Wish you were at the North American International Auto Show right now? Want to live vicariously through other gays lucky enough to attend? See the largest auto show in the world through the queer eyes of gaywheels.com. And for those of us unable to make it to the Motor City to drool over the newest concept cars, there’s some news:

• Did Canada’s conservative Prime Minister just invalidate Pam Spaulding’s marriage? Dan Savage too? NCLR doesn’t think so — and neither does the ACLU, Lambda Legal, Freedom to Marry, or GLAD — but its not clear cut, and we’ll certainly be seeking more answers today.
• Equality Maine to announce in two weeks whether or not they will take same-sex marriage back to the ballots in 2012.
• Teen kids of lesbian moms suffer just as much psychological angst — and no more — than teens raised by opposite-sex couples. No word on whether they say “You just don’t understand me!” as much.
• Remember that Oxford soccer player Lee Steele who sent out that anti-gay tweet about gay rugby star Gareth Thomas? He got the pink slip.
• Jeff Wilfahrt, the father of openly gay soldier, Andrew, killed in action last year — who has become a leader in the fight against Minnesota’s impending ballot measure that will ban marriage rights for same-sex couples in the constitution — is running against GOP Rep. Kurt Bills.

Oh, and speaking of my hometown of Detroit, Janice Daniels, the mayor of Detroit suburb Troy Mich., is back:

We’ll be back again on Monday with more Fast Five Fix! Let us know in the comments bellow what you’d like to see in your fix!

Fla. drum major hazing death a gay bashing?

TALLAHASSEE — A member of the prestigious Florida A&M Marching 100 drum major may have been targeted for deadly hazing because he was gay, say several friends and LGBT organizations, according to a CNN blog.

Robert Champion was severely beaten on a team bus on the way back from a football game in November as part of a ritual hazing. On Monday, family attorney Chris Chestnut revealed that several friends and family members say Champion was gay, and some believe he may have been targeted for more severe treatment than other team members.

“The civil rights community can no longer stand on the sidelines while our sons and daughters continue to suffer in silence,” said National Black Justice Coalition executive director and CEO Sharon Lettman-Hicks in a statement calling for hate crime charges on Monday. “Mr. Champion is one of our own and his death will not be in vain.”

The family is suing the bus company that they allege ignored the attack that a medical examiner ruled a homicide.

Alan Cumming married his partner in New York on the fifth anniversary of their UK civil partnership. (photo by Christopher Macsurak via Wikimedia Commons)

FBI changes definition of ‘rape’ to include men

WASHINGTON — Until recently, the FBI only collected statistics on female victims of rape. With last week’s changes, however, the FBI will now begin including male victims of rape in those numbers.

Last week the FBI changed the definition of rape to ‘any forced penetration,’ to include male victims. This will help authorities better understand the impact of rape on victims, as well as allow the FBI to offer better resources to male victims of rape.

“If you can’t measure it accurately, you can’t monitor it, and you can’t direct appropriate resources to deal with the problem,” said Carol Tracy, executive director of the Women’s Law Project, according to USA Today.

N.C. official resigns over marriage ballot measure

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — The director of elections for suburban Harnett County, N.C. resigned this week in protest of a ballot measure that asks voters to ban legal recognition of same-sex couples in that state’s constitution.

In an interview with influential LGBT blogger Pam Spaulding, former director Sherre Toler, whose county sits adjacent to Fayetteville and Fort Bragg, said she resigned after the legislature forced the ballot measure, saying “I cannot and will not be a party to such actions.”

“Discrimination is discrimination in whatever form it takes,” Toler responded when asked whether or not her analogy of comparing the amendment to voting on interracial marriage was a fair comparison.

Toler expressed hope for the defeat of the amendment and called on other elections officials to follow her lead.

Mizrahi, Cumming each celebrate weddings

NEW YORK — Fashion designer Issac Mizrahi married Brad Goresky, his partner of six years, in New York recently.

“We didn’t want to get married until they said we could in New York,” the Project Runway star told an ecstatic Wendy Williams last week. “We were terrified, so we decided to elope in City Hall.”

Meanwhile, also in New York, Broadway star Alan Cumming married his partner Grant Shaffer on the fifth anniversary of their U.K. civil union, choosing the Soho Grand Hotel over City Hall.

“I just got married!!!!!” the star tweeted over the weekend. “On the 5th anniversary of our wedding in London Grant and I tied the knot again in NYC!!! #eatmericksantorum.”

Two icons of HIV/AIDS activism die

This week, the HIV/AIDS advocacy community lost two major players from the movement.

Unitarian Universalist minister Robert Franke, who in 2009 fought his eviction from a Little Rock retirement community after they discovered he was HIV positive, died Monday at 78. The retired university provost brought attention to issues faced by HIV-positive seniors, a growing demographic as advancements in treatments are made. With the help of Lambda Legal, Franke settled with the company late in 2010.

In addition, Chicago ACT-UP icon Frank Sieple passed away suddenly last week, according to veteran gay journalist Rex Wockner. He was 51.

“I was questioning authority when I was 14,” Sieple told Wockner in an Advocate interview in 1990. “I realized I needed to speak out in the streets if I wanted to see change in my lifetime.”

“We know there are drugs to prolong lives and the knowledge out there to find a cure.”

While marriage advocates are optimistic, New Jersey Guv. Chris Christie is likely to veto the bill. (Photo by Walter Burns via Wikimedia Commons)

One day before the New Jersey Legislature is sworn in and Gov. Chris Christie delivers his State of the State address, leaders of the state Senate and Assembly have announced that they are not only introducing but fast-tracking a bill designed to offer marriage rights to same-sex couples in that state.

