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!

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.

Rep. Frank (D-MA) at a reception for GLAAD on Thursday evening.

Following up on Thursday’s news, I look at “The Politics of Repeal” at Metro Weekly:

Calling the changes to the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy a ”great improvement” that supportive members of Congress had ”been urging them to do,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) quickly framed that movement in terms of the lack of movement on the issue from the White House, saying on Thursday evening, ”They’re ducking.”

The mix of cautious optimism and a push for further movement from President Barack Obama was not that unusual of a response to the announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that military enforcement of the ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be handled in a ”fairer and more appropriate manner.”

And, Rep. Frank, as usual, was not one to hold back:

Asked if repeal efforts would succeed this year, Rep. Frank said, ”I hope so. I think the President’s got to step up more. I’ve talked to both Sen. [Carl] Levin [D-Mich.] and Rep. Murphy, and we’re still trying to do that. It’s harder with the administration.”

Following up on what he previously referred to as the ”ambiguous” nature of the White House’s support for a repeal this year, Rep. Frank said, ”They’re ducking. Basically, yeah, they’re not being supportive, and they’re letting Gates be the spokesman, which is a great mistake.”

Read it all, including the White House’s response, at Metro Weekly.

More about Rep. Frank, turning 70 this year, at the Victory Fund’s GayPolitics.com.

Rep. Murphy at SLDN's 18th Annual National Dinner on Saