Judge Walker

Here’s the preview I wrote at Metro Weekly for today’s closing arguments:

More than five months ago, the trial questioning the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 – prohibiting same-sex marriages in the state – began in U.S. District Court. Tomorrow, June 16, the trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger will come to an end. That end, however, could also be the beginning of the much larger case for equality in marriage across the country.

I’ll be live-blogging here with thoughts and interesting notes about the argument as it happens, but also be sure to follow my list on Twitter of people in the courtroom and tweeting the closing arguments live.

Interesting question and answer:

JUDGE WALKER: Are you focusing on the facts pertaining to the California initiative or facts pertinent generally and throughout the country with respect to marriage?
MR. OLSON: Both of those.

Punt.

More from Olson:

I think it’s really important to set forth the prism through which this case must be viewed by the judiciary. And that is the perspective on marriage, the same subject that we are talking about, by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court — the freedom to marry, the freedom to make the choice to marry — the Supreme Court has said in, I counted, 14 cases going back to 1888, 122 years. And these are the words of all of those Supreme Court decisions about what marriage is. And I have set forth this distinction between what the plaintiffs have called it and what the Supreme Court has called it.

Tough words. This logic would apply across the United States, regardless of the type of marriage ban, whether it be statute or constitutional amendment (or just a lack of marriage equality without any affirmative prohibition, like in New York).

The judge brings up Baker v. Nelson:

JUDGE WALKER: Well, now, the Supreme Court in the Baker versus Nelson case decided that the issue which we are [concerned] with here was not ripe for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. That was 1972. What’s happened in the 38 years since 1972?

Interesting softball. Olson, of course, responded that much had changed — noting, most specifically, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.

Walker notes that, unlike in Lawrence, we are not dealing with a criminal statute here. Olson’s response is excellent:

And then the court goes on to say, persons in home sexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes just as heterosexual persons do. The court was talking about the private intimate behavior. If the court had said instead you can go to jail for five days because we caught you doing those things, we will take away your right to drive on the highways, we will take away your right to marry because you do those things or you engage in that conduct, it seems to me that that is just as unconstitutional especially if the thing which is taken away is also a fundamental constitutional right.

Good stuff.

Hard talk from Ted Olson:

It’s a traditional definition of marriage, which is something that we have always done it that way is the same — is a corollary to the because I say so. It’s not a reason. You can’t have continued discrimination in public schools because you have always done it that way. You can’t have continued discrimination between races on the basis of marriage because you have always done it that way.

That line of reasoning would have prevented the Loving marriage. It would have justified racially segregated schools.

Wow. Olson goes on:

Well, we know that taking away the right to marry was indeed the very essence of slavery. Yet that very freedom, once denied to slaves and denied to interracial couples throughout this country is now being denied to the plaintiffs not because they are Chinese, not because of their race, but because of their sexual orientation. How can it be wrong in those areas and right in this area under the Equal Protection Clause? That does not square with any of the language that the Supreme Court has used in deciding equal protection cases. And that has been used, that same language has been used to strike down classes among citizens. That’s the language of Romer. That principle has been extended from race to nationality to ancestry to sex to legitimacy to the favoring of the husband in matters of marital property and in 1996 in the Romer case to sexual orientation.

That, my friends, is a closing.

Therese Stewart from San Francisco is up next, talking about the specific harm the city and county suffer because of Proposition 8. Why do people go to San Fran to marry?

MS. STEWART: Because it’s long been the City of love the city where people leave their hearts. It’s a fact of our culture.

JUDGE WALKER: The City of love.

Yup.

Charles Cooper is closing for the Prop 8 proponents:

It’s because this relationship is crucial to the public interest. It’s crucial to the public interest because, Your Honor, the procreative sexual relations . . . benefit to society and [the plaintiff's argument] represents a very real threat to society’s interests.

JUDGE WALKER: A threat?

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. A threat in the sense that, to whatever extent children are born into the world without this stable, enduring marital union, raised and responsibility taken for the offspring by both of the parents that brought them into the world, then a host of very important and very negative social implications arise and potential social consequences arise.

Interesting.

Cooper’s closing is weak.

JUDGE WALKER: Don’t we have to have evidence?

MR. COOPER: You don’t have to have evidence of this point, if one court after another has recognized — let me turn to the California cases on this. The first purpose of matrimony any by the laws of nature and society is procreation. The California Supreme Court said that . . . . A century later the California Supreme Court reemphasized that. ” The institution of marriage serves the public interest because it channels biological drives — channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive and it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment.” That’s the California Supreme Court, Your Honor. That’s the purpose of marriage in this state according to the California Supreme Court.

And? The judge concurred with my thoughts here:

JUDGE WALKER: Let me ask, if you have got 7 million Californians who took this position, 70 judges as you pointed out, and this long history that you have described, why in this case did you present but one witness on this subject, one witness? It seems you had a lot to choose from if you had that many people behind you. Why only one witness? And I think it fair to say that his testimony was equivocal in some respects.

