Well, I still have this site and will continue to maintain it, but the overwhelming majority of my attention (and writing) is over at Metro Weekly now, where we have, in the past week, launched Poliglot: a queer spin on politics! As things come up that don’t fit there, I will still post here on occasion — but it will be rare.

I urge you to bookmark Poliglot and stop by often!

When Gawker picked up this “report,” Yusef and I at Metro Weekly decided it necessitated a response.

Thank you, Mr. President. My question is about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal compromise amendment that faces House and Senate votes as early as this afternoon. Adm. Mullen said yesterday of the conditions in the amendment, “That trigger is to certify whether we should move ahead with that change.”

Earlier, and repeatedly, however, Sec. Gates said of the study, “This is not a question of if, but how.”

Which is it, Mr. President, and is your understanding of the compromise that the certification is discretionary? And, if so, why is that discretion necessary if the study truly is only looking into how to implement repeal?

But, I did not get to ask my question, so, it remains unanswered.

Here is the background, from my two reports at Metro Weekly on Wednesday: “Discretion Required,” about the impact of the amendment, and “Digging Into the Details,” which looks at the Senate vote count and features my interviews with Reps. Murphy and Frank on the House side.

About 9:30 p.m. Monday night, two people stand looking at the White House from the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Yes, I have been a bad Law Dork.

But, I’ve been writing plenty, at Metro Weekly, where I had been freelancing, then was working part-time, and — finally — earlier this year started working full-time.

On Monday, for example, I began with “DADT Talks at White House and on Hill,” covering the meetings regarding a possible “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy repeal compromise. Then, I followed up with the brief “Pushing Forward on DADT Repeal Compromise,” addressing a letter sent to the White House from the leading trio of pro-repeal lawmakers. Finally, I ended the day with “White House Signals Support,” which covered the Administration’s endorsement of the repeal compromise and several LGBT groups’ reactions to that support.

Unfortunately, days like that have left me with little time to devote to Law Dork.

I do, however, ask that you continue to check out my work, which is published nearly daily (if not multiple times a day, sch as Monday) at MetroWeekly.com and, if you live in the D.C. area, each Thursday in print. Also, if you’re not following me on Twitter and you want to keep up with me, you should be following me. Finally, I will update here as I find reasons (and time!) to do so, which is primarily when non-LGBT topics or Ohio-centric issues come to the fore.

If you have any other ideas of how I can use this space — I’m thinking about a weekly photo journal update, perhaps — please leave the idea in the comments section.

Thanks to everyone who has been so truly supportive of me as I spent the past 15 months feeling my way out and about back in the blogosphere, then on Twitter and, eventually, to D.C. It’s been — and will doubtless continue to be — quite a ride, so please do keep up!

Truly, few emails have made me more happy than this one, letting me know that I have a seat in the U.S. Supreme Court’s press section “for the oral argument on Monday, April 19 at 10 a.m. and Wednesday, April 28 at 10 a.m.”

The building that houses the Supreme Court of the United States, located at One First Street, N.E., in Washington, D.C.

The cases are Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and Doe #1 v. Reed. This, to me, is about as exciting an opportunity as I could have imagined when moving back to D.C. nearly six months ago. In that time, I’ve had the opportunity to write for The Atlantic Politics Channel and Metro Weekly, which has led to a job at MW as the senior political writer. In that role, I’ve covered Congress, the White House, the Pentagon and, now, will be covering the Supreme Court.

The first argument has particular meaning for me, as this debate, about whether a student organization that refuses to abide by a school’s nondiscrimination policy — here, CLS — can be denied university funds, is one in which I was heavily engaged during my time as a law student at OSU. The question in the case comes down to whether personal religious views can be imposed on a public institution and trump generally applicable public funding decisions, a question the court has answered in the negative on repeated occasions.

