuls tout anti-gay views

Former Sen. Rick Santorum said he would resinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ if elected president. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Presidential election season officially kicked off this year as Republican candidates seeking to oust President Obama from the White House touted their anti-gay views.

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum likely took the prize for emphasizing anti-gay positions most often in his campaign. In addition to pledging to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Santorum said, “our country will fail” as a result of same-sex marriage. He also raised eyebrows in August when he said same-sex marriage is like “saying this glass of water is a glass of beer.”

Activists with Truth Wins Out revealed the therapy clinic that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) co-owns with her husband, Marcus Bachmann, engages in widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy aimed at turning gay people straight. The candidate has refused to answer questions about the clinic.

A total of five contenders — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Bachmann — each penned their name to an anti-gay pledge from the National Organization for Marriage. Signing the document commits them to backing a U.S. constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage and to defending the Defense of Marriage of Act in court.

#9 Prop 8 fight continues in California

Litigation seeking to overturn Proposition 8 progressed through the courts this year amid questions over whether proponents have standing to defend the law and whether the sexual orientation of the judge who ruled against the marriage ban should have disqualified him.

In the case of Perry v. Brown, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in January sent the question of whether Prop 8 proponents had standing to defend the amendment in court to the California Supreme Court. The question emerged after state officials declined to litigate on behalf of the same-sex marriage ban.

In November, the California high court issued a unanimous decision that Protect Marriage and other groups who worked to pass the anti-gay initiative in 2008 indeed could continue the case.

Another challenge to U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision emerged in April after the retired magistrate told reporters he’s gay and has been living with a same-sex partner for 10 years. Proponents of Prop 8 said Walker should have recused himself from the case.

But in June, U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled that Walker’s sexual orientation wasn’t a factor in the judge’s decision to rule against Prop 8 and upheld the previous decision. The anti-gay activists appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on whether Walker’s sexual orientation should have disqualified him as well as whether the tapes of the trial should be made public. The appellate court has yet to make a decision on any of these issues.

#10 Solmonese steps down from HRC

HRC President Joe Solmonese announced in August that he would step down after six years at the helm of the nation’s leading LGBT advocacy group. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The head of the Human Rights Campaign announced in August that after six years he would be stepping down as president of the nation’s largest LGBT organization.

The co-chairs of the board of directors of HRC and its sister organization, the HRC Foundation, said Joe Solmonese will remain as head of both organizations until the completion of his contract in March to ensure a smooth leadership transition.

Solmonese oversaw the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 as well as passage of hate crimes protections legislation and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But he alienated many transgender activists in 2007 when he declined to oppose a decision by House Democratic leaders to remove protections for transgender people from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The search committee seeking Solmonese’s replacement is being co-chaired by board members Joni Madison of North Carolina and Dana Perlman of Los Angeles. The replacement has yet to be announced.

HRC President Joe Solmonese will step down at the end of March.(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Human Rights Campaign’s search for a new president began in full force on Nov. 22 when an executive recruiting firm retained by the HRC board issued an eight-page job announcement describing the qualifications and experience sought for the next leader of the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy group.

The release of the job announcement, which is posted on the HRC website, followed an Oct. 3 announcement by HRC that its board had retained Russell Reynolds Associates, a nationally known executive recruitment firm, to assist the board in its search for the replacement of Joe Solmonese.

Solmonese has held the post of president and CEO of HRC and the HRC Foundation since 2005. He announced in August that he would step down from his position when his current contract expires on March 30, 2012.

“The entire HRC board understands the importance of this search to our community, to our continued progress as a movement and to our organization,” said HRC Board Co-Chair Rebecca Tillet.

“That’s why we will run a process that is inclusive and respects the importance of diversity in the candidate pool,” said Andy Linsky, co-chair of the board of the HRC Foundation, HRC’s research and educational arm.

Since Solmonese announced he was stepping down, LGBT activists have been debating HRC’s role in the movement its effectiveness during Solmonese’s tenure.

In an informal survey of LGBT activists in Washington and across the country over the past week, the Blade has found that most believe HRC has done a good job of advocating for LGBT equality on the federal and state level. Leaders of at least seven state and local LGBT organizations said HRC worked cooperatively with their respective groups on joint projects.

Others, including two nationally recognized transgender rights advocates, expressed concern that HRC – as well as other national LGBT organizations – have devoted too much of their time and resources to same-sex marriage efforts at the expense of pushing for non-discrimination laws on the federal, state and local levels. Those expressing this position say non-discrimination laws would have a beneficial impact on far more LGBT people than laws seeking to legalize same-sex marriage.

While they don’t object to spending resources on marriage equality, those expressing this view say HRC and other national LGBT groups are devoting far too little attention to non-discrimination measures, including the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA, a bill pending in Congress that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“I hope the HRC board of directors thinks about this,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “They do some very great things. But they are moving in the direction of marriage being their primary focus,” she said.

Keisling’s view was echoed by Maryland transgender advocate Dana Beyer, a former HRC board member, who said HRC appears to be evolving into a “marriage all the time” organization.

HRC officials have said it is devoting its resources to a wide range of programs and projects in addition to marriage equality. They say many of the projects are aimed at changing the minds of voters and lawmakers in an effort to line up the small number of additional votes in the U.S. House and Senate needed to pass ENDA.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the gay lawmaker and lead sponsor of ENDA in the House, has said the bill has no chance of passing until Democrats regain control of the House. Frank says Republican House leaders won’t allow the bill to come up for a vote, even though a sizable number of House Republicans are expected to vote for ENDA.

