Some of the first same-sex weddings to be legally recognized by the D.C. government took place at the Equality Forum on the first floor of the Human Rights Campaign's building in Washington, D.C.

Here are my reports at Metro Weekly from day one of D.C. same-sex weddings.

First, the couples:

”There are no spectators here today,” Rev. David K. North, pastor of Holy Redeemer Metropolitan Community Church in College Park, said. ”All of us have responsibilities to ensure the success of this joint endeavor.”

With those words – common to weddings everywhere but especially poignant on Tuesday morning, March 9 – North began the first of three same-sex wedding ceremonies held today before more than 100 guests and almost half as many members of the media at the Equality Forum, a community space on the ground floor of the Human Rights Campaign’s headquarters in Washington.

Then, the politics on display on Tuesday:

The Campaign for All D.C. Families hosted three of the first legally recognized same-sex marriages in the District on Tuesday, March 9, but the reason for the success of the marriage equality effort here was present in the faces of the attendees – and on the tongues of the many politicians and political strategists at the event.

Michael Crawford, the newly hired director of new media at the New-York-based Freedom to Marry and the head of D.C. for Marriage during the District’s successful effort, noted, “D.C. will be the first majority-minority jurisdiction where we have marriage equality, and I think that bodes well for our efforts to win marriage nationwide.”

Looking at the Campaign’s highlighted first weddings – three black couples – and the “majority-minority” assembled guests, the strong effort made in D.C. to ensure that all of Washington – and not the stereotype of the gay community as a white monolith – was represented was clear.

AG Cuccinelli (R)

My report at Metro Weekly, “Virginia Moves Against Gay Employees of Universities,” on the letter sent by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R):

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) on Thursday, March 4, advised the state’s public colleges and universities that ”the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit” the inclusion of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression in the schools’ nondiscrimination policies and that the schools are to take action to address the ”invalid policies.”

One of the impacted school’s deans is pushing back, however, telling Metro Weekly on Friday that she anticipated that her school ”will have a thorough discussion” before adopting the attorney general’s advice.

Dr. Karen DePauw, the vice president and dean for graduate education at Virginia Tech, said on Friday that regardless of the letter, ”We will continue to have an open and inclusive environment for the grad school, I am confident of that.

”I cannot speak for the whole university because I have not seen the letter and we haven’t had a chance to talk about it,” she said. ”As vice president and dean for graduate education, I anticipate and am hopeful that we will have a thorough discussion before we take any final action.”

Read the rest — and there’s much more — over at MW.

I’ve made available a copy of the letter (pdf) here at Law Dork.

Rep. Massa (D-NY)

Late last night, technically this morning, my newest at Metro Weekly went up, “A Scent of Scnadal“:

Rep. Eric J.J. Massa (D-N.Y.) told reporters this afternoon that health problems – and not reports of sexual harassment allegations – were keeping him from a second term in Congress. Massa appears to face significant questions in coming days, however, as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) released a statement Wednesday night saying that his staff had received ”allegations of misconduct” that have since been relayed to the bipartisan House Ethics Committee.

Massa spoke to reporters this afternoon without taking questions after Politico reported allegations that Massa ‘’sexually harassed a male staffer.”

[UPDATE: Fox News reports that the Ethics Committee has released a statement. Per Fox, the statement reads:

“The Committee, pursuant to Rule 18(a), is investigating and gathering additional information concerning matters related to allegations involving Representative Eric Massa.”

Well, that's helpful.]

At 6 a.m. this morning, March 3, Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend arrived at the Carl Moultrie Courthouse where, nearly three hours later, they would exit the front doors as the first same-sex couple to register for a marriage license in the District of Columbia since the new law granting marriage equality took effect.

By the time the processing began at 8:30 a.m., more than 60 couples had arrived on the fourth floor of the courthouse, where the applications for such licenses are submitted. It takes three business days for the District to process applications. These first-of-their-kind licenses are expected to be granted Tuesday, March 9.

Although Young and Townsend, a D.C. couple, were first, Townsend, taking in the day, said, ”It didn’t matter where we fell in line.”

Check it out!

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.

Jackson (Photo via PFAW.)

My newest at Metro Weekly covers “Jackson’s Last-Minute Effort” at the Supreme Court:

Bishop Harry Jackson, along with others opposed to marriage equality coming to Washington, filed a last-minute request at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, March 1, seeking to stop the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 from becoming law on March 3 so that he can proceed with his referendum effort.

Aided by lawyers from the national organization Alliance Defense Fund, Jackson filed a request for an immediate stay of the law with Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for hearing appeals coming from the District. Roberts has the ability either to make the decision himself or to turn the matter over to the full court for a decision.

If Jackson’s request were granted, the stay would halt the effective date of the marriage law – putting off marriage equality until the full Supreme Court could resolve the underlying issues Jackson has presented to it.

A copy of the application for a stay can be found here (pdf), care of HRC’s Michael Cole (who has been helpful above the call of duty throughout this flurry of legal action).

[UPDATE: The District of Columbia government has filed an opposition to the application, which I have made available here (pdf) at Law Dork. I'm reviewing it and have an update at MW. Here's my favorite part:

The District also argues that the stay sought by Jackson – a stay as to the effective date of the law – is actually irrelevant because the referendum period ends when an act becomes law, not when it becomes effective. The District’s lawyers further argue that the entire legislative process would need to be stalled to keep the bill from becoming law in order for Jackson’s stay to have its intended effect of allowing the possibility of a referendum to continue past March 3. And that, they conclude, is a position that has no support in the ADF filing or in law, so far as the District’s lawyers were aware.

Totally interesting argument.]

[UPDATE 2: Before hearing from the Supreme Court, the same marriage equality opponents have filed a Sec. 1983 civil rights action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting a violation of their due process rights and seeking an injunction keeping District officials from moving forward with marriage applications for same-sex couples beginning at 8:30 a.m.

The Complaint is now available here (pdf) at Law Dork.

It is unclear whether the District Court will take action at this time.]

[UPDATE 3: In an opinion posted to the Supreme Court's website after 5 p.m. Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts, acting alone, rejected the request of marriage equality opponents that he stay the effective date of the District's marriage equality bill. He wrote: "Without addressing the merits of petitioners’ underlying claim, however, I conclude that a stay is not warranted."

The Chief Justice specifically noted the argument advanced by the District that the Supreme Court generally defers to the local D.C. courts for "matters of exclusively local concern." Roberts also noted the fact that Congress did not act to disapprove of the law during the 30-day review period and the remaining availability of the initiative process in reaching his decision not to grant the stay.

The opinion is available here (pdf) at Law Dork, and my updated story, "Roberts Rules," is up at MW.]

[UPDATE 4: As same-sex couples began applying for marriage applications, I received word that the last last-ditch effort, the Sec. 1983 TRO claim filed in federal court, was rejected by another Roberts -- U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts.

In the opinion, Roberts determined both that Bishop Jackson and the others did not meet their burden of showing irreparable harm -- in large part because of the initiative process that they are pursuing -- and that the lawsuit -- claiming a violation of marriage equality opponents' due process rights -- was itself unlikely to succeed. He wrote:

[P]rocedural due process is satisfied when “an appropriate hearing has been provided at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” . . .

The plaintiffs’ procedural due process right to be heard has been satisfied by their filing a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in Superior Court, and their subsequent opportunity to appeal after the Superior Court denied the motion.

The opinion is available here (pdf) at Law Dork.]

First, let me explain an A.G.’s opinion generally. As the chief lawyer for the state, generally speaking, the attorney general advises client agencies and officeholders on the state’s legal obligations. As such, attorneys general regularly offer guidance on any number of questions regarding the interpretation of state laws. This can be done in a variety of traditional lawyer-client ways, but many states also allow a more public, formal process of A.G. opinions.

In an A.G.’s opinion, a question is formally presented to the attorney general on a topic of application or interpretation of state or federal law. States differ on who can ask for a formal opinion, but there generally are limitations on who can ask for an opinion.

Also differing across the states is the impact of those opinions. More or less, though, the effect of the opinions is generally controlling on state entities until a court declares to the contrary. There are, of course, times when a governor might disagree with the attorney general and take the issue to court. In the absence of that or a similar situation or court action contrary to the opinion, an A.G. opinion becomes, effectively, the law once it has been issued. The opinions also often are persuasive, but not controlling, authority for a court to use in addressing the issue.

Maryland A.G. Gansler (D)

Which brings us to Wednesday’s actions in Maryland.

The A.G.’s Opinion basically says that the law could be interpreted so as to allow out-of-state marriages to be recognized and that Gansler believes the Maryland courts would decide that way. He reaches this conclusion despite the state’s ban on performing same-sex marriages in the state.

Gansler writes, “It is unclear from the text of FL §2-201 [Maryland's law restricting marriages to opposite-sex couples] whether the statute was intended to address recognition of out-of-state marriages.” Md. A.G. Op., at 34.

He then discusses the impact of the public policy exception, which allows states to refuse to recognize marriage legally performed elsewhere if to do so would be against the strong public policy of the state.

He writes:

Undoubtedly, a same-sex marriage, even if valid in another state, would have been obviously contrary to the public policy of Maryland in the past, given the laws criminalizing homosexual sexual activity.  However, the same cannot be said today.

Md. A.G. Op., at 38-39. He writes about changes to criminal and anti-discrimination laws, as well as adoption and domestic partnership law. He concludes that “the statute no longer expresses a public policy of the State that so condemns same-sex relationships as to create an exception to principle of comity that usually governs recognition of out-of-state marriages.” Md. A.G. Op., at 43.

