Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is set to introduce legislation next week that would bar discrimination against prospective LGBT parents looking to adopt.

Gillibrand plans to introduce the legislation, known as the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, on Monday, according to her office. It would be first time the measure has been introduced in the Senate.

The bill would restrict federal funds for states if they have laws or practices allowing for discrimination in adoption on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity.

In a statement, Gillibrand hailed her own state of New York for removing barriers in allowing LGBT parents to adopt and said other states should follow that example.

“New York is a leader on ensuring that any family can adopt children and sets a great example for the rest of the country,” Gillibrand said. “By removing all barriers for LGBT families to serve as foster parents, New York State has increased its foster parent pool by 128,000 prospective parents. This legislation would open thousands of new foster and adoptive homes to children ensuring they are raised in loving families.”

Original co-sponsors of the bill are Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). The bill is currently being scored by the Congressional Budget Office and will likely be sent to the Senate Finance Committee.

The Washington Blade previously reported in March that Gillibrand intended to introduce the adoption anti-discrimination bill. She didn’t formally announce her intentions until Friday.

According to Gillibrand’s office, most states permit single LGBT parents to adopt, but some don’t allow LGBT couples to do so. Five states prohibit same-sex couples outright from adopting: Utah, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina and Michigan. Additionally, six states ban same-sex parents from adopting their partner’s children.

More than two dozen states have no laws on adoption for prospective LGBT foster and adoptive parents. According to Gillibrand’s office, the lack of non-discrimination policies in these states leaves potential LGBT parents vulnerable to agencies and case workers’ biases.

Companion legislation is sponsored in the House by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.). As of Friday, the legislation had 76 co-sponsors. Among them is one Republican: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).

In a statement, Stark praised Gillibrand for introducing the legislation in the Senate in time for the celebration of National Adoption Month in November.

“This legislation is about finding solid, permanent and loving homes for the 107,000 foster children waiting to be adopted,” Stark said. “That’s why 76 of my colleagues have joined me in sponsoring the House version.  It is time to put the best interests of children first and remove all discriminatory barriers in our child welfare system.”

President Obama hasn’t yet endorsed the legislation, but the White House has said it supports the goals of the bill.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said, “The president has long believed that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals based on their interest in offering a loving home, not based on discriminatory and irrelevant factors. He recognizes that adoptive families come in many forms, and that we must do all we can to break down barriers to ensure that all qualified caregivers have the ability to serve as adoptive families. While we have not reviewed this specific legislation, we share its goals and hope that the dialogue moves forward on this issue.”

An estimated 400,000 children are in the U.S. foster care system, and more than 107,000 children are waiting for adoption. In 2010, nearly 28,000 youth nationwide “aged out” of the foster care system without finding parents.

Advocates praised Gillibrand for introducing the legislation and said it would help both LGBT parents and children seeking homes.

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, said the legislation would address what she referred to as the “child welfare crisis in our country.”

“More than one-third of the children in foster care could be placed with a family right now, but state laws are eliminating loving and qualified parents simply because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status,” Chrisler said. “Our country cannot continue to deny these children forever families because of the flawed patchwork of state laws.”

Linda Spears, vice president of policy and public affairs for the Child Welfare League of America, joined those praising Gillibrand.

“Far too many children in foster care have little hope for a permanent family and end up being parented by the government,” Spears. “We must support all qualified adults who are interested in providing a nurturing, adoptive home — regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.”

Jeff Krehely, director of the LGBT research and communications project at the Center for American Progress, said Gillibrand’s bill “would have a tremendous and positive impact on people who are LGBT and want to adopt.”

“More importantly, it would really help the hundreds of thousands of kids who are in the foster care system and need forever homes,” Krehely said. “Too many states have laws and regulations that create barriers for LGBT people to adopt, which means more of these kids need to wait a long time before finding a family. This law would remove those barriers and make sure state laws finally catch up to the facts: LGBT people are just as good at parenting as people who are not LGBT.”

The Every Child Deserves a Family Act is modeled after the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 as amended in 1996, which similarly prohibits states from receiving federal funds if they engage in racial or ethnic discrimination when placing children into homes.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday said she plans to introduce legislation that would bar adoption discrimination against LGBT people, although she’s uncertain about when the bill will be made final.