The House and Senate bills (respectively numbered A. 1 and S. 1) are expected to be taken up early this year. According to same-sex marriage advocacy organization, Freedom to Marry, “the numbering of the bills reflects the importance which the legislative leaders are giving to the effort.”

The legislative leaders who were scheduled to participate in a Tuesday press conference included Senate President Steve Sweeney, incoming Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, incoming Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, and state Democratic Chairman Assemblyman John Wisniewski.

With Democratic leadership unified in calling for the law’s passage, the bill will likely fare better in the legislature than the 2010 attempt to convert civil unions into same-sex marriage rights for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Both houses will have to secure a two-thirds super-majority to overcome a promised veto by Christie, according to the Star-Ledger.

In 2009, in the waning days of the administration of marriage supporter Gov. Jon Corzine, the New Jersey Legislature debated and killed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage.

“The days are over when marriage equality was the third rail of American politics,” Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein said in a statement. “Today, in a state and nation that supports marriage equality, not standing up for equality is the third rail for prejudice.”

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Lewis v. Harris that same-sex couples must be provided all the same rights as opposite-sex married couples. The high court, however, left the means of doing so up to the legislature. Rather than make marriage gender-neutral, as Massachusetts had, the New Jersey Legislature passed the Civil Union Act in December 2006, offering same-sex couples the same state-level benefits as opposite-sex married couples.

Following its passage, the state commissioned a study on the effectiveness of the law. The 2008 New Jersey Civil Union Commission concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time.” It unanimously recommended enacting marriage in the place of civil unions.

The commission discovered some businesses and institutions that offered insurance and other benefits to opposite-sex spouses of married employees were slow to offer those same benefits to same-sex spouses of those employees in civil unions. According to Garden State Equality, by the end of July 2007, 1 out of 7 couples who had entered into New Jersey civil unions had reported that their employers refused to recognize their civil unions, including DHL, FedEx and UPS, the last of which claimed their contract with the Teamsters Union prevented them from offering the benefits since the civil unions law did not explicitly designate partners entering into the unions as ‘spouses.’

“What New Jersey’s legislative leaders are telling us clearly today is that the Garden State values its gay and lesbian citizens fully, and does not accept treating same-sex couples and their families as second class citizens, as it presently does with civil unions,” said Freedom to Marry campaign director Marc Solomon. “Marriage matters for same-sex couples and their families, both because it says we’re a family through thick and thin in a way that nothing else does, and because it provides a critical safety-net of protections that civil unions do not.”

In July, Lambda Legal filed suit in New Jersey court on behalf of Garden State Equality and seven families headed by same-sex couples stating that the civil unions law violates not only the New Jersey Constitution but the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well.

“We believe in all roads to justice,” Goldstein said on Tuesday. “Whether through the legislature or the courts, however we can win equality, we will.”

Upon the announcement of the bill’s introduction, the entire New Jersey Democratic delegation to the United States Congress signed a joint letter urging their colleagues in the New Jersey state legislature to pass the marriage bill.

Full text of letter from New Jersey Democratic delegation to the United States congress:

Dear Democratic Colleagues in the New Jersey Senate and Assembly:

We, the entire Democratic membership of the New Jersey Congressional delegation, urge you to support the marriage equality bill being introduced by the Democratic leadership in the state Senate and Assembly, along with many sponsors.

New Jersey has a proud history of civil rights leadership, and we must continue our role in pursuing fairness and equality. Other states with a combined population of more than 35 million people already have marriage equality – including our next door neighbor, New York.

Although New Jersey has a civil union law, ample testimony before the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee two years ago demonstrated that the civil union law has not successfully provided equality to same-sec couples in New Jersey. Couples testified that hospitals still refuse visitation and medical-decision rights because they do not consider civil unions to be equal to marriage. Similarly, couples demonstrated that employers continue to refuse to grant equal benefits to civil union partners.

As more states recognize marriage equality, civil unions threaten to become an even less respected and understood alternative to marriage. The 2008 New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time.”

It is important to note that New Jersey enacted the strongest possible civil union law in 2006. Therefore, it is not feasible to “fix” the law short of providing marriage equality. The time has come to end discrimination in marriage. The marriage equality bill in the New Jersey legislature needs your support.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Laurenberg, United States Senator
Robert Menendez, United States Senator
Rush Holt, Member of Congress
Robert Andrews, Member of Congress
Albio Sires, Member of Congress
Steven Rothman, Member of Congress
Bill Pascrell, Member of Congress
Frank Pallone, Jr., Member of Congress
Donals Payne, Member of Congress

Paula Ettelbrick. (Photo by Rex Wockner)

Paula Ettlebrick, former Lambda Legal legal director and International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission executive director passed away at the age of 56 today. Ettelbrick held the top spot at IGLHRC from 2003-2009 and helped build the organization into a visible force around the world.

In July Ettlebrick had been named Executive Director of the New York based Stonewall Community Foundation, which funds grants to LGBT community organizations. She stepped down a month later due to an ongoing battle with cancer.

In addition to her work at Lambda Legal, IGLHRC and Stonewall Community Foundation, Ettelbrick had also served as policy director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Legislative Counsel at Empire State Pride Agenda.

“While Legislative Counsel for the Empire State Pride Agenda she negotiated New York City’s landmark 1997 domestic partnership law with then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani,” said former Empire State Pride Agenda executive director, Matt Foreman. “At the time, it was the nation’s most comprehensive measure in this area, extending to domestic partners all the same rights and benefits offered to spouses under City law.”