HRC supporters acknowledge that many in the LGBT community have questioned HRC’s capabilities and effectiveness, often fueled by HRC critics who say the group hasn’t been able to secure passage of ENDA. Some critics say HRC should have done more 2009 and 2010, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate with a Democratic president in the White House.

Arlington, Va., gay activist Bob Mialovich, an HRC member and contributor who retired recently as a federal government official, called such criticism unfair.

“I can understand peoples’ frustration, but the reality is we don’t have a majority of support in Congress to pass the bills we need to pass,” he said. “If you are not directly involved, you may not be aware of what HRC is doing. What I know is they are doing a lot.”

HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz has said HRC played a key role, along with other gay advocacy groups, in lobbying for passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which authorizes the federal government to prosecute hate crimes targeting LGBT people. Sainz also points to the success HRC and its partner groups have had in lobbying for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

He said HRC worked closely with other groups to facilitate the Obama administration’s issuance of a large number of regulatory changes and federal agency rules that ban discrimination against LGBT people in healthcare, housing and other areas.

In addition to lobbying Congress, the White House and state and local governments on LGBT supportive bills and policies, and its election-related work on behalf of LGBT supportive candidates, HRC supporters point to a wide range of projects carried out by the HRC Foundation. Among them is the HRC Corporate Equality Index, which rates the nation’s Fortune 500 companies on whether their internal personnel policies ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In its latest criteria for companies to obtain HRC’s highest rating in the Corporate Equality Index, the group raised the bar by calling for companies to include gender reassignment surgery for transgender employees in the companies’ health insurance plans. A large number of them have agreed to do so.

Other projects include a Healthcare Equality Index, which rates hospitals and other healthcare facilities on their treatment of LGBT people; a Welcoming Schools Program, that pushes for anti-bullying and other LGBT-supportive school policies; an All Children-All Families project that trains and sensitizes adoption agencies on LGBT families; and a Religion and Faith Program, which encourages LGBT-supportive clergy to speak out on LGBT issues, including same-sex marriage efforts.

Another program trains LGBT students enrolled in the nation’s historically black colleges to become student leaders in an effort to advance LGBT equality on their campuses.

HRC supporters also point to the group’s aggressive press and communications operation, which responds quickly and on a 24-hour basis to breaking developments by providing the media with statements and information on a wide range of issues, including responses to anti-LGBT groups or public officials.

The group’s 990 IRS finance report for 2010, the most recent one filed, shows that HRC and the HRC Foundation had a combined income of $39.8 million for the fiscal year running from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.

With a staff of 150 full-time employees, the group’s revenue of close to $40 million makes HRC the largest national LGBT advocacy group. The group also owns its own office building in downtown Washington, an investment HRC officials and supporters have said helps the group advance its mission.

The building, among other things, houses a community event space that HRC calls the Equality Center, which often is used by local D.C. area LGBT organizations. The building includes a multimedia production facility. HRC says the building also generates income through the renting of surplus office space to outside groups and firms. The D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue has assessed the value of the building for 2012 at $16.6 million, an increase from its 2011 assessed value of $14.4 million.

‘Surplus of ill will’

Despite its income and broad range of programs, some critics say HRC has worked at cross purposes with other national and state LGBT organizations. In a development that created a stir among some activists, veteran gay rights advocate Matt Foreman, the former executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and former head of New York’s statewide LGBT group Empire State Pride Agenda, wrote a strongly worded critique of HRC that was published last month in two widely read LGBT blogs.

“The reality is that we are two separate movements: the Human Rights Campaign and everyone else,” Foreman wrote. He said that while HRC and its leaders and staff have accomplished many important things, “the cause of LGBT equality has suffered because of a deficit of trust and a surplus of ill will between HRC and the rest of the movement.”

Foreman did not respond to a call from the Blade seeking to discuss further his criticism of HRC.

Leaders of statewide LGBT advocacy groups contacted by the Blade in California, Illinois, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania and D.C. each said they have an amicable working relationship with HRC. Although they declined to comment directly on Foreman’s views about HRC, the officials said it was not uncommon for LGBT advocates to disagree over strategy and tactics but that the groups they work with – including HRC – have always worked through the disagreements.

Rebecca Isaacs, the recently named executive director of the Equality Federation, a national group that represents LGBT advocacy organizations in the states, has been involved in LGBT movement groups on the national level since the 1980s, including her role as political director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

“HRC is part of the world of people with expertise on a lot of things,” Isaacs said, adding that Equality Federation is working with HRC on a number important issues occurring in the states. “We are dealing with 50 states, each with different people doing different things. My question is who wants to help? I’m not in any camp.”

Bil Browning, publisher of the Bilerico Project, an LGBT blog that published Foreman’s commentary criticizing HRC, said he was among HRC’s strongest critics in past years. But he said he has seen what he considers a major change for the better by HRC under Solmonese’s leadership.

Among other things, Browning said Solmonese greatly improved HRC’s relations with state LGBT organizations and significantly boosted HRC support for state and local initiatives. He said he saw this first hand as one of the leaders of the state LGBT group in Indiana, where Browning lived before moving to D.C.

According to Browning, HRC provided him with important support when he coordinated a successful effort to pass a non-discrimination ordinance in Indianapolis that includes protections for LGBT people.

“And as Indiana was fighting its marriage amendment battle, who was one of the first groups to stand up and say do you need cash, do you need polling, what do you need? It was HRC,” Browning said.

“I have to admit that for all my quibbles with HRC and some of the various stuff that they’ve done over the years, LGBT rights wouldn’t be as far as it is in Indiana without them,” he said.

Veteran gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein of D.C. was among some activists who viewed Foreman’s criticism as reflecting disagreements within the LGBT movement over tactics and strategy.

“While I agree with some of what Matt Foreman writes I think he needs to take some personal responsibility for the movement not being in sync,” said Rosenstein. “As he says, he had the opportunity to lead a national organization and it sounds like he still wants all things his way. I have often criticized HRC and I agree they should be more open and work more closely with the larger LGBT community. My hope is that they first do a truly open and wide ranging search for a replacement for Joe Solmonese.”

Longtime D.C. gay and Ward 8 community activist Phil Pannell, who has advocated for LGBT support within the city’s African-American community, said he’s been an HRC member for many years and thinks HRC does good work on the local and national level.

“I have seen HRC reach out the black community,” he said.

Rick Rosendall, vice president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C., said he is troubled over what he called “internecine sniping” over HRC in the LGBT movement.

“The reality is that all LGBT activists and donors do not share the same goals, priorities and approaches.” He said GLAA and HRC “haven’t always seen eye to eye, but we have had a mutually respectful and productive relationship for many years.”

He added, “HRC does a lot of useful things, but if someone doesn’t like them, there are plenty of other groups to support…. HRC has a large and loyal donor base, and its headquarters is not going to crumble because of one more harsh op-ed. Any movement as diverse as ours is inherently messy. Deal with it, folks.”

Retiring Rep. Barney Frank spoke to the Blade this week about a wide range of topics, including the state of the LGBT movement and his future plans. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who announced last week that he won’t run for re-election next year, said the LGBT community has seen an “enormous” amount of progress during his more than 30 years in Congress and would achieve close to full equality in 12 years.

“I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so,” he told the Washington Blade in an interview in his office on Tuesday.

“That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally,” he said. “I don’t think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.”

Frank said he became the first member of Congress to voluntarily disclose he was gay in 1987, six years after taking office in 1981, after he determined staying in the closet was too constraining on his personal life.

“I got there and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted,” he said. “But it didn’t work. I found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life.”

Frank said that during the years he withheld disclosing his sexual orientation, both as a congressman and a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, he promised himself that he would never hold back on his strong political support for LGBT rights in an effort to conceal his status as a gay person.

“I remember my thought process was, well I can’t be honest about being gay. I wouldn’t win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive,” he said.

In a wide-ranging discussion of his views on how the LGBT movement should push for civil rights legislation in Congress and through the states, Frank expressed in the blunt way he has been known to do that LGBT activists should use the most effective means of moving their agenda, even if that sometimes means making compromises.

He described as “political suicide” the call by some LGBT activists and bloggers for withholding support for President Barack Obama on grounds that Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress didn’t push harder for more LGBT legislative advances, including the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which remains stalled in Congress.

Frank said he has seen important advances in the support for transgender rights in Congress and several states, including Massachusetts, which just passed a transgender non-discrimination bill that includes protections in employment, housing, credit and adds transgender protections to the state’s hate crimes law.

But Frank noted that the bill passed after transgender leaders and their supporters in the legislature agreed to a compromise that eliminated public accommodations protections from the bill. Lawmakers supportive of the bill said they would add public accommodations protections to the law as soon they can line up the votes in the legislature needed to do so.

Frank dismissed as “ridiculous” the attacks by some LGBT activists who called the compromise unacceptable and an outrage against the transgender community.

“That is an example of their political stupidity,” he said, noting that the compromise bill provides employment and housing protections that otherwise would not have passed if advocates held out for an all-or-nothing bill.

Frank described as “reasonable” a proposal by LGBT advocates that President Obama issue an executive order requiring companies that receive federal contracts in the defense and other industries to provide non-discrimination protections for their LGBT employees.

“I think that’s a reasonable thing to keep pushing for,” he said. ”There are limits to what you can do. You don’t want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think that’s worth pushing for if it’s carefully done.”

A transcript of the Blade’s interview with Rep. Frank follows. The interview was conducted on Dec. 6, 2011, in Frank’s Capitol Hill office.

Washington Blade: To what degree have you seen support for LGBT equality increase in the U.S. Congress since you took office as a congressman in 1981?

Rep. Barney Frank: Oh, enormously. When I first got here, the first vote we had was in 1981 when the House – as it was able to do then by a one-house vote – overturned the D.C. Council’s repeal of the [city’s] sodomy law. It was a heavy vote against us. And we’ve just made very great progress since then. It’s to the point where now — and it’s unfortunate that it’s gotten very partisan. The country has gotten much better in its view on LGBT rights. The Democrats have gotten better — equal to or ahead of the country. But the Republicans have gotten much worse. So it’s now one of the major partisan issues. It’s unfortunate how terrible the Republicans have become. You saw that in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ for instance, in the House. But in general the expectation is the Democrats in the House will be supportive on most issues, and I think that reflects the country.

Blade: What prompted you to come out as gay in 1987?

Frank: First, my personal life. I’ve known I’ve been gay since I was 13. I lived a very repressed life until then. And then, because I had emotional and physical needs that needed an outlet, I got here and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted. But it didn’t work. I just found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life. So it was primarily my personal life. But it was also the secondary factor that I thought it would be helpful in fighting prejudice. One of the things I realized about talking a lot about gay rights – and increasingly by then people knew I was gay. I wasn’t out publicly. I realized they did not understand what it was like, what we went through, what the pain was. But that’s because they didn’t know anybody. It’s hard to sympathize with people when you don’t know who they are. You don’t see what it is.