Asked by the Washington Blade whether she’d introduce the legislation, Gillibrand replied, “Yes.”

However, she didn’t offer any other details about the planned measure. Pressed to give an estimate on when she’d make the legislation public, the senator said, “We will let you know when we’re ready.”

A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Senate supporters of the legislation are developing a strategy for success over the coming months, but for time being Gillibrand is focused on building momentum for bills introduced this week that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

In the previous Congress, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced in the House legislation known as the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which aimed to bar adoption discrimination against LGBT families. As it was previously written, the bill would restrict federal funds for states if they have laws or practices that discriminate in adoption on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Brian Cook, a Stark spokesperson, said the House lawmaker is aiming to reintroduce the bill this spring in concert with the Senate companion.

Among the states that prohibit same-sex couples from adopting is Arkansas. In 2008, Arkansas voters approved Act 1, which prevents all cohabitating unmarried couples from adopting children. Florida has a statute that explicitly bars gays from adopting, although the state has discontinued enforcement of the 1977 law after a Florida appellate court struck down the measure.

The House version of the Every Child Deserves a Family Act was modeled after the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 as amended in 1996, which similarly prohibits states from receiving federal funds if they engage in racial or ethnic discrimination when placing children in homes.

Gillibrand’s introduction of the legislation in the Senate will mark the first time ever that the legislation had been introduced in the upper chamber of Congress.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (Blade photo by Michael Key)

House and Senate lawmakers on Wednesday pledged to lift the Defense of Marriage Act from the books upon the introduction of legislation that would repeal the anti-gay law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

In the House, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the legislation, known as the Respect for Marriage Act, along with 108 co-sponsors. Among the supporters are the four openly gay members of Congress: Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.).

On the same day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), among the 14 senators who voted against DOMA in 1996, introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Among the 18 co-sponsors of the Senate bill are Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Feinstein’s introduction of the bill in the Senate marks the first time that DOMA repeal legislation has been put forward in the upper chamber of Congress since the law’s passage 15 years ago.

At a news conference on Wednesday, Nadler denounced DOMA for treating married same-sex couples as “complete strangers” under federal law.

“This defies common sense and harms thousands of married couples who are denied federal responsibilities and rights, including access to programs like Social Security, that other couples can count on when getting married,” Nadler said.

Baldwin said those who have been fighting DOMA since it became law have always known fairness and justice were on their side.

“Repealing DOMA is important symbolically and substantively,” Baldwin said. “Now that we have repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the Defense of Marriage Act remains the only example of overt discrimination against gays and lesbians written into our federal statutes.”

In a separate conference later in the day, Feinstein noted that DOMA bars married same-sex couples from obtaining access to government programs that straight couples enjoy for economic stability.

“Right now, because of DOMA, these couples cannot take advantage of federal protections available to every other married couple in this country,” she said.

Gillibrand said the fight to repeal DOMA is about fairness and called the ability to get married and start a family “a basic human right.”

“Every loving couple in America deserves this right, and no politician should stand in their way,” Gillibrand said. “Marriage is the foundation for strong families; it gives couples the base they need to build a long-lasting life together, start a family, raise children and put their children on the successful path for their future.”

Gillibrand commended states throughout the country for legalizing same-sex marriage and added she “looks forward to the day … when marriage equality is the law of the land from coast to coast.”

Passed by Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton. Both Clinton and the bill’s sponsor at the time, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, have come out for repeal of the legislation.

DOMA has two components: one that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and another that allows states not to recognize such marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

As a result of the component of DOMA known as Section 3, married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income faxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.

At the House news conference, Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said repeal of DOMA is important because “we do not have second-class citizens, and we should not have second-class marriages.”

“To be excluded from marriage … is personal and a real hardship,” Wolfson said. “It is an indignity and it is manifest injustice when it is discrimination practiced by the government.”

In addition to repealing DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act contains a “certainty provision” that would allow same-sex couples married in one juridiction to continue to receive the federal benefits of marriage even if they move to a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

But the proposed legislation wouldn’t cover all relationship recognition that same-sex couples can access throughout the United States. Gay couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships aren’t covered under the legislation.

Married same-sex couples that claim they’ve experienced hardship under DOMA were present at the news conferences to advocate for the law’s repeal.

Pali Cooper, a chiropractor from Corte Madera, Calif., who married her spouse, Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal in California, said DOMA prevented her and her spouse from receiving full rights under the law.