Ettlebrick is remembered by many as an important force behind the scenes in many of the LGBT rights movement’s most visible institutions.

“Paula’s extraordinary service to the movement included senior-level posts at Lambda Legal, NCLR, the Task Force Policy Institute, the Empire State Pride Agenda, IGLHRC and Stonewall Community Foundation,” said Andrew Lane, Executive Director of the Johnson Family Foundation. “She also taught on sexuality and gender at the undergraduate, graduate and law school levels. Her contributions to law and policy affecting LGBT lives across the past three decades are simply immeasurable.”

Aside from her advocacy work, Ettelbrick lectured on Sexuality and the Law at New York University Law School as an adjunct professor, and served as lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department of Barnard College, according to the Stonewall Community Foundation.

Ettelbrick was also the mother of three, and served as Family Policy Director at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Policy Institute.

“Paula was possessed of singular intelligence, integrity, ferocity and wit,” said Kate Kendall, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “She was also unfailingly generous and open-hearted. She will be missed as a tireless advocate of the most disenfranchised. But at this moment what I miss most is her passionate and inspiring friendship. We wish her family, especially Marianne, Suzanne, Adam, and Julia, much love and comfort at this very difficult time.”

Lambda Legal released the following about their former legal director:

Lambda Legal Mourns the Passing of Former Legal Director, Paula Ettelbrick

Paula Ettelbrick in an undated photo. (Photo by Rex Wockner)

(New York, October 7, 2011) – Paula Ettelbrick, former Legal Director at Lambda Legal and lifelong activist for LGBT equality and social justice, died today, after a long battle with cancer. Ettelbrick was the first staff attorney at Lambda Legal in 1986 and served as its Legal Director from 1988 to 1993.

Kevin Cathcart, Lambda Legal’s Executive Director, issued the following statement:

“We mourn the loss of one of the pioneers of our movement for equality under the law and a woman who never stopped fighting for social justice. When Paula Ettelbrick came to Lambda Legal twenty-five years ago to fight for the rights of gay men and lesbians, it took not only vision and a passion for justice – it also took courage to stand up in court and in the public eye during that earlier time in our history. Paula was fearless.

“She was among a generation of lawyers, feminists and activists that helped to shape our movement. At Lambda Legal, she fought for the rights of lesbian and gay parents and lesbian and gay students, and helped to shape the strategy that eventually overturned sodomy laws. She continued working for LGBT equality and social justice, serving in many leadership positions after she left Lambda Legal.

“Our thoughts and condolences are with her family and loved ones. We have lost a leader, colleague and friend. We will honor her memory by continuing to work for equality.”

Stonewall Community Foundation released the following statement:

Stonewall Community Foundation Remembers
Paula Louise Ettelbrick
1955-2011

Paula Ettelbrick, a pioneering LGBTQ rights crusader and immediate past Executive Director of the Stonewall Community Foundation, died this morning, Friday, October 7, 2011 surrounded by friends and family after a heroic battle with ovarian cancer.

As a lifelong advocate for LGBTQ people across the globe, Paula will always be remembered for her leadership roles at Lambda Legal, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the Stonewall Community Foundation.

Paula, Stonewall’s first female Executive Director, launched Out In Front New York, a comprehensive training initiative for LGBTQ non-profit leaders and board members, and laid the groundwork for the Foundation’s newest giving circle, Stonewall Professional Alliance, a program which combines monthly giving with community service. Paula championed expanding programming and reaffirming the role of the Stonewall Community Foundation as a thought leader for New York City’s LGBTQ community. In the words of Matthew Ryan, Stonewall Community Foundation President of the Board of Directors, “Paula Ettlebrick has been a champion for our community for decades. Stonewall benefitted tremendously over the past year from her historic perspective and her unique talent in bringing people together. Both the Stonewall membership and the New York City LGBTQ organizations that Stonewall supports offer our deepest condolences to her family and friends.”

Paula spent her life working to address the critical issues facing the LGBTQ community. From 1986 through 1993, Paula was an early staff attorney and Legal Director at Lambda Legal. Paula’s leadership in working to reform family policy law led to significant strides for LGBTQ families across the country and helped make Lambda Legal the nation’s leading LGBTQ legal advocacy group. After Lambda Legal, Paula held positions at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Empire State Pride Agenda and the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force. At the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Paula served as Executive Director from 2003 to 2009 and challenged human rights abuses and discrimination worldwide. Paula taught courses on the law and sexuality at Barnard, Columbia Law School, the University of Michigan Law School, New York University School of Law and Wayne State University. As a professor and widely cited author, Paula’s significant contribution to feminist and queer academia promises to continue inspiring students for generations to come.

In late August, Paula announced she’d be stepping down from her post as Executive Director at Stonewall due to her ongoing battle with cancer. In the words of Interim Executive Director, Richard Burns, “There are countless LGBTQ citizens around the world whose lives are better today because of Paula. Paula was a passionate and powerful advocate for all LGBTQ New Yorkers and a true friend. At Stonewall, we’re grateful for all she did for the foundation and we’ll miss her greatly.”

A memorial service will be announced at a later date.