Blade: Unlike other gay public officials who were in the closet, you didn’t seem to hold back in your public support for gay rights.

Frank: It was quite the opposite. I decided to run for office in 1972 – to run for the state legislature in Massachusetts. And I remember my thought process was, well I can’t be honest about being gay. I wouldn’t win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive … There were then two gay groups, a men’s group and a women’s group. And they wrote to everybody who was running for the state legislature in 1972. It was just a couple of years after Stonewall. And for the first time you had organized gay political activity. And they said, ‘Would you introduce legislation to provide legal equality for gay people, which was the term we used then. And I said yes. I was the only one who said yes. So that’s how I became the prime sponsor of the legislation. I was the only one. But I was glad to take on the role. So, yeah, I clearly decided I would not in any way retreat. And I remember the first time I testified on gay rights. I was 32, unmarried. And I thought, well, what are they going to think? And my answer was, oh, the hell with what they think. I was prepared to sacrifice enough not to come out. But I was not prepared to degrade myself by pretending to be anything less than supportive of who I was.

Blade: When you came out in Congress did you sense you were being held back from advancing because of a so-called glass ceiling due to your sexual orientation?

Frank: I think there was one at first. I think, now, yes and no. Certainly it didn’t interfere with my being the chair of a very powerful committee and being, frankly, because of the circumstances, one of the major leaders. In fact I said that on the floor. I remember saying when we were talking about the hate crimes bill, ‘I’m a big shot now but I used to be 15 and I remember what it was like.’ … If I were running for a leadership position it might be a problem in the House. Some of the Democrats come from the few areas left where they’re afraid. But now we have almost all the Democrats on board. We have a handful that aren’t. So no. And the other – I assumed it would have been a bar to [running for] the Senate. But in 2004, when we thought John Kerry might get elected president, we had a mock election for the Senate in Massachusetts. Five of us were running – Congressman Markey, Congressman Lynch, myself, then Congressman Meehan and Martha Coakley, now the attorney general. And we were running and I’ve had people who worked in the other camps say I would have won that race. So if Kerry had been elected president I believe I would have been elected to the Senate in 2004. So I mean other than the presidency and the vice presidency I think there’s probably not one.

Blade: Where does the LGBT movement stand now in its ability to advance legislation?

Frank: We’ve gotten better. I think there’s two good examples of great victories. They didn’t involve demonstrations, they didn’t involve marches. They involved some discretion and some compromising. Deferring to [New York Governor] Andrew Cuomo’s leadership politically in the battle for [same-sex] marriage in New York, and he told them how to do it. And then accepting the exclusion of public accommodations from the trans [non-discrimination bill, which passed in November 2011] in Massachusetts.

Blade: The trans bill in Massachusetts became an issue to some—

Frank: An issue to whom?

Blade: Some of the more outspoken trans activists, who say they are outraged because it includes employment, housing and other protections but not public accommodations protections.

Frank: No, I would say ridiculous trans activists who are outraged, who would prefer there be no rights for employment than this. That is an example of their political stupidity. They may be very bright about other things. I don’t see how anybody can see that as a rational argument right now, nor, by the way, do I think it represents five percent of our community. I don’t even think it represents a majority of the transgender people. How can it possibly be – and by the way, these people don’t know history, because I will tell you that Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders would not for a second have hesitated to accept that deal. They were constantly moving toward making things better but those are both examples, I think, of the political maturity of our community – of knowing how to go about it. And I think as a result we are on the verge – well, by the way, we did the same thing with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We didn’t abolish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We didn’t ban statutorily discrimination against us in the military. We banned the requirement that we discriminate. And there was some, ‘Oh, gee, how do you know they maybe will not do it fairly?’ I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so. That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally. I don’t think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.

Blade: Are you concerned about the provision of DOMA – if it’s repealed – that says the states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states –

Frank: That doesn’t mean anything. I’ve said this all along. That doesn’t mean anything at all. The court will disregard that. Quite frankly people don’t understand that. That’s a matter of interpreting the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will tell Congress, ‘Mind your own business.’ It has nothing to do with you. That is totally meaningless, that section. It doesn’t mean a thing. Congress cannot affect by statute a constitutional interpretation. By the way, the Constitution always was that states did not have to recognize that. When the Supreme Court threw out the law against inter marriage racially it wasn’t based on one state having to recognize another state’s marriage. The assumption was in 1967 that Virginia, which is where the case was brought, didn’t have to recognize a marriage in Europe. So everybody agreed – an African American and a white person can get married in New York and Virginia can disregard it. It was thrown out on constitutional segregation grounds. So in the first place, that’s been the Constitution anyway. Secondly, if it was, Congress would have nothing to do with it. It’s an entirely meaningless provision.

Blade: Some, like Hillary Clinton when she ran for president in 2008, said her husband signed DOMA because it would act as a safeguard against passing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Frank: That’s nonsense. Her husband signed it because he was afraid politically about what would happen if he didn’t sign it. It has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment. He signed it because it was politically necessary to sign it. And I understood that. The Republicans threw it on his lap three months before the election. [Liberal, gay-supportive Senator] Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] voted for it. He was up for re-election that year and he was afraid of it. It had nothing to do with stopping a constitutional amendment. And the fact is it does not mean anything. And no good lawyer will tell you it has any meaning whatsoever. This is a matter of the Constitution. It would be like if Congress passed a law saying the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean this or that. No, it’s none of our business what it means or not. We can decide for ourselves what it means, and I can govern my vote. But whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels marriage recognition or not is entirely up to the Supreme Court. And clearly up until now they have said it doesn’t.