Additionally, he argues, Maryland’s invocation of the “public policy exception” has been very narrow. As Gansler writes:

A statute that limits marriage in Maryland to opposite-sex couples could be said to embody a policy against same-sex marriage.  However, there are many restrictions in the State’s marriage statutes and the Court of Appeals has not construed the public policy exception to encompass all those restrictions.  For example, it has recognized common law marriages from other states, although there is no common law marriage in Maryland, and has recognized a Rhode Island marriage between an uncle and a niece, although a statute prohibits marriage between an uncle and a niece in Maryland.  Indeed, the public policy exception is a very limited one that the Court has seldom invoked.

Md. A.G. Op., at 5-6.

(NOTE TO JOHN ARAVOSIS AND HIS READERS: Gansler, the first statewide elected official in Maryland to support marriage equality, “compared” our relationships to incest, as John would say. Also, on page 44, to polygamy. John has harshly and unjustifiably attacked the Department of Justice for such legal references for the past months, yet today, writes nothing of it. That’s because it’s not a comparison in the sense that he uses the word. It is, instead, a simple legal comparison of the underlying legal issue about marriage recognition. Lawyers cite cases as precedent and, thus, can only turn to issues that have been litigated in the past when doing so. As I’ve written often, it’s been an unfair attack since day one that he’s continued as recently as his interview with The Advocate earlier this month. I’m interested in seeing if this leads to John admitting his assessments have been unfair.)

Once Gansler established that the courts are unlikely to invoke the public policy exception in this situation, the conclusion pretty much writes itself:

While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland’s developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.

Md. A.G. Op., at 54.

Now, when the opinion was released Wednesday morning, most people were interpreting the opinion as saying that the courts would likely determine that out-of-state marriages would be recognized. Which sounded like “not much.” And, technically, that is what the opinion says.

But, once the opinion has been issued, that is the legal position of the A.G.’s office and, therefore, the advice given to all state agencies. For that reason, it was not surprising that, likely after consultation with the governor’s office, Gansler clarified that the state would be recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages effective immediately. From The Washington Post:

UPDATE 2:50 P.M.: Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) says effective immediately the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and state agencies should begin giving gay couples the rights they were awarded elsewhere.

So, to the extent that Gansler decided that there was room for “argument” on either side of the issue, he clearly took the policy position that he wouldn’t wait to be the defendant of a lawsuit seeking out-of-state recognition — which would, technically, pit him against the LGBT community — and instead chose that he would rather be the defendant of a case challenging the state’s recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages — which would put him in the role of defending the LGBT community. This makes all the more sense in light of his position supporting marriage equality.

Nonetheless, to the extent that Gansler determined the current legal landscape would result in a court decision upholding out-of-state recognition, the opinion set the law as it stands in Maryland unless the courts rule otherwise.

Interesting side note, some of the stilted and awkward language in the opinion comes from the opinion’s steadfast avoidance of whether recognition of out-of-state marriages is required, which would have gotten into the due process and equal protection arguments that marriage equality-watchers know also would apply to the state’s prohibition on performing same-sex marriages in the state. It is in that sense that the opinion is quite limited.

What this means is that agencies will begin adopting regulations and policies to allow for recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. This, obviously, will include the District of Columbia, where the marriage equality bill is to take effect on March 3. The opinion noted that such changes will be made to the extent possible when not constrained by federal law (primarily, the Defense of Marriage Act). In other words, there are still complications to be resolved.

Although just one (big) step in a complicated process, and though a court challenge appears almost inevitable, this was an important step toward equality that Gansler and his office did a good, honest job of preparing.

In an unusual display of allied cooperation, a dozen organizations – including the Human Rights Campaign, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Servicemembers United – plan to release a report, led by Media Matters for America, on Wednesday detailing and debunking common myths about the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The report, ”Myths and Falsehoods on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a copy of which was provided to Metro Weekly, would fall during a week of Hill testimony by the service branch chiefs. Representatives from the Army testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday as their colleagues in the Air Force testified before the House Armed Services Committee.

The full report can be found at Media Matters here.

The Senate Armed Services Committee prepares to hear testimony from the military and civilian Army chiefs on Tuesday.

At Metro Weekly, I report on today’s Senate testimony regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in “The Army Speaks”:

In a blow to those seeking a moratorium on enforcement of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy, both Secretary of the Army John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey, Jr., testified on Tuesday that they oppose such a moratorium during the nearly year-long planned repeal implementation review.

Neither McHugh nor Casey even offered the full-throated support to a repeal of the policy that was given to senators earlier this month by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The testimony came as part of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on the Army’s budget request and, specifically, in response to a question by Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and follow-up questioning by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who announced on Monday that he would be taking the lead on the Senate bill to repeal the policy.