Mark Bingham, pictured here with partner Paul Holm, helped prevent United Flight 93 from reaching D.C. Those passengers are widely credited with saving the U.S. Capitol or White House on Sept. 11, 2001. (Blade file photo)

Ross Levi, executive director of New York’s LGBT advocacy group Empire State Pride Agenda, worked in the group’s lower Manhattan office in a different staff position at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

In what he describes as the first horrifying hours following the crash of two hijacked jetliners into both World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse, Levi said the ESPA staff joined other New Yorkers in helping survivors and victims any way they could.

“We opened the doors to our offices, which were on 12th Street at the time, to people as they were fleeing the World Trade Center site and coming downtown,” he said. “Many of them came right by our offices and so people were coming in just to use the bathroom and get some water and make phone calls,” he said.

“And in that way we were just a member of the New York family that had to go through this horrible event,” Levi said.

But Levi and other LGBT activists observing the Sept. 11 events as they unfolded said they quickly discovered within a week of the attacks that same-sex partners of those killed, injured or missing in the World Trade Center collapse faced additional hurdles in obtaining government and private sector assistance.

He said ESPA first became aware that same-sex partner survivors were being treated differently when the city and private relief agencies like the Red Cross set up an emergency station on a pier along New York’s Hudson River where people could go to find a family member missing and as yet unaccounted for in the World Trade Center carnage.

“Literally [gay] people had to go there, turn around, go back home and get some paperwork that spouses didn’t have to get to prove a relationship existed,” Levi said. “You were nervous and scared and sad and then you had to go through that. And worse, other people turned them away, even with the paperwork, saying sorry you’re not a family according to our guidelines.”

Activists reflecting on the Sept. 11 tragedy this week said New York City and New York State officials quickly recognized the inequities faced by same-sex partner survivors and took steps to change polices and laws to correct the situation. The changes began to take place, activists, said, following news media reports of the loss of individual LGBT people at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon just outside Washington, which was hit by a third hijacked plane.

“It had such an impact because the loss was about death and relationships,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, an LGBT litigation group, in a 2006 interview with the Blade at the time of the 5th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The grief and loss was the same between heterosexual and same-sex couples, and a perception of this seemed to come through to much of the public,” Pizer said.

Among the victims widely reported on by the media was Mark Bingham, a gay public relations executive and avid rugby player from San Francisco, who was one of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into the countryside in Pennsylvania.

Bingham’s mother said she spoke to him by cell phone after his hijacked plane was believed to be heading toward Washington, D.C. for another terrorist attack. She said she believes her son was part of a small group of passengers believed to have attempted to wrestle control of the plane from the hijackers.

Authorities have speculated that passengers such as Bingham and others most likely intervened to prevent the hijackers from crashing the jetliner into a building in Washington, such as the Capitol or the White House.

Bingham was among the 9/11 victims portrayed in the Hollywood film “United 93.”

American Airlines pilot David Charlebois, who was gay, served as co-pilot onboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked it and crashed it into the Pentagon. (Blade file photo)

Another of the victims widely reported in the media was American Airlines pilot David Charlebois, who was gay and an active member of the National Gay Pilots Association. Charlebois was serving as first officer, or co-pilot, onboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the Boeing 757 jetliner and crashed it into the Pentagon.

All of its crew and passengers perished along with dozens of Pentagon employees working in the part of the building struck by the plane.

Charlebois’ surviving partner of 14 years, Tom Hay, was treated with respect and honor by American Airlines’ top brass and colleagues when more than a dozen uniformed company pilots and flight attendants attended Charlebois’ funeral mass at St. Matthews Cathedral in downtown D.C.

“It was a time when all Americans did come together with a single, united focus,” said David Smith, vice president of programs for the Human Rights Campaign and the national LGBT advocacy group’s media spokesperson at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“And there were extraordinary acts of kindness and recognition that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, i.e., our families need to be protected,” Smith said. “But it also really brought into stark reality how the lack of recognition of our families causes real pain and at times almost insurmountable challenges that families that are protected by law through marriage don’t have to experience.”

Levi said ESPA was pleased when, in response to requests by LGBT advocacy groups and media reports, then GOP Gov. George Pataki issued an executive order in October 2001 that included surviving partners of gay and lesbian victims of the World Trade Center attacks in receiving full spousal benefits from the state’s Crime Victims Board.

“The order marks the first official step taken by any level of government in the nation to address the inequities faced by gay and lesbian survivors of the terrorist attacks in obtaining benefits,” ESPA said in a statement at the time.

The New York State Legislature soon followed suit by passing three separate bills that included same-sex partner survivors in various state benefits to be allocated to 9/11 survivors and their families. One provided state worker’s compensation benefits to domestic partners of 9/11 victims.

Another bill approved by the legislature enabled same-sex partners and their children to be eligible for a newly created World Trade Center Memorial Scholarship Program. A third bill passed by the legislature called on the federal government to include same-sex partners in federal relief programs for 9/11 survivors.

A short time later, the Red Cross responded to requests by ESPA, HRC, Lambda Legal and other LGBT groups by opening up its disaster relief programs to same-sex partner survivors. Activists called the action historic and noted it resulted in badly needed relief for LGBT victims of Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast several years later.

On the federal level, President George W. Bush and Republican members of Congress joined Democrats in approving a massive, $7 billion Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund. Officials said the program was aimed at providing a viable alternative to thousands of individual wrongful death lawsuits that likely would have emerged against airline companies and the company that operated the World Trade Center if such a fund were not created.

But LGBT advocacy groups once again discovered that the relief funds would likely be out of reach for surviving same-sex partners of 9/11 victims. Among other things, the fund’s administrator, attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who had worked for the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), said rules for who is eligible for receiving as much as $1.3 million in compensation payments would have to be linked to state probate laws and rules.