Blade: Do you have any predictions of what the Supreme Court might do if the Proposition 8 case gets there?

Frank: I think that’s not a good case. I think the better case is Mary Bonauto’s case [the attorney with the LGBT litigation group in Boston, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in court on behalf of a same-sex couple.]

Blade: In your 1992 book, “Speaking Frankly: What’s Wrong with the Democrats and How to Fix It,” you said some liberal Democrats unnecessarily alienated voters by being reluctant to “demonstrate that liberals are patriotic supporters of the free-enterprise system who think that hard work should be rewarded and violent criminals severely punished.” Do some of these things still apply today and do they have any relevance to the gay movement?

Frank: Yes, I still believe it’s a mistake, for example, to insist that every Democrat be for gun control. That’s a great loser for us in most of the country. I’ll vote for gun control. But it’s a great loser. I also believe it has to do with – I’ll go back to marriage in New York and the non-discrimination bill in Massachusetts. Yeah, it’s very, very relevant still. You have to be smart about it, that you engage in political activity to advance your goals, not to feel morally superior.

Blade: Everybody’s talking about the presidential election. Are the Republican presidential candidates as horrible as a lot of gay activists are saying they are on LGBT issues?

Frank: Yes – they are. Romney is a total faker, having said he was going to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy and he’s moved against us on everything, not just on marriage. And Gingrich was the leader of homophobic stuff when he was here. Gingrich was the man who put the Defense of Marriage Act on the agenda in 1996 when he was the Speaker. I don’t know where Huntsman is, but he is irrelevant. It’s the whole Republican Party. On ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ you saw the overwhelming majority of Republicans vote against the defense bill in the House because it included the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ They ordinarily all vote for the defense bill. We did get a couple of votes in the Senate. [Senator] Susan Collins’ [R-Maine] support was very important in that. But in general the Republicans have become a 90 plus percent anti-gay party. By the way, [President George W.] Bush didn’t undo stuff. He wouldn’t do anything good. But I’m not at all confident that a Republican president won’t reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

Blade: Is there a chance that the Congress would block that, even if there’s a Republican-controlled House?

Frank: Well Congress couldn’t reinstate it because they would never get it through the Senate and the president would veto it. But if the Republicans win the presidency they don’t need the Congress. The president could reinstate it by executive order.

Blade: Is it completely settled now that every gay civil rights bill will include gender identity and expression protections or it won’t be introduced, whether it would be ENDA or another bill?

Frank: I think it’s unlikely that it wouldn’t but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will pass. I think you’ll see transgender protections included. We’ve made progress on transgender. But my view is the same in that we still have the problem with the situation where people get naked together. But short of that, I think the next time we have a Democratic House, Senate and president – remember, we can only pass pro-LGBT legislation when we have a Democratic House, Senate and president. We’ve only had that twice since Jimmy Carter left office—two years under Bill Clinton and two years under Barack Obama. That’s the exception, not the norm. So the next time we get a Democratic House, Senate and president we’ll be able to pass a transgender-inclusive ENDA. But like the Massachusetts law, probably not allowing full and unrestricted access to locker and shower rooms

Blade: We get emails and calls from some activists saying the Democrats should have been held to a higher standard, that they should have done more on LGBT legislation during the period that they did have the House and Senate and the presidency under Obama.

Frank: Which was?

Blade: Among other things, ENDA.

Frank: We had a transgender inclusive hate crimes bill and a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ I think that’s pretty good. I wish we had done ENDA. But part of the problem was the community refused to accept the kind of compromise that Massachusetts did. If we had that – one of the things the [House] leadership was worried about was … what are we going to pass the bill for if some of the people who are going to be the beneficiaries are attacking us? So what’s the point of that? People are holding us to a higher standard? Whose standard? Where did you become the standard setter? What we got, as I said, was the president coming out against DOMA and very importantly elevating the level of scrutiny that’s needed for ending discrimination. And we got hate crimes through and we got ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repealed. I think that’s pretty good.

Blade: Many in the community agree with that assessment.

Frank: In general, the people who are complaining — well, what’s their remedy? They’re complaining, what do they want, sympathy? If they’re saying they wish we had more, I do too. Are they saying that’s a reason not to be supporting Barack Obama? That’s political suicide. The next president will probably appoint another Supreme Court justice or two. I don’t see how people can say, oh, we care about the lawsuit for Prop 8, we care about the DOMA lawsuit but let’s make sure that a homophobe will appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

Blade: It’s hard to argue with that.

Frank: Well you raised it.

Blade: Some bloggers and activists have raised it.

Frank: And the answer is that it is suicidal and dumb and self-defeating. Plus, you focus much too much on this. They are a very small percentage of our community and I think that’s a tendency, whether you’re in the media or whether they blog. That is a very small percentage of the community. Do you think most transgender people – Diego would know better than you or I – What do most transgender people in Massachusetts think about the bill?

Diego Sanchez [Frank’s legislative assistant and longtime transgender advocate]: They support it.

Frank: OK.

Blade: A similar situation occurred this year in Maryland when most transgender leaders, including veteran transgender activist Dana Beyer, agreed to a compromise transgender non-discrimination bill that didn’t include public accommodations protections. Beyer was denounced by other trans activists for accepting the compromise.

Frank: Stop paying so much attention to a handful of people with terrible political judgment who are acting out emotionally. They’re only important to you, to be honest. They’re not important me. They’re not important to anyone in the Maryland Legislature.