“We’re married in California, but we’re single with the government, and it’s confusing, cumbersome and it’s simply unnecessary,” Cooper said.

Rizzo recalled that when returning from a trip abroad, U.S. Customs forced she and her spouse to re-enter into the United States in separate waiting lines because they weren’t legally married in the eyes of the federal government.

“Right at that moment, it really, really hit me — the difference between, ‘Yes, we were all celebrating being married in California,’ but in the eyes of our government, we were not,’” Rizzo said.

Several lawsuits seeking to overturn the part of DOMA prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex couples are making their way through the courts. Last month, President Obama declared the law unconstitutional and said he would no longer defend the statute against litigation in court, although House Speaker John Boehner has directed counsel to defend the law.

Nadler said opponents of the law shouldn’t wait for the lawsuits to end before moving ahead legislatively.

“Rather than delegating the issue to the court, Congress should repeal DOMA now and bring an end to the harm it causes gay and lesbian families each and every day,” Nadler said.

The House version of the DOMA repeal legislation has new co-sponsors that weren’t seen in the 111th Congress when the bill was first introduced in that chamber, including Frank, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

In the previous Congress, Frank said he wasn’t a co-sponsor of the legislation because he thought the certainty provision of the bill would cause political problems. Frank said he changed his mind because of the importance of educating House members.

“It just seemed to me that that was the more important message to get across at this point,” Frank said. “I’m less worried about the distraction on the question of the recognition by one state violating another state’s right.”

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, explained that Pelosi rarely co-sponsored any legislation during the time when Democrats held a majority in the chamber.

“She sponsored bills very rarely as speaker, and she has fought against discrimination her entire congressional career, regardless of what bills she has sponsored as speaker or leader,” Hammill said.

Despite the new support for the legislation in Congress, passage of DOMA repeal legislation remains an uphill battle to say the least — especially with a Republican majority in the House. A spokesperson for Boehner declined to comment on the Respect for Marriage Act.

Nadler said the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee is “uncommitted at this point” on whether to take up the Respect for Marriage Act.

“We’re going to ask for that,” Nadler added. “The fact that 108 people put their names on the bill initially before it’s introduced shows a considerable amount of support for it, obviously.”

In the Democratic-controlled Senate, passage would be difficult even if all 53 Democrats in the chamber voted to approve the repeal legislation. A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t respond on short notice to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on the bill.

A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said leadership from the Obama administration and education of members of Congress has to happen before DOMA repeal moves forward.

“What is on everyone’s radar is budget: Budget 1, Budget 2, Budget 3,” the aide said. “That’s what everyone is thinking about right now in the Senate. The problem is you’re going to have to get 60 votes in the Senate for this thing, and that’s a high hurdle, especially with 53 Democrats.”

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the president is committed to DOMA repeal and will work with Congress to move ahead on the issue.

“The president has long said that DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress,” Inouye said. “We welcome the introduction of bills that would legislatively repeal DOMA, and look forward to working with lawmakers to achieve that goal.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Even if proponents of DOMA repeal don’t pass the legislation in this Congress, Feinstein said the bill’s supporters will continue working for the bill in the years ahead.

“It’s a long road; we have undertaken to go on that road and make those changes,” Feinstein said. “As has been said, whether it takes one year, or two years, or three years, or four years, we are committed to it.”

Feinstein said she thinks the legislation could pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the panel holds hearings on the issue, although she said she doesn’t have a timeline for when she thinks the legislation would progress in the Senate.

“I tend to think we’ll be successful at that stage and then will come the time for floor consideration,” Feinstein said. “When the hearings are held, nobody can say we pushed anything through, but everybody has the chance to express themselves.”

One major obstacle for passing the legislation is lack of Republican co-sponsors on either the House or the Senate bill.

In the House. Nadler said he’s hoping Republican co-sponsors will sign on to the bill, noting that members of the GOP, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney and gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman have endorsed same-sex marriage.

“The political factors that made for less Republican support are going down,” Nadler said. “I’m confident we will have Republican support over time, and the sooner the better obviously.”

Even though the Senate is under Democratic control, Republican support would be needed to reach the 60-vote threshold to pass the legislation out of the chamber.

Feinstein expressed confidence that Republican support will grow for the Senate version of the bill.