At the time, no state probate law recognized same-sex relationships, even if they were made legal on the local level by a city or county domestic partnership ordinance.

ESPA, HRC, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups said they worked hard to lobby the U.S. Justice Department, which had jurisdiction over the compensation fund program, to take administrative steps to include same-sex couples survivors in the program.

At the time, Feinberg told the Blade that while he was concerned about the plight of surviving domestic partners of the Sept. 11 victims, it was not feasible to include specific domestic partner provisions in the relief fund’s regulations.

“If I get in the middle of that fight and try and trump local probate law in a particular case, I’ll be up to my neck in lawsuits,” he said. “I’m not saying they’re not entitled,” he said. “I’m not saying they are entitled.”

Smith of HRC said at least two of about 22 known LGBT partner survivors in the Sept. 11 attacks did receive compensation from the fund. Smith said the compensation payments came about, however, when surviving blood relatives chose not to challenge the same-sex partners’ application for the compensation.

In a separate development, HRC, ESPA, Lambda Legal and other LGBT advocacy groups created the September 11 Gay & Lesbian Family Fund to provide some relief to surviving partners who were ineligible for help from the federal relief fund program.

In a May 2006 announcement, ESPA said the known surviving partners of gay or lesbian victims of 9/11 had received nearly $17,315 each from the new Gay & Lesbian Family Fund. ESPA said at the time that the groups raised a total of $378,812 for the fund, with only $11,193, or 2.9 percent, being spent on administrative costs.

“The Family Fund was established in December [2001] to help offset the discrimination gay and lesbian partners faced in obtaining benefits automatically afforded to surviving spouses, including Social Security and Workers Compensation survivor benefits, and compensation under the Federal 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund,” the ESPA statement said.

“I don’t think there is one of us who were of remembering age who lives their life the same on Sept. 11 at 8 o’clock in the morning as we did at 10 o’clock in the morning on that day,” said Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs for the Center for American Progress, and who served as HRC’s political director in 2001.

“And my hope is it’s changed us to respect our diversity, to honor our humanity,” she said. “I don’t know if we’ve embraced those lessons but in this 10th year anniversary if we don’t remember that we need to honor our diversity and our humanity we will not have learned from the tragedy of Sept. 11.”

Another of the widely reported 9/11 victims was Father Mychal Judge, a gay Catholic priest and beloved New York Fire Department chaplain. Judge was killed when struck by falling debris next to the World Trade Center while he was performing last rites for a dying firefighter. His sexual orientation, while not widely known until after his death, was confirmed by New York Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, who told New York magazine that Judge confided to him that he was both gay and celebate.

In 2002, Congress honored Judge by using his name for the landmark Mychal Judge Police and Fire Chaplains Public Safety Officers Benefit Act. The law marked the first time the federal government had extended an equal benefit for same-sex couples, in this case allowing domestic partners of public safety officers killed in the line of duty to obtain a federal death benefit.

Kristen Gillibrand joined 12 other U.S. Senators in a new 'It Gets Better' video. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

13 senators release ‘It Gets Better’ video

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Mark Udall (D-Col.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) unveiled a new “It Gets Better,” Wednesday, aimed at encouraging LGBT youth not to give up when facing bullying and depression.

The video also features Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

A study released last year by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network found 90 percent of LGBT students were harassed at school. The ‘It Gets Better Project,’ which has produced more than 10,000 encouraging videos for LGBT youth from everyone from the president to sports teams, seeks to ease those fears for youth.

“We’re proud so many elected officials are working to make it better for struggling LGBT youth and hope other leaders from both sides of the aisle will join them,” said Scott Zumwalt, a spokesperson for the It Gets Better Project.

Chicago Pride marred by violence

CHICAGO — Despite celebrating the beginning of Illinois’ civil unions law, vandalism prior to the Chicago Pride march cast a pall over the Midwest’s best-attended Pride parade, Sunday.

Tires were slashed on 51 floats gathered in a lot operated by Associated Attractions. Several of the entries were forced to abandon their floats completely.

“It was a reminder of why we are still marching in the streets with pride celebrating the LGBTQ community in remembrance of the beginning of the fight for our civil rights,” said Anthony Martinez, executive director of the Civil Rights Agenda whose float won “Best Organizational Float,” despite being damaged.

During the Lincoln Park neighborhood-based parade, tensions heightened by overcrowding led to several fights, which forced Chicago police to reroute parts of the contingent at the last minute. During the violence at least one parked car was damaged near the route.

“I think the violent act that started the Pride parade and the overcrowding set a negative tone for some bystanders,” said Lindsey Dietzler co-founder of the Video Action League. “Some organizations and businesses like GayCo and Berlin had their floats diverted and were devastated to be unable to participate in the parade after months of hard work.”

Andy Thayer, co-founder of the Gay Liberation Front, said the vandalism was “clearly a hate crime,” and suggested that the violence during the Pride parade was due to overcrowding from Pride-goers running into fans arriving for a Cubs game blocks away from the path of the parade.

“With all the perks that professional sports teams get in our town, you’d think that the mayor and aldermen could jaw-bone the Cubs into scheduling away-games on Pride weekend,” Thayer said.

Group files suit in N.J. seeking marriage rights

TRENTON, N.J. — On Wednesday, Lambda Legal, Garden State Equality and seven same-sex couples announced Garden State Equality v. Dow, a new suit against New Jersey in an effort to correct what advocates call inequalities in the state’s institutions for recognizing same-sex couples.