Blade: What do you think about the possibility of an executive order by President Obama to require defense contractors or any private companies getting government contracts to have a non-discrimination policy for their LGBT employees?

Frank: I think that’s a reasonable thing to keep pushing for. There are limits to what you can do. You don’t want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think that’s worth pushing for if it’s carefully done.

Blade: To issue that executive order?

Frank: For contractors, yeah, using race as a model. The problem we do have is this. Racial discrimination is embodied in the Constitution and we’re not. So there is more power where race is concerned.

Blade: In terms of your own plans, can you say a little about what you plan to do when you leave Congress?

Frank: I’m going to teach, lecture for money, and write.

Blade: And did you say you don’t plan to become a lobbyist?

Frank: Oh, absolutely not. Now I will still be a supporter and an advocate, but I won’t lobby for money. I will continue to work on LGBT issues but not as a lobbyist for money.

Blade: Would you consider going on the board of one of the prominent national gay groups?

Frank: No, I don’t want to go to any more meetings and vote any more. I’ll do what I can do but I don’t want to go on a board. I’m just looking for freedom from that kind of responsibility. But I will continue to be an advocate and strategist.

Blade: Will you consider testifying on LGBT issues before –

Frank: Remember that for the year 2013 I will be under an ethics one-year pause. But I will be picking up again in 2014.

Blade: That’s an ethics requirement on the Hill?

Frank: One year – I can’t talk to my colleagues for a year about business.

Blade: We just saw a photo of you with your partner James Ready at a White House holiday party this week. You’ve been taking your partner to functions for quite a while. Has that caused any complications or negative political repercussions?

Frank: I read a book that was very important by a man named Charles Hamilton. It was a biography of Adam Clayton Powell. When Adam Clayton Powell got elected to Congress, while he was the third African American, he was the first to be self-respecting. The two before him had accepted segregation in the Congress. When Adam Powell got here, I think it was 1943, he was not allowed to use the House restaurant. He was told he couldn’t use either the restaurant or the swimming pool. He said ‘Screw you,’ and he did it. And what he then did, and this is what my view was. I should not do anything just to make a point. But I shouldn’t not do something because somebody else was trying to make a point. So I have insisted with the three partners I’ve had, but particularly with Jimmy Ready, we do everything everybody else does. He goes to the spouses’ lunches. We travel together. We do everything everybody else does. Not to make a point but because that’s what we want to do and I think we have come a long way in acceptance. I spoke earlier this year at the Bank of America in New York to a meeting of a couple of hundred LGBT people who are in the financial services industry, many of them younger. And Jimmy and I were there and Jimmy and I talked to them. And a couple of them, a number of them, said, boy, it really means a lot to us because you’re working in this financial industry, it’s somewhat conservative, can I put a picture of my girlfriend up on the desk? That’s what a woman said. I said, well, if the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee can bring his partner there, sure. And there’s also another reason. It’s a little easier for them to think of us other than this abstract embodiment of rights. I want them to think of us as flesh-and-blood people who love each other and are physical with each other.

Blade: In the course of your role as chairman of the Financial Services Committee, you were dealing with nation’s leading financial and corporate leaders. Did you sense any attempt by these people to take advantage of you because you were gay?

Frank: No, they didn’t dare. I don’t think most of them wanted to be. But early on, Jimmy and I went to in 2007 or 2008 into Manhattan. We had a series of meetings and Tim Geithner was then president of the New York Federal Reserve. And Jimmy went up to take a nap on Tim Geithner’s couch in his office while I had a meeting with him. But at the time, some guy said the Fed doesn’t yet have an affinity group for gay people. So we fixed that up that day. No, I’ve never sensed any problem.

And Hank Paulson, the then Secretary of the Treasury, to his credit, in his book, in the index, you can find Jimmy’s name. We’ve been out to dinner with him and his wife a couple of times. He and I get along very well. He said at one point the negotiations were breaking down, he was worried. And he knew that if he talked to me we could make a deal. And so he sent his two top guys to find me. He said they went looking for Congressman Frank and they found him on the third floor of the Capitol having dinner with his partner Jim Ready, which was just a gratuitous nice reference. But I’ll also tell you what I said. We had the [House Democratic] caucus [meeting] on hate crimes in 2008 when Judy Shepard [mother of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime]. And they asked me about some of the African Americans who were being told by ministers that if we passed a hate crimes bill they would be criminally liable if they said homosexuality was against the Bible, which, of course, is nonsense. So I said let me address this because this has nothing to do with free speech. It’s only a crime if you hit somebody and harm somebody when you commit a crime. So I said let me put it this way. If this bill became law tomorrow it would still be entirely legal to call me a fag. I just wouldn’t recommend it if you were in the banking business. And that was my way of getting it across to my colleagues.

Blade: Is there anything else you’d like to bring up?

Frank: Well there’s one last thing. I think we’re winning. And the public opinion is on our side. But some people say if you’re winning you can take it easy. I say no. When you read military history they say sometimes military leaders make a mistake that they ease up at the point where they’re winning. That’s when you crack down. That’s when you’ve got them on the run. You have to continue to press, because I think we’re on the verge of winning this fight.

Blade: The opponents seem to be saying now, in response to the marriage fight, that society will be seriously harmed if the gay side prevails and gays are allowed to marry. How do you address that?