“I think as the community gets to talk with Republicans, and people from Republican areas talk with Republicans, there is growing … support,” Feinstein said.

Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said his organization will work to obtain more Republican support for the Respect for Marriage Act.

“We are confident that there will be a Republican on the House bill, and potentially the Senate bill, and we will be one step closer to ending this failed policy,” Berle said. “We look forward to help building a broad, bipartisan majority that will get repeal of DOMA to the president’s desk, and get the federal government out of the marriage business.”

A group of 21 U.S. senators on Tuesday sent a letter to the U.S Attorney General Eric Holder asking him not to appeal a recent ruling by a California federal court striking down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Kirsten Gillbrand (D-N.Y.) had already issued the letter to the Justice Department last month following U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips’ ruling against the law. The letter sent on Tuesday is identical, but has the names of 19 additional Democratic senators.

“In light of important national security concerns, we respectfully request that you, in your capacity at the Department of Justice, refrain from appealing this decision or the permanent injunction granted against this law,” the senators write.

On Tuesday, Phillips issued an injunction prohibiting the federal government from enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a result of her ruling in September. The Justice Department has 60 days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision.

The full text of the letter follows:

October 12, 2010
Dear Mr. Attorney General,

We are writing to bring to your attention the recently issued decision of Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court of the Central District of California in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, which declared that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) underlying law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and free speech, thereby rendering DADT unconstitutional.  In light of important national security concerns, we respectfully request that you, in your capacity at the Department of Justice, refrain from appealing this decision or the permanent injunction granted against this law.

The following quote from the judge’s decision captures the overwhelming reason why the decision should stand:  “Among those discharged were many with critically needed skills … Far from furthering the military’s readiness, the discharge of these service men and women had a direct and deleterious effect on this governmental interest.”  As one of many criteria that the Justice Department will examine in deciding whether to appeal the permanent injunction to this policy, we ask that you examine whether or not an appeal furthers a legitimate governmental interest.  We would say any appeal does not.

Additionally, DADT harms military readiness, as well as the morale and the cohesiveness of our armed forces, at a time when our military’s resources are strained and unity is critically important.  For every person discharged after ten years of service, six new servicemembers would need to be recruited to recover the level of experience lost by that discharge. This not only weakens our military, but neither is it an effective use of our government resources or taxpayer monies.

President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have all publicly advocated for the repeal of this harmful law.  There is no legal or military justification and not one shred of credible evidence that supports continuing the discriminatory DADT law, and considering the guidance of the commander-in-chief and the nation’s top two defense officials, we urge you to refrain from seeking an appeal.  The federal court decision was a step in the right direction, and we are confident that the Senate will take the ultimate step by voting this fall on the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to permanently lift the ban on gays in the military. Although we understand that only action by Congress can bring real finality to this issue, we believe an appeal of the recent federal court decision could set back those congressional efforts.  Therefore, we request your assistance in ensuring that we can eradicate this discriminatory law permanently and urge the Justice Department to choose not to appeal any court decision that would keep this law in place.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Senators:

Udall

Gillibrand

Kerry

Schumer

Burris

Whitehouse

Landrieu

Sanders

Merkley

Shaheen

Johnson

Franken

Boxer

Feingold

Lautenberg

Durbin

Menendez

Bennet

Mikulski

Sherrod Brown

Cardin

Colorado Senator Mark Udall (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Two U.S. senators at the forefront of efforts in Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are circulating a petition among supporters urging the U.S. Justice Department not to appeal a recent court ruling against the 1993 law.

On Monday, the campaigns for Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) sent out an e-mail blast asking supporters of open service in the U.S. military to sign a petition against a possible appeal while calling ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” an ”outmoded law that hurts our military readiness.”

“Too many brave men and women have been hurt by ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” the letter states. ”We must not lose one more service member because of this nonsensical law. As the judge ruled, ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] actually hurts our national security — and that is unacceptable at a time of two wars.”

In September, a federal district court in California determined in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers.

The Justice Department has already issued an objection to the military-wide injunction against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that plaintiffs have proposed as a result of winning the case.