In a joint statement, the groups announced the case “argues that the civil union law violates both the New Jersey Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution.”

In Lewis v. Harris October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down as unequal a domestic partnership registry law enacted in 2003, compelling the state legislature to offer the same rights to same-sex couples as opposite-sex married couples. However, in December, the lawmakers turned down the opportunity to become the second marriage equality state and opted instead for civil unions.

In 2009, outgoing Gov. John Corzine pushed to upgrade the unions to full marriage, but a bill failed to pass. Current Gov. Chris Christie is opposed to same-sex marriage.

In addition to naming workplace benefits, and medical visitation as primary reasons for upgrading civil unions to marriages, the statement concludes “exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage deprives them and their children of their dignity as a family and certainty in their legal rights and status to each other.”

President Obama (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The announcement from President Obama last week that he believes Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that he will no longer defend the law in court is raising questions about whether he can further help the LGBT community by discontinuing enforcement of the law.

Dan Pinello, who’s gay and a government professor at the City University of New York, said he believes Obama has the authority to stop enforcing Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, now that he has deemed the statute unconstitutional.

“If an order came down from the White House to start treating married same-sex couples like married opposite-sex couples, I think that would be honored in terms of bureaucrats sitting up and doing what he says,” Pinello said. “A president can seek not to enforce a statute if he believes, legally and otherwise, it’s unconstitutional.”

In the past, presidents have declined to enforce laws that they believe are unconstitutional, but such situations are rare. President Woodrow Wilson ignored a statute that conditioned removal of postmasters on Senate approval. In 1926, the Supreme Court struck down the the law as unconstitutional without making any suggestion that Wilson overstepped his boundaries by not enforcing the statute.

In 1994, then-U.S. Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger wrote a memorandum to then-White House Counsel Abner Mikva asserting the president “may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.”

“As a general matter, if the President believes that the [Supreme] Court would sustain a particular provision as constitutional, the President should execute the statute, notwithstanding his own beliefs about the constitutional issue,” Dellinger writes. “If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute.”

But the memorandum examines whether a president can decline to enforce a statute in terms of whether the president has authority not to uphold a law recently approved by Congress. Dellinger states that if Congress is making progress toward passing a law that the president believes is unconstitutional, the White House should “promptly identify unconstitutional provisions and communicate its concerns to Congress.”

Such a situation would be different from what happened with DOMA, when the president determined the statute was unconstitutional nearly 15 years after a Republican Congress passed the bill and then-President Clinton signed it into law.

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said there is “significant dispute” over whether a president can unilaterally decline to enforce a statute.

“When a president simply refuses to enforce the law, it’s not always clear that there is anyone who would have the legal ability to sue to require him to do so,” Davidson said. “This ability to exercise unilateral authority is troubling to many scholars.”

Still, Davidson noted that precedent exists for presidents to decline to enforce particular laws. For 25 years following its enactment in 1968, he said, every president refused to enforce a law seeking to make the Miranda case inapplicable to federal prosecutions until the courts struck down the law. Similarly, Davidson said numerous presidents refused to abide by laws allowing for legislative vetoes of presidential action, such as the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

For its part, the Obama administration seems intent on maintaining enforcement of DOMA even though the president has deemed it unconstitutional. In the case of Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management — concerning U.S. Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s order to give court employee Karen Golinski benefits for her same-sex spouse — the Obama administration reiterates that it plans to continue enforcement of DOMA.

Kozinski ordered the U.S. government to answer questions about its continued refusal to offer Golinski federal benefits in light of its decision that DOMA is unconstitutional. On Monday, the Justice Department responded to Kozinski by saying that Obama is obligated to continue to enforce the law until either Congress repeals the statute or the courts strike it down.

“The President has determined that Executive agencies will continue to enforce Section 3 of DOMA, a course of action that accords appropriate deference to the Congress that enacted DOMA and allows the judiciary to be the final arbiter of DOMA’s constitutionality, as stated by the Attorney General,” the Justice Department states. “Moreover, as discussed, the Executive Branch has fulfilled its statutory obligation to notify Congress of the decision not to defend the statute and is committed to urging the courts to provide Congress with a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation of DOMA cases.”

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said Obama plans to continue to enforce DOMA even though he’s decided no longer to enforce the statute in court.

“Consistent with past practice when a president determines and announces publicly that a law is unconstitutional, the president has directed the Department of Justice to cease defending the law in court,” Inouye said. “Until there is a final determination by the courts of the law’s validity or it is repealed by Congress, however, it remains the law of the land and the president will continue to enforce it as such.”

Many legal experts who are LGBT advocates are wary of the prospects of the president declining to enforce a statute — even one as harmful to married same-sex couples as DOMA — simply on the basis that Obama deems the law unconstitutional.

Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said no one believes more strongly than she that DOMA is unconstitutional, but cautioned against having the president stopping to enforce DOMA because “you have to look beyond your nose when you’re thinking about the ramifications of these sorts of decisions.”

“We do not want to live in a country in which the president can declare statutes to be unconstitutional because he doesn’t like them,” Hunter said. “That’s really not a place where any of us should want to live.”

To support the idea of a president ceasing to enforce a statute because the administration believes it’s unconstitutional, Hunter said she wants to see a guiding set of principles that would allow Obama to stop enforcing the statute while being consistent with the rule of law.

“I think everyone agrees that the criteria would have to be extremely limited so that such a situation would be extremely rare,” Hunter said. “Maybe someone could persuade that this fits into that very limited criteria, but I just haven’t heard any.”

Richard Socarides, president of the media watchdog group Equality Matters, said given the history of DOMA, the Obama administration would be “hard pressed” to decide unilaterally to stop enforcing DOMA.

“I just think it would be disruptive to the normal order of things,” Socarides said. “I’m sure that their lawyers made pretty convincing arguments that the more orderly way to do this was to await a definitive ruling from the court, which should be fairly quickly forthcoming based upon the government’s new position.”

Amid this debate, another LGBT advocate is drawing on the recent change in how the Obama administration is handling DOMA to press the administration to exercise prosecutorial discretion in cases involving bi-national same-sex couples.

Lavi Soloway, an attorney with Masliah & Soloway PC in New York, is representing three married, same-sex bi-national couples in New York, New Jersey and California who are facing deportation proceedings.

Alex Benshimol and Doug Gentry are scheduled for a July 13 hearing in San Francisco; Monica Alcota and Cristina Ojeda are scheduled for a March 22 hearing in New York; and Henry Velandia and Josh Vandiver scheduled for a May 6 hearing in Newark, N.J. Each of the American spouses in these cases has filed green card petitions on behalf of their foreign national partners, although DOMA prevents American nationals from sponsoring their partners.

“We intend to argue as a result of the shifting position of the executive branch with respect to DOMA that it’s appropriate for the immigration judges and also for the attorneys that represent the Department of Homeland Security to exercise what’s called prosecutorial discretion, which simply means exercising more discretion in how to proceed with these cases,” Soloway said.

In the three pending cases, Soloway is asking for judges to consider changes that were made to how the Obama administration is handling DOMA in court and to put off deportation proceedings until another time when different relief of legal options may be available. According to Soloway, if anyone in these cases is deported, they won’t be able to return to the United States for another 10 years, even if DOMA is repealed or overturned sometime before then.

“I’m calling on the Department of Homeland Security … to develop reasonable innovative policy to deal with the particular moment that we’re in,” Soloway said. “We’re just in a very short-term moment where things are in a state of flux. I’m not asking them to stop enforcing any law; this is part of enforcing the law.”

The heads of LGBT legal organizations say that the Obama administration has considerable leeway in how it defends the Defense of Marriage Act in court — even if officials believe they’re obligated to uphold the statute.

The Obama administration’s defense of DOMA, which prohibits the federal recognition of same-sex marriage, has inspired debate among LGBT rights supporters about whether the Justice Department is required to defend the law.

The LGBT advocates commented on the issue during an eQualityThinking panel on Monday in response to a question from moderator and Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff.

Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, said he’s “not completely convinced” the Justice Department is compelled to defend DOMA, but said even it is, the administration doesn’t need to use every argument to defend the statute.

“They have great leeway in deciding what arguments they will make and what arguments they won’t make,” Cathcart said. “I don’t accept the notion that if they have to defend, it means they have to throw in arguments that have been discredited and argue issues that should never see the light of day.”

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, noted the Obama administration has mounted “a more full-throated defense” than what was necessary in its early defense of DOMA.

The 2009 defense of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States, the first brief the Obama administration filed in defense of the law, inspired resentment in the LGBT community early last year for drawing on case law to compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.

“They included very offensive language around parenting,” Kendell said. “It wasn’t a direct comparison between LGBT relationships and pedophilia or bestiality, but it was close enough, and it was appalling.”

Kendell said her organization has had conversations with the Justice Department to make clear that those arguments were not only unacceptable and baseless. Following these conversations, she said the Obama administration made some changes in how it defended DOMA.

“They have made some accommodations that well reflect the values that the administration say[s] they espouse, but I think — I’ll speak for ourselves for our purposes and to our case — they certainly haven’t gone as far as they should go,” Kendell said.

Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said even if the Obama administration opted not to defend DOMA, the Justice Department would have to formally notify Congress to give lawmakers the opportunity to defend the statute.

“There is a possibility for the Justice Department not to defend, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be a defense of the laws that Congress passes,” she said.

GLAD has filed two lawsuits against DOMA: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, which is pending before the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, which is pending before the U.S. District Court of Connecticut.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against those seeking to keep secret the names of people who last year signed a petition to put an anti-gay referendum on the Washington State ballot.

In the 8-1 decision, the court determined in the case of Doe v. Reed that public disclosure of referendum petitions doesn’t — as a general rule — violate the First Amendment rights of signers.

But the decision left room for anti-gay activists to succeed at a lower court on the more focused question of whether making public the signatures for Referendum 71 specifically runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court was Chief Justice John Roberts. The sole dissenting voice in ruling came from Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

The initiative in question, Referendum 71, came before Washington State residents in 2009 and threatened to abrogate the expansion of the state’s domestic partner registry. But 53 percent of the electorate voted in favor of upholding the law, keeping the registry in place.

Concurrent with the campaign against the law, those who put the anti-gay initiative on the ballot — led by Protect Marriage Washington — challenged Washington State’s Public Records Act, which requires public disclosure of the names of petition signers who put referenda on the ballot.

The U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction blocking the publication of signatures, and the issue made its way to the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs argued the law could put those who signed the petition in danger after their names became public. In defense of the statute, Washington State argued disclosure contributes to electoral integrity of the ballot process and allows the public to double-check in case a mistake is made.

Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, affirms the arguments that public disclosure promotes electoral integrity and concludes the disclosure law enables the public to find potential mistakes or instances of forgery.

“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,” Roberts writes. “Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.”

Roberts also rejects the assertion from plaintiffs that the court should overturn the disclosure law on the basis that disclosure of the names who signed the Referendum 71 petition would place these signers in danger.

The chief justice says the question before the court isn’t “whether PRA disclosure violates the First Amendment with respect to those who signed the R–71 petition,” but whether this disclosure “in general violates the First Amendment rights of those who sign referendum petitions.”

“The problem for plaintiffs is that their argument rests almost entirely on the specific harm they say would attend disclosure of the information on the R–71 petition, or on similarly controversial ones,” Roberts writes.

Roberts says the court must reject this broad challenge to all disclosure laws, but says this ruling doesn’t necessarily “foreclose a litigant’s success” in a narrower challenge before the district court.

The chief justice recalls how the court previously determined withholding names may be appropriate in some instances with “reasonable probability” that individuals would be harassed.

In a statement, Anne Levinson, chair of Washington Families Standing Together, which fought to maintain the state’s domestic partnership law, praised the high court’s decision.

She said the Supreme Court made clear that public disclosure laws ensure “measures are not put on the ballot by fraudulent means or mistake.”

“Nowhere is the integrity and transparency of elections more important than where the ballot box is being used in an attempt to take away fundamental rights,” she said. “Nowhere is it more important for the public to know that attempts to affect the lives of their fellow citizens by promoting ballot measures are free from fraud and error.”

But Larry Stickney, president of the Washington Values Alliance, said he’s “optimistic” anti-gay activists would be able to keep the petition names secret following action from the district court.

“Likely we’re going to be back in district court and we’ll be able to bring out some of the harassment and intimidation efforts that were made against Protect Marriage Washington,” he said. “We’re happy that that effort will carry on.”

Levinson dismissed the idea that those working on the campaign to overturn the domestic partner registry faced harassment and said there’s “absolutely no evidence of harassment” of signers.

“What the petitioners cite to by way of threats or other harassment, they talk about their campaign manager of other leadership in their campaign,” she said. “Those are the folks like me who were debating on TV or radio or leading a campaign effort, so that’s irrelevent to making any case about petition signers.”

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said he doesn’t think plaintiffs have a shot keeping the names of petitions signers under wraps in light of the “reasonable probability” standard the Supreme Court established.

“I think they are very unlikely to have any success because the standard that the Supreme Court imposed here is — in a particular case — you can only prevent disclosure if you can show a reasonable probability that disclosure will subject to threats, harassment or reprisal,” he said. “So not the possibility — not that it could happen — but a reasonable probability that it will happen.”

The Virginia Supreme Court has denied a gay man’s effort to obtain restitution after he allegedly was forced to resign from his job at a state museum because of his sexual orientation.

In a two-paragraph notice issued May 17, the state’s high court said it wouldn’t hear the case of Michael Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History because there’s nothing in the situation the justice system could rectify.

“Upon review of the record in this case and consideration of the argument submitted in support of and in opposition to the granting of an appeal, the Court is of opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of,” the notice states. “Accordingly, the court refuses the petition for appeal.”

The notice says that Justice Williams Mims took no part in considering the case.

Last month’s petition denial is the result of a process that began when Moore allegedly was forced to resign his position as public relations associate at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, Va., in November 2006 because of his sexual orientation.

On appeal to Virginia’s high court, Moore also contended his dismissal violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution providing for freedom of religion and equal protection.

Moore, who has since moved to Lakeland, Fla., and is now preparing for law school, said the court decision was disappointing but not unexpected.

“We’ve been dealt blows all along, so I was kind of pessimistic going into it,” he said. “Them having to decide either for me or against me would have just required sweeping change. It should have been the reason they made a decision and they didn’t, so I’m disappointed actually.”

Moore said he plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court based on violation of rights in the U.S. Constitution. He noted that he has 90 days from when Virginia’s high court issued its notice to appeal the case.

In his case, Moore has said his supervisor discovered he was gay and asked him shortly thereafter to resign, even though he was rewarded with satisfactory marks after completing a performance review.

Following his firing, Moore filed a complaint first within the state government and later with the courts based on an executive order from former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) prohibiting job bias against gay employees in the state and public workforce.

But the administration wasn’t able to find restitution for Moore, and the courts have said the executive order didn’t provide a legal basis by which the courts could take action.

Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, general counsel for Equality Virginia, said the failure of the Virginia Supreme Court to take up the case shows the need for the passage of state legislation that would help protect LGBT Virginians against workplace discrimination.

“The bottom line is this decision just demonstrates what we’ve held for years — that LGBT employees don’t have any meaningful law to seek redress for discrimination, and frankly, they don’t have any cause of action under the old executive order, either,” she said.

When he took office this year, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell didn’t renew the executive order for workplace protection against gays and instead replaced it with a less forceful executive directive.

Gastanaga said if there weren’t any meaningful protections under Kaine’s order, “there really, really isn’t any protection now” under McDonnell’s directive.

Greg Nevins, supervising senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal, called the Virginia Supreme Court case decision “a disappointing result” and said the reasoning for the court’s rejection “isn’t completely clear.”

Still, he said LGBT people have some workplace protections because the U.S. Constitution grants them some rights.

“It doesn’t mean that public employees in Virginia don’t have recourse for discrimination,” he said. “The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution does protect state workers from arbitrary discrimination that’s based on sexual orientation.”

Nevins said many courts have found that the Equal Protection Clause protects LGBT people against discrimination in the public workplace, although a U.S. district court in Virginia hasn’t made such a ruling.

“A whole bunch of different courts around the country have said it,” he said. “I don’t really think it’s controversial.”