Frank: And the mainstream media always lets them get away with it. They’re always making these stupid predictions. They never come through. By the way, I give credit to the commandant of the Marine Corps, General [James] Amos, who just admitted that his gloom and doom predictions of six months ago aren’t true. Remember, he’s the guy who opposed repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ He said he was wrong. It was a non-event. But I think we ought to do a better job on that, to get the stupidities that they’ve predicted and show that they weren’t true. I’ve been doing this for a long time. I’ve heard those same predictions about the Equal Rights Amendment for women, about protecting people with disabilities, about gay rights, about race. Any time you talk discrimination they say, well, I don’t dislike those people but it’s going to be chaotic. And it never is. The fact is, unfortunately, given the nature of things, anti-discrimination laws are hard to enforce. The bigots are sophisticated. It’s hard to catch them.

One year from now, American voters will return to the polls to elect their next president. It seems like just yesterday that Barack Obama took the stage in Chicago’s Grant Park after handily defeating John McCain to win the White House.

Obama’s victory represented a historic and iconic moment. And, for the first time, LGBT Americans were along for the ride in a meaningful way. Indeed, one of the Obama administration’s first acts was to post an LGBT section to the official White House website almost immediately upon Obama taking the oath of office. Since then, Obama has mostly honored his promises and commitments to LGBT voters and his support has grown from the symbolic (White House website upgrades) to the bold (refusing to defend DOMA).

Three years later, the 2012 campaign is already well underway, with fundraisers, GOP debates, wildly swinging polls and scandals of the week playing out. Sadly, as Obama and his administration have rolled out pro-LGBT advances — and as Obama himself slowly inches toward an inevitable embrace of marriage equality — his GOP counterparts have moved backward.

From Michele Bachmann’s twisted endorsement of “reparative therapy” to Herman Cain’s schizophrenic views on marriage to Mitt Romney’s laughable flip-flops on our issues, the GOP still doesn’t get it. Just three years after Sen. John McCain granted an interview to the Blade — a first for a Republican presidential nominee — and spoke movingly of his gay role models, the GOP hopefuls aspire to roll back the clock and reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and push for a federal ban on same-sex marriage. This isn’t progress; it’s pandering to the lowest common denominator, something the GOP has turned into a sick art form.

Despite the GOP’s sorry homophobic record, a solid 25 percent or more of gay voters regularly support the Republican presidential candidate on Election Day. As we start the process of evaluating Obama’s record in preparation for November 2012, it’s instructive to look back at candidate Obama’s 2008 promises and words.

Back then, in September 2008, Obama granted the Blade an interview in which he outlined his views. A few highlights follow. Obama:

• criticized President Bush’s record on combating the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and promised to implement a “comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies.”
• promised to “make sure the voices of LGBT people are heard in the White House” and criticized Bush for eliminating the position of liaison to the LGBT community.
• vowed to “work to pass a fully inclusive version” of ENDA and to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act and to enact a federal hate crimes law inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity.

How does Obama’s record stack up? As Obama noted in his interview, much of what he hoped to accomplish hinged on Democratic control of Congress and its priorities. Obama and the Democrats succeeded in passing the hate crimes expansion and, with key Republican support, in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” ENDA, sadly, is another matter. It stalled amid assertions that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t want to subject conservative Democrats to more than one gay-related vote at a time. When “Don’t Ask” repeal turned into the drawn out debacle it did, scheduling an ENDA vote was a non-starter as the clock ran out. Congress should have adopted a more aggressive posture on ENDA and taken better advantage of its large Democratic majorities early in Obama’s term. Once the Republicans retook the House, pro-LGBT initiatives were dead in the water. DOMA repeal never happened, either, but Obama’s Justice Department took the bold and welcome step of refusing to defend the statute in court.

On other promises, Obama did lay out a national HIV/AIDS strategy after holding 14 town hall events in cities around the country that drew several thousand attendees. The strategy is LGBT-inclusive from the very first page in which sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the vision statement. Unfortunately, the nation’s AIDS Drug Assistance Programs have seen a spike in patients stuck on waiting lists. The ADAP waiting lists made national headlines last summer, when, for the first time, the number of people on such lists topped 9,000. ADAP is part of the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program authorized by Congress.

Obama has appointed a record number of openly LGB and, yes, even T people to administration positions, most notably John Berry as head of the Office of Personnel Management. DNC official Brian Bond was named to the role of LGBT liaison, though his job was broader than just LGBT concerns. Bond left that post and Gautam Raghavan took over last month.

Perhaps more importantly, Obama has included LGBT issues in his broader agenda, including extending hospital visitation rights to partners of LGBT patients. One of the most memorable and impactful moments I’ve been fortunate to witness during his term occurred during Obama’s 2009 Pride month commemoration at the White House. In remarks to LGBT attendees, Obama said, “Welcome to your house.” It was a simple gesture, but one that made a huge impact on those in the room, including me. And it neatly sums up Obama’s approach. We are part of his agenda and welcome in his administration. The same cannot be said of the Republican field, with the possible exception of Jon Hunstman, who’s mired in the back of the pack and last week polled at just 2 percent support in Iowa.

But this isn’t a Bill Clinton/John Kerry moment in which LGBT people are stuck voting for the Democrat not because they are true advocates but because the alternative is so much worse. This time around, in Barack Obama, LGBT voters have a presidential candidate who truly supports them and backs up the words with action. Is Obama perfect? Of course not. But he’s battled a severe recession, multiple wars and an opposition party that has said its No. 1 goal is not to fix the economy or find jobs but rather to limit Obama to one term. In that environment, Obama has performed well on LGBT issues and will surely endorse marriage equality in 2013. The Republican nominee remains to be determined, but if it’s any of the announced candidates, then voters concerned about LGBT equality will have an easy decision one year from now.