However, U.S. District Court Virginia Phillips hasn’t yet entered judgment for the lawsuit and there is no set time for her to take that action. Once she enters judgment, the Justice Department will have 60 days to make a decision on whether or not to appeal the case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Udall letter says an appeal from the Justice Department would undermine efforts in Congress to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Senator Gillibrand and I understand that only action by Congress can bring real finality to this issue,” the Udall letter states. ”However, we believe an appeal of the recent federal court decision could set back efforts in the Senate to repeal ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell.']”

Last month, the Senate was unable to debate major defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language because a vote of cloture on moving forward with the bill failed by 56-43. The votes of 60 senators were needed for the legislation to come to the Senate floor.

The Udall and Gillibrand petition comes on the heels of a letter the senators sent to the Justice Department advising the administration not to appeal the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” decision. A similar letter signed by 68 U.S. House members was also made public last month.

Udall and Gillibrand are circulating their letter among U.S. senators in hopes of finding more signatures to make a stronger statement to the Justice Department. A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the letter currently has 16 signatures.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (Blade photo by Michael Key)

In the letter, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) argue that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unjustified as they ask the Justice Department not to appeal the California federal court decision in case of Log Cabin v. United States.

“There is no legal or military justification and not one shred of credible evidence that supports continuing the discriminatory ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] law, and considering the guidance of the commander-in-chief and the nation’s top two defense officials, we urge you to refrain from seeking an appeal,” the senators write.

Additionally, Gillibrand and Udall say an appeal could interfere with efforts in the U.S. Senate to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said the majority leader intends to file cloture this week on defense budget legislation to which repeal language is attached for a vote on Tuesday.

“Although we understand that only action by Congress can bring real finality to this issue, we believe an appeal of the recent federal court decision could set back those congressional efforts,” Gillibrand and Udall write. 

Tracy Schmaler,  a Justice Department spokesperson, said the department is “reviewing the letter.”

The full text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Attorney General,
 
We are writing to bring to your attention the recently issued decision of Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court of the Central District of California in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, which declared that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) underlying law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and free speech, thereby rendering DADT unconstitutional.   In light of important national security concerns, we respectfully request that you, in your capacity at the Department of Justice, refrain from appealing this decision or any permanent injunction which may be granted against this law in the near future.
 
The following quote from the judge’s decision captures the overwhelming reason why the decision should stand:  “Among those discharged were many with critically needed skills … Far from furthering the military’s readiness, the discharge of these service men and women had a direct and deleterious effect on this governmental interest.”  As one of many criteria that the Justice Department will examine in deciding whether to appeal a potential permanent injunction to this policy, we ask that you examine whether or not an appeal furthers a legitimate governmental interest.  We would say any appeal does not.
 
Additionally, DADT harms military readiness, as well as the morale and the cohesiveness of our armed forces, at a time when our military’s resources are strained and unity is critically important.  For every person discharged after ten years of service, six new servicemembers would need to be recruited to recover the level of experience lost by that discharge. This not only weakens our military, but neither is it an effective use of our government resources or taxpayer monies.
 
President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have all publicly advocated for the repeal of this harmful law.  There is no legal or military justification and not one shred of credible evidence that supports continuing the discriminatory DADT law, and considering the guidance of the commander-in-chief and the nation’s top two defense officials, we urge you to refrain from seeking an appeal.  The federal court decision was a step in the right direction, and we are confident that the Senate will take the ultimate step by voting this fall on the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act to permanently lift the ban on gays in the military. Although we understand that only action by Congress can bring real finality to this issue, we believe an appeal of the recent federal court decision could set back those congressional efforts.  Therefore, we request your assistance in ensuring that we can eradicate this discriminatory law permanently and urge the Justice Department to choose not to appeal any court decision that would keep this law in place.
 
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Is going gay good for your re-election prospects?

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) are among the incumbents seeking re-election hoping that their support of LGBT rights will translate to campaign donations and victory in November.

Both lawmakers championed repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as one of their signature issues, and both have promising prospects for their re-election chances even though they’re competing in challenging races.

In the House, Murphy has been outspoken on the issue of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and sponsored repeal legislation. He’s made numerous media appearances to denounce the law and was featured last year on the cover of The Advocate.

Upon taking up repeal legislation last year, the Iraq war veteran took a bill with about 150 co-sponsors and brought a measure to the floor of the House that earned 234 votes.

Similarly, Gillibrand has been a strong proponent of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since her appointment last year to the U.S. Senate.