Ouch. Then, Cooper responded:

You need only go back to your chambers, Your Honor, and pull down any dictionary, pull down any book that discusses marriage, and you will find this procreative purpose at its heart wherever you go unless, unless, Your Honor, that book was written by one of their experts or has been written over the course of the last 30 years.

The “30 years” point somewhat tore apart his case, as Cooper admitted that things have changed in the past 30 years.

JUDGE WALKER: If it is taking place throughout the country and throughout the world in this fashion, then doesn’t that indicate a changed perspective with respect to the role and function of marriage in society?

MR. COOPER: In the minds of many, yes, Your Honor. In the minds of many.

Yeah, I’m not sure how you jump out of that hole. To say that Walker’s questions of Cooper are more probing and less sympathetic is to understate them. This:

JUDGE WALKER: Let me ask you. You heard Mr. Olson this morning recount the experience of, and the background of the loving decision by the Supreme Court in 1964, I think, 67. And up to that time numerous states had laws on the books which prohibited interracial marriage. At some point there came exactly the same kind of social change that you have just described with respect to homosexuality. And at some point, 1967, that matured into a constitutional recognition of a constitutional right, that the limitation against interracial marriage violated a fundamental individual right under our communication. Why are we not at that same at this point . . . here with respect to same-sex marriage?

Well then.

After — in his discussion of the standard of review — positing that gays are not politically powerless and asserting that homosexuality is not immutable, Cooper did acknowledge that gays do have a history of discrimination.

JUDGE WALKER: This Proposition 8 and these other positions in other states that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, the DOMA statute that has been mentioned, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from military service for a long period of time, aren’t all those simply indicia of a long history of discrimination?

MR. COOPER: No, we would — I want to are clear on this. We have never disputed and we have offered to stipulate that gays and lesbians have been the victims of a long and shameful history of discrimination. We have been bound to note that thankfully the situation today in 2010 is not what it was even yesterday let alone in 1990 when high tech gays was decided, thankfully.

Um, this is just a roundabout, sneaky way of claiming that gays aren’t politically powerless any longer.

Walker gets into what rational basis is even claimed:

JUDGE WALKER: A disability, a classification, has been put on marriage which disables people who wish to marry others of the same sex. In order to disable certain citizens do you not have to show a core relative benefit to others or to society? And the “I don’t know” or you don’t know where this is going to lead answer, is that enough to impose upon some citizens a restriction that others do not suffer from?

MR. COOPER: It is if there is a rational basis for that distinction, yes. I really think that really ends up being the bottom line on it. If there is no — if there is — if in looking at the, whatever society’s purposes are for marriage and interests are for regulating and caring about marriage, if there is no basis on which to draw a distinction between one group and another, then the distinction can’t stand. But if there is a distinguishing characteristic that is relevant to one of those purposes, then the distinction can stand.

Not so sure there.

Now, the plaintiffs will have a 30-minute rebuttal time. Olson crushes from the start:

[Y]ou can’t come in here and say I don’t know and I don’t have to prove anything and I don’t need any evidence except for some people writing in books who won’t come into court and subject themselves to the judicial process.

. . . .

Mr. Cooper says you have to accept the fact that first of all you have to accept my definition it has to be between a man and a woman. Then if you have oh marriage between a man and a man or a woman or a woman it will change the marriage. Well, of course it will, because you started by defining the term that you wanted to define.

Blunt. Echoing an earlier editorial about the Vermont marriage case in The New Republic that I’ve always loved, Olson said: “Proposition 8 isn’t changing the institution of marriage. It is correcting a restriction based upon sex and sexual orientation.”He then addressed the issue of why this is coming up now:

It’s no longer against the law to work for the federal government. It’s no longer against the law in most places to walk into a bar if you are a homosexual. The break down thank God of some of these barriers has changed people’s attitudes and I am sure that contributes to people saying, “Now, well, if that’s the case and psychiatrists have changed their view about homosexuality.” People no longer think it’s a disorder or anything like that. They have explained and people have come to understand the differences between various members of society and we have found out that all of those horrible taboos are not justified. In fact — and there are stories, some of which were in the ads that were supporting Proposition 8, are no longer true. So of course people are thinking well, if these are our fellow citizens and they don’t present a risk to us, they are not damaging they are just like us, why shouldn’t we start talking about marriage?

Nicely put. Olson ended:

[Y]ou have to have a reason [for Prop 8] and you have to have a reason that’s real not post hoc justification not speculation not built on stereotypes and not hypothetical.

That’s what the Supreme Court decisions tell us. We don’t have that here. We have a decision that takes — and there isn’t any question. A group of people who have been victims of discrimination, who are a discreet minority, who have identifiable characteristics, their sexual orientation. And we want to foreclose them from participating in the most fundamental relationship in life.