New policy implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development “strongly encourages” businesses contracting with the organization to have non-discrimination policies in place for their LGBT workers.

The new policy, spelled out in an executive message dated Oct. 11, encourages companies contracting with USAID to go beyond mandatory non-discrimination protections — including protections based on race, religion and gender — and put in place additional policies to prohibit job bias against LGBT employees and other workers.

According to the memo, the agency is making the change to “encourage all USAID contractors and recipients, including those performing solely overseas, to apply comprehensive nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, and any other conduct that does not affect performance.”

The memo notes that the change isn’t mandatory, so contractors aren’t bound to have the policies to continue working with USAID. Still, the policy is likely the first from any U.S. agency encouraging federal contractors to have non-discrimination policies for LGBT workers.

LGBT advocates said the memo is an important step in addressing workplace discrimination, but noted the change doesn’t have a lot of teeth.

Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University who first posted the new policy on her blog, called the change a “breakthrough,” but noted it can’t be enforced.

“Technically it isn’t enforceable in the sense that a contractor who fails to adopt these policies could be cited as out of compliance,” Hunter said. “However, it sends a strong signal that such policies are favored, and creates an incentive for any private company that contracts with USAID to conform its policies to this guidance.”

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said USAID “deserves credit” for observing that taxpayers “should not have to subsidize anti-LGBT discrimination and harassment,” but also noted the change isn’t binding.

“If a USAID contractor fires a qualified employee just because she is lesbian or because he is transgender, those employees will still not be allowed to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor seeking enforcement of the workplace protections encouraged under this new symbolic policy,” Almeida said.

Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, said the new policy is a step in the right direction and could encourage other agencies to follow USAID’s lead.

“I’ve heard that new language in USAID contracts and grants will encourage the agency’s program implementers to follow USAID’s existing policies by extending nondiscrimination provisions to include sexual orientation and gender identity,” Bromley said. “I think USAID deserves a lot of credit for their leadership and hope others will follow.”

Asked to comment on the USAID policy, Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said, “We welcome it.”

LGBT advocates have been pushing President Obama to issue an executive order prohibiting all federal contractors — not just those doing business with USAID — to have non-discrimination policies in place based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Such a policy change would be binding and enforced by the Department of Labor. The Obama administration hasn’t said one way or the other if it will issue the order.

Almeida said the executive order is the best way for the Obama administration to ensure federal contractors have non-discrimination policies for LGBT workers in place and called on the president to issue the order before 2013.

“In order for LGBT workers to have the same workplace protections as all other Americans, President Obama needs to sign an ENDA executive order covering government contractors for all federal agencies,” Almeida said. “Freedom to Work respectfully urges the President to do so during his first term.”

A labor union that bills itself as an organization for “rank and file” workers adopted a pro-LGBT resolution at a recent convention that includes an endorsement for an executive order protecting LGBT people against workplace discrimination.

The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America last week approved the resolution on the need to end anti-LGBT discrimination at its 72nd national convention in Pittsburgh, Pa.

The two-page resolution, titled “End Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation,” says the “most powerful weapon in the bosses’ arsenal is divide and conquer” and workers are strongest when they’re united, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“We all should have the same rights regardless of color, gender, age, or sexual orientation,” the resolution states.”Unity and solidarity are not conditions we take for granted. We must continue to educate ourselves and our co-workers to maintain and strengthen our unity in the face of employer efforts to divide the workforce.”

The second page of the resolution enumerates nine points by which to move forward with an end to anti-LGBT discrimination. The points include opposition to “attempts to codify marriage discrimination,” passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Additionally, the resolution endorses the idea of President Obama issuing an executive order prohibiting federal money from going to contractors that don’t have their own non-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The resolution “[c]alls on the Obama administration to issue an executive order expanding the nondiscrimination provision in federal contracts to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, which would have an extraordinary effect in helping to eradicate discrimination in workplaces receiving federal dollars.”

President Obama supports and campaigned on passage of ENDA, but where he stands on an executive order prohibiting LGBT workplace discrimination is unknown. The Obama administration hasn’t said one way or the other whether it will issue the order.

Chris Townsend, UE’s political action director, said his union has continually adopted standalone pro-LGBT resolution at its conventions, which are now held biennially, for about 15 years.

Townsend said the provision on the executive order was adopted because ”it just struck us as something this White House could do” and union members wouldn’t want their employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. He added he doesn’t know if this resolution is the first to mention such an executive order.

According to the ACLU, the resolution was adopted by voice vote and no delegates rose to object or amend the measure even though it went through the normal convention process in which there was opportunity to comment, support, oppose, or amend the document.

UE is made up of about 35,000 members. Half of them come from the manufacturing sector and half from the service industry. The Pittsburgh-based labor union recently celebrated its 75th anniversary.

Ian Thompson, the ACLU’s legislative representative, called the document “a groundbreaking resolution” and “a powerful statement of support for LGBT Americans, including those in our community who are proud union members.”

“By recognizing the devastating role that employment discrimination plays in the lives of far too many LGBT workers, the resolution is also a reminder of the refrain ‘an injury to one is an injury to all,’ Thompson said. “It is great to see a national labor union come out in such strong, unambiguous support of LGBT people.”

UE’s endorsement of the directive is similar to the support the endorsement has from Mary Kay Henry, who’s openly gay and president of the Service Employees International Union. Henry, who leads the fastest-growing labor union, endorsed the order in an interview with the Washington Blade in June at Netroots Nation.

Lawmakers who’ve endorsed the executive order are gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).