She last year floated the idea of introducing an amendment that would have instituted an 18-month moratorium on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Additionally, Gillibrand is credited with working with Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin to initiate hearings on the issue.

Matt Canter, a Gillibrand spokesperson, said the senator’s advocacy work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is based on a strong personal conviction.

“My boss has helped champion the issue because she felt that now is the time to right this wrong,” he said. “She felt we needed leadership in the Senate to breathe life into this issue, to begin the debate on this issue.”

Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, called Murphy and Gillibrand “real champions of repeal” and emphasized the importance of Murphy’s status as an Iraq war veteran on the issue.

“Our campaign has been about putting veterans front and center, and when you have someone like the congressman — with a distinguished history of military service — it is profoundly impactful on both his colleagues and public opinion,” Cole said.

As LGBT civil rights advocates have expressed gratitude for Murphy and Gillibrand for tackling “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the lawmakers are facing a more favorable climate as they seek re-election this fall than many other incumbents.

Murphy is running in Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district, which, prior to his election in 2006, had been represented by a Republican since 1993. Murphy is facing in the general election Republican Mike Fitzpatrick, the former U.S. House member whom Murphy unseated by less than 1 percentage point.

Still, many political observers are predicting that the Democratic congressman is likely to achieve victory this fall.

The Cook Report identifies the race as “lean Democratic” and the Rothenberg Political Report calls it “Democrat favored.” Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball identifies the race as a “toss-up.”

Meanwhile, Gillibrand is looking at a relatively smooth race this fall even though she was once considered vulnerable because she had been appointed to her seat last year by New York Gov. David Paterson and has never won statewide election.

One by one, possible serious challengers have decided they wouldn’t throw their hats in the ring — despite earlier speculation that they would do so.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who had earlier sought to challenge Gillibrand for the Democratic nomination, announced late last year that she wouldn’t pursue a run. Earlier this year, Harold Ford Jr., a Democratic former U.S. House member who represented Tennessee, said he was considering running, but later decided against it.

On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former New York Gov. George Pataki were once seen as possible Gillibrand challengers, but both announced they wouldn’t pursue the seat.

Rev. Al Sharpton, a black civil rights activist and former Democratic candidate for president, reportedly told the New York Times earlier this year that Gillibrand has seen a remarkable amount of good fortune in her re-election bid.

“I think Gillibrand either has mystical powers or the best luck I have ever seen in politics,” he was quoted as saying in an April article.

But how much impact advocating for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is having on these incumbent lawmakers remains in question.

Canter expressed skepticism about a correlation between Gillibrand’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and her lack of serious competition this fall.

“I don’t know why Rudy Giuliani decided not to run for Senate,” Canter said. “I don’t know if ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is the reason.”

Trevor Thomas, a spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the impact of supporting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has so far been minimal on incumbents.

“SLDN looked at those [lawmakers] who voted for the Murphy amendment and are also facing tough re-election fights,” Thomas said. “We understand that includes about 25 members, and only two of them have been hit by their opponents for voting for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal.”

Thomas said that attacking an incumbent House member for their “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” stance isn’t “the strongest winning point by Republican opponents in this election season.”

But Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said advocating for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal helped put both Murphy and Gillibrand into more favorable positions this fall.

“Taking a highly public leadership role in attacking [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is likely to reap substantial political reward in the form of campaign contributions from the national LGBT community,” Pinello said.

Pinello noted that Murphy’s advocacy on repeal made him particularly attractive to LGBT donors seeking to advance their cause.

“Murphy has appeared on ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ and other liberal media outlets as this hunky straight knight in shining armor coming to the rescue of lesbian and gay damsels in distress,” Pinello said. “How in the world can they not reward him with anything less than tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions?”

Pinello likewise called Gillibrand a “wily fundraiser” and said he expects that she would use her advocacy against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to “her campaign’s best financial advantage.”

Still, Pinello noted a distinction between taking on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a law that polls show an overwhelming number of Americans oppose, as opposed to taking on more challenging LGBT issues, such as repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Pinello said he doesn’t believe any member of Congress is taking on DOMA as forcefully as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” even though the federal law prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriage affects more LGBT Americans.

“The principal reason for such [a] legislative leadership vacuum is that attacking DOMA would appear to most constituents to be endorsing same-sex marriage, which only about a third of Americans support outright,” he said. “So only Democratic incumbents in extremely safe districts or states would risk acting so boldly. And there are relatively few of those in this election cycle.”