The case raises a lot of interesting questions, depending on the angle from which you come at the case — CLS and its lawyers argue that this is a religious freedom and associational freedom case. I’m going to be reading the many amicus briefs submitted in the case over the coming days, so I’ll have more on the specifics of all that soon. What already is clear, though, is that it will be intriguing to watch how the justices address the case.

The second argument, I think, has a growing meaning in the evolving dialogue on LGBT equality — or at least the opposition to it. As with the CLS case, those opposed to LGBT equality are increasingly painting themselves as themselves being the group that is subject to animus. They, not the LGBT people, are the “victim” in this framing. The Washington case involves the disclosure of the names and identifying information of those people who signed the petition to overturn Washington state’s domestic partnership law that became Referendum 71.

The case asks whether the Court will hold that disclosure requirements — can the public see who signed a petition to put a referendum on the ballot? — should be curtailed because of fear that those who signed such a petition will be subject to retaliation or other intimidation. The broad issue — the intimidation question — already has arisen twice in recent months at the Court, when the Court rejected the attempt to allow a live-streaming of the Proposition 8 trial to other courtrooms and in Justice Thomas’s opinion in Citizens United.

Incidentally, that second argument will fall, to the day, six months after my first D.C. coverage, the signing of the hate crimes law a couples days after I moved back.

Of personal interest and excitement to me, these two arguments, looking at the intersection of LGBT equality and various First Amendment freedoms, fall into that same general area of the law as the first Supreme Court oral argument that I attended, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, argued 10 years ago this month, on April 26, 2000.

Yes, this Law Dork is incredibly excited and proud to be covering the Supreme Court for Metro Weekly.

The washingtonpost.com site earlier this afternoon.

Heh.

On Friday afternoon, a spokeswoman for the Smuckers Stars on Ice Tour denied allegations made by both U.S. Olympian Johnny Weir and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that he has been kept out of the tour because he is ”not family friendly.”

Jennifer Cosgrove, a spokeswoman for Stars on Ice, responded to GLAAD, writing in a statement released to Metro Weekly, ”We are disappointed that there is untrue and inaccurate information being disseminated. Please be assured that the ‘gender identity and sexual orientation’ of cast members has never been a consideration in the selection of tour performers.”

In a posting at the GLAADBlog on Thursday, March 11, updated after its initial posting to reflect that an anonymous source had shared the information with GLAAD, the media watchdog reported: ”GLAAD has learned from a source that wishes to remain anonymous that sponsors of the Stars on Ice Tour, which include Smuckers and IMG Entertainment, have refused to allow 3-time US National Champion and 2-time Olympian Johnny Weir to participate because they claim that he is ‘not family friendly.”’

Weir somewhat confirmed this, repeating the “not family friendly” line to Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush. No one has yet attributed that very specific quotation to any specific individual, which gives me concern. At the same time, and as noted in the article, Stars on Ice — while denying the “untrue and inaccurate information” generally — has not specifically denied the “not family friendly” quote.

If those words were said, I think we should know whether this came from Smuckers, IMG Entertainment or the Stars on Ice Tour people. The distinction is important for a variety of reasons, most notably because people and organizations — most of all, GLAAD — are putting pressure on all three of these entities based on an unattributed quotation from an anonymous source.

I think my biggest concern is that this is coming from the “media watchdog” for the LGBT community as the salacious hook for a very public campaign against a company. Aren’t anonymous, gossipy quotes the very type of thing that GLAAD generally fights against?

Here is the latest from GLAAD, a statement from President Jarrett Barrios:

Johnny Weir is a two time Olympian and three time U.S. champion. Other athletes of his caliber would be granted the opportunity to perform during national tours like Stars on Ice. By choosing not to bring the performances and talent of Johnny Weir to American audiences, Stars on Ice is reinforcing an unfortunate double standard that is too often applied to gay athletes and athletes perceived to be gay.

GLAAD calls on Stars on Ice to invite all eligible figure skaters because today people of all gender expressions and sexual orientations are part of the fabric of our culture. Athletes of Weir’s caliber deserve the same rights to perform on this, and any, tour.

We urge community members to speak out against this apparent double standard and call on Stars on Ice and corporate sponsor Smucker’s to demand equal opportunities for all athletes.

I agree that Weir’s gender expression and sexual orientation should play no role in his invitation to any tour, but I am concerned with the approach being taken by GLAAD on this issue. Thoughts?

Liza, Joe and I after lunch. (Photo from Andres.)

A great truth from Bil Browning at The Bilerico Project, about this past weekend:

I was honored to co-host a gathering of top bloggers and print media editors with Paul Schindler of the Gay City News last weekend. The Four Freedoms Fund sponsored the gathering and we spent several hours on Saturday talking about comprehensive immigration reform.

Spending time with so many of my colleagues and inspirations was amazing – especially during the Q&A period. Think these people write well? Try watching them in action as they think on their feet and pepper presenters with questions. Here’s who came: Adam Bink, Toni D’orsay, Chris Geidner, Prerna Lal, Joe Mirabella, Mike Rogers, Kerry Eleveld, Josh Lynsen, Mark Segal, Rex Wockner, Andrew Belonsky, Andres Duque, Joe Jervis, Ramon Johnson, Michael Jones, William Keck, Liza Sabater, Jillian Weiss, Paul, Phil [Reese] and I. (Contributors Steve Ralls and Matt Foreman were both there as well, but not as bloggers.)

I second it all. It truly was an eye-opening experience that I plan to write and talk more about in coming days and weeks ahead. I’d particularly like to thank Toni, Prerna and Liza for their insights both at and after the “formal” portion of the day, as well as thanking Bil and Paul for their invitation and work putting the weekend together.

Also, if you read Law Dork and are not familiar with any of these folks, check them out.

Judge Walker

My latest at Metro Weekly, “A Judicial Outing?” looks at the new (or not-so-new) revelation about the judge overseeing the trial about whether California’s same-sex marriage prohibition is allowed:

The judge hearing a trial over whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional ”is himself gay,” according to a column that ran in this past Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle.

Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross wrote that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s sexual orientation was the ”biggest open secret in the landmark trial.”

Is this outing? The views on whether it is or is not are, well, are as plentiful as the colors of the rainbow.

Is this newsworthy? As a fellow judge and friend of Walker’s reportedly told the Chronicle, while laughing, ”Yes.” Although some have suggested otherwise, the judge wasn’t alone.

Will the revelation matter? It’s not yet clear what impact Sunday’s column will have on the trial, where closing arguments remain to be heard by Walker.

Google Buzz (Image from zdnet.com.)

Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider writes about the issue I was just discussing on Twitter: what he calls the “huge privacy flaw” in Google Buzz.  Luckily, he’s explained it so I don’t have to.  He writes:

When you first go into Google Buzz, it automatically sets you up with followers and people to follow.

A Google spokesperson tells us these people are chosen based on whom the users emails and chats with most using Gmail.

That’s fine.

The problem is that — by default — the people you follow and the people that follow you are made public to anyone who looks at your profile.

In other words, before you change any settings in Google Buzz, someone could go into your profile and see the people you email and chat with most.

Yikes.

If you don’t get why, Carlson explains:

The whole point is: Google should just ask users: “Do you want to follow these people we’ve suggested you follow based on the fact that you email and chat with them? Warning: This will expose to the public who you email and chat with most.”  Google should not let users proceed to using Buzz until they click, “Yes, publish these lists.”

In my profession — where anonymous sourcing is a crucial tool — the implications of this flaw are terrifying.

Hopefully, he’s right and Google will quickly fix this design flaw.

Otherwise, expect to see some state attorney general’s office quickly open an investigation and fire off a letter to Google asking them to explain this decision.  The U.S. Code section cited, I’d suspect, will be this.