. . . .

The Romer case that says you can’t take away rights and make them unconstitutional impossible to recover except by amending your state constitution. And the Lawrence case that says that the sexual orientation of individuals and their private conduct is a protected right. You cannot then in the face of all those decisions by the United States Supreme
Court say to these individuals, “We are going to take away the constitutional right to liberty privacy association and sexual intimacy that we tell you that you have and then we will now use that as a basis for not allowing you the freedom to marry.” That is not acceptable. It’s not acceptable under our Constitution. And Mr. Blankenhorn is absolutely right the day that we end that we will be more American.”

With that, as Judge Walker concluded, “ The matter is submitted.”

Sen. Bennett (R-UT) (Image from AP/Susan Walsh)

After 1 a.m. this morning, as the Senate considers a slew of Republican amendments — many “poison pills” — to the House’s health care reconciliation “fixes,” Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) had his anti-LGBT, anti-federalist amendment considered.

The amendment would have stopped marriage equality in the District until a popular vote on the matter could be held.

By a little past 1:30 this morning, however, the amendment was defeated. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), presiding over the late-night session, announced the roll call vote: 36-59.

At least one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) was reported by the clerk to have voted no on the amendment. [A second Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), also voted against the amendment.]

The entire process of considering all these amendments — deemed #votearama on Twitter — is being detailed by CAP’s @wonkroom.

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.

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!

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.

While most of the Washington, D.C., area was checking the time for the next snowball fight or their fridge to see how much milk was left during this past week’s double-snowstorm, the federal government – by and large – was closed for business, with the Office of Personnel Management closing federal offices in the capital area for most of the past week.

Unfortunately, the government slowdown meant that movement on any issues – LGBT equality issues included – was hampered.

Check it out!

Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT)

In Metro Weekly — “Utah Congressman Takes Aim at D.C.” — I take a look at U.S. Rep. Josh Chaffetz’s effort to stop the District’s efforts at marriage equality:

The ranking Republican member of the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia filed legislation on Tuesday, Jan. 26, disapproving of the District’s passage of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. According to the District’s own delegate in Congress, however, the bill will not be moving forward.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), introduced the bill as the first formal step in the congressional process for overturning the marriage-equality bill passed by the District of Columbia in December 2009. In order to be overturned, Chaffetz’s bill would need to be passed by both the House and the Senate – where no such bill has been introduced – and signed by the president.

Obama

Today, President Obama gave some of the most extensive and supportive statements I’ve ever seen him make on the specifics of LGBT relationship equality.  At a town hall in Tampa, Fla., the following exchange took place:

Q    All right, I’m Hector and I’m a student at UT.  (Applause.)  And my question is, last night you talked about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and my question is what are you doing now to put in motion so that same-sex couples and homosexuals are treated as equal citizens of the United States, i.e., same-sex marriages and the thousand-plus benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy after marriage?  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are.  (Applause.)  I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples.  So at the federal level, one of the things that we’re trying to do is to make sure that partnerships are recognized for purposes of benefits so that hospital visitation, for example, is something that is permitted; that Social Security benefits or pension benefits or others, that same-sex couples are recognized in all those circumstances.

I think that we’ve got to — we actually have an opportunity of passing a law that’s been introduced in Congress right now, and my hope is this year we can get it done, just for federal employees and federal workers.  A lot of companies, on their own, some of the best-run companies have adopted these same practices. I think it’s the right thing to do and it makes sense for us to take a leadership role in ensuring that people are treated the same.  (Applause.)

Look, if you are — regardless of your personal opinions, the notion that somebody who’s working really hard for 30 years can’t take their death benefits and transfer them to the person that they love the most in the world and who has supported them all their lives, that just doesn’t seem fair.  It doesn’t seem right.  (Applause.)  And I think it’s the right thing to do.

This appears to encompass both the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act being pushed forward by U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), which he specifically notes in the second paragraph of his answer, as well as the Respect for Marriage Act, which is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010. (Photo from White House Web site.)

My article, “A Nation’s Priorities,” addressing the inclusion of and reaction to LGBT issues in tonight’s State of the Union Address is up at Metro Weekly:

Noting that one in 10 Americans are without work and that millions will lose their health insurance this year, President Barack Obama gave his first State of the Union address on Wednesday night. It wasn’t, however, until the closing minutes of the speech that the man who said that he would be a ”fierce advocate” for LGBT equality mentioned any legislative issue specific to that equality.

In his third address to a joint session of Congress, Obama focused, for the first two-thirds of the speech, on the nation’s economic and employment problems. The latter portion of the speech was primarily dedicated to foreign affairs issues.

Early in his speech, though, the President referenced a letter he had received from a woman who very well might have been the voice of the LGBT community, as she wrote, ”We are strained, but hopeful.”

Read on at Metro Weekly.