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) is optimistic about repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in lame duck. (Blade photo by Michael Key).

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced a bill Wednesday to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” all the while acknowledging Congress may have to settle with a moratorium as legislative action this year as opposed to outright repeal.

Lieberman touted the legislation — the first Senate bill introduced to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — during a press conference on Capitol Hill.

“This legislation will repeal the current policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation in America’s armed forces and offer in its place a policy of equal opportunity to serve and defend our country,” he said.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would repeal the 1993 law barring gay, lesbian and bisexual people from open service in the U.S. military and put a non-discrimination policy in its place.

To accomplish repeal, the bill would require the Pentagon working group considering “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to submit recommendations on how to best repeal the law to Defense Secretary Robert Gates no later than 270 days after the bill is enacted.

Additionally, the bill would require Gates to issue regulations to enact the bill within 60 days of receipt of the working group’s report, and it requires the secretary of each military department to revise regulations as needed no later than 60 days after that.

Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the Senate bill is identical to House legislation, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), except the Senate bill gives the Pentagon a longer time for implementation.

“This bill reflects the fact that the military wants some time to do the best transition possible to open service,” Nix said.

The Senate bill has 11 eleven co-sponsors. Many appeared at the press conference with Lieberman, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Levin said he’s been opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since before it was enacted into law in 1993.

“It diminishes our readiness, it diminishes our strength, it denies us, robs us of the men and women to the defense of our country,” he said.

To follow up on the hearing that took place last month, Levin said he’ll hold another hearing on gays in the military March 18 with an outside panel of experts.

Burris, who’s black, called the introduction of the legislation a “very personal issue of basic fairness,” recalling how his family members were once only allowed restricted roles in the U.S. military.

“For all their skills, all their talents, their intelligence and their valor, they were forced to chose between two or three roles when they were in the service: working as a cook, or digging ditches or driving trucks,” Burris said. “That memory is especially crisp as I stand here today to bring an end to this discriminatory policy.”

Gillibrand vilified “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for what she said was its extremely harmful impact on the U.S. military.

“This policy is one of the most corrosive, destructive policies to the strength of our armed services, to our military readiness, to our national security and to the morale of our troops,” she said.

Gillibrand said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was particularly detrimental for women in the armed services.

She said women represent 17 percent of the armed services, but more than one-third of all dismissals, including more than one-half in the Army, are female.

Absent among the co-sponsors is any Republican senator. Despite this initial lack of GOP support, Lieberman said he anticipates Republican support for the legislation as it moves forward.

“I believe we’re going to have some Republican support in this,” he said. “There’s a core group that is openly — that is actively concerned.”

While touting the standalone legislation, Lieberman and Levin said the defense authorization bill would be the most likely legislative vehicle to advance repeal.

The lawmakers also said that if they can’t find the votes this year to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they would instead try to enact a moratorium on discharges.

During the markup for the defense authorization bill in May, Lieberman said the committee would try for a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee first on repeal, and if that’s unsuccessful, committee members would pursue a moratorium.

“We’re going to try for a full repeal,” Lieberman said. “If the votes aren’t there in committee or on the floor, a moratorium, I think, is a good interim step and I’ll certainly be open to it.”

But Nix said his organization is still pushing for outright repeal this year as opposed to a moratorium.

“I think it’s premature to talk about the moratorium because we have, as the chairman said, until May to really focus on full repeal, so let’s try to do that first,” Nix said.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, heralded the introduction of Lieberman’s bill as “continuing the momentum to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year.”

“His introduction of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 is a bold, patriotic move that will long be remembered as key to removing the stain of the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law from the U.S. code,” he said.

This week, members of New York’s LGBT community and its leaders lashed out at a pair of politicians for broken promises and perceived duplicity. Is this the next wave of LGBT activism? Are we finally getting angry enough not to take it anymore?

A political action committee, Fight Back New York, which was founded in response to the defeat of same-sex marriage in the state’s senate in December, launched its campaign against the 30 Republican and 8 Democratic senators who caused the loss. The group’s one and only aim is to defeat these politicians and to replace them with pro-equality legislators by November. It has identified its first target. As Bill Smith, an adviser to the committee, explained, “Politicians who deny gays and lesbians basic equality should be thrown out of office, starting with convicted criminal Hiram Monserrate.”

Monserrate was expelled by his colleagues earlier this month following his misdemeanor assault conviction. He had promised his support for the gay marriage bill, but voted against it while jockeying for power in Albany. He is currently running in a special election to regain his seat and the new political action committee is ready to spend generously and campaign tenaciously toward his defeat.

Meanwhile, in his quest to become the next junior U.S. senator from New York, Harold Ford Jr. was aggressively booed and heckled during his visit to the Stonewall Democratic Club on Wednesday. The community has been skeptical of the carpetbagger from Tennessee who had voted to ban gay marriage while serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Ford was interrupted by chants of “No more lies, no more lies” and “snake-oil Harry, go away.”

Although some may find Ford’s reception lacking in civility and Fight Back New York’s focus on defeating rather than supporting political candidates not the best use of resources, the anger and frustration many of us feel should come as no surprise. In spite of all the support and loyalty the community has given to Democrats who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, progress has been painfully slow and opportunities have been squandered.

Take the ongoing debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” for instance. Why is there even a debate?

Poll after poll after poll has shown that a vast majority of Americans have no problem with gay troops serving openly. The rank and file are aware of brave lesbians, gays and bisexuals fighting by their side. Moreover, a comprehensive new study of militaries that allow openly gay service members concludes that a speedy implementation of a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will not be harmful.

Military officials are also coming out in support of Adm. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ call to finally get rid of the discriminatory and harmful law. The top commanding general in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, has said he believes that everyone — gay and straight — should be allowed to serve in the military “as long as we are still able to fight our wars.” He told reporters Monday that the policy has been a “non-issue” to him.

Nonetheless, many in Congress are still hemming and hawing, purposely delaying any action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Those arguing to take it slow, however, did get support from top Army, Air Force and Marine Corps officers who testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that they are not keen on overturning the 17-year-old law. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey argued that “we just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.” Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told lawmakers, “I would encourage your work, mine and that of the working group to be focused on a central issue and that is the readiness of the armed forces of the United States to fight this nation’s wars.” One wonders if their recalcitrance is generational rather than rational; both men are in their sixties.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman did announce, though, that he will sponsor legislation to repeal the ban on lesbian and gay service members. He will be joining Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a fellow member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in advocating for the change in the Senate. He was realistic, however, about the prospects of lifting the ban. On Tuesday, he told reporters, “I’m not kidding myself … of course, I’d like to get it done this year, but it’s going to be hard.” Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and ardent opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” shares Lieberman’s doubt, telling reporters that he doesn’t think there are enough votes to end the law this year.

In other news, there has been incremental progress in the fight to enact same-sex marriage. In Minnesota, three bills relating to same-sex unions were heard before the House’s Civil Justice Committee on Monday. One proposal would allow two consenting adults to enter into “civil union contracts,” regardless of their gender. Another would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states as legally valid in Minnesota. And the third — and most far-reaching legislation — would legalize gay marriage by removing gender-based terminology in existing state statute. Although no votes were taken on any of the bills and no additional hearings are scheduled, the conversation has begun.

Also, on Tuesday, Democrats in West Virginia’s House of Delegates shot down Republican attempts to ban same-sex marriage. The following day, Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler declared that effective immediately, the state would recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and that Maryland agencies should begin affording out-of-state gay couples all the rights they have been awarded in other places. This is good news for same-sex couples who are barred from marriage in Maryland but could easily go to Washington, D.C., beginning next month to get married.

Perhaps we should all take our cue from our sisters and brothers in New York and vent our anger and frustration by actively opposing anti-LGBT politicians and wholeheartedly endorsing and supporting candidates and officials who have a proven track record of working for equality and justice for all Americans.

You can follow Erwin on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon.

A leading opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the U.S. Senate on Saturday announced plans to introduce a budget amendment that would cut off funds for implementing the law, according to The Advocate.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) reportedly made the announcement during a speech Saturday at a Human Rights Campaign dinner in New York City.

“Tonight, I am announcing that I plan to introduce an amendment to the budget that will bar the use of funds for the enforcement of this policy,” she was quoted as saying.

The senator reportedly said she has been an opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because the law ”is a threat to the men and women in our armed services, and a threat to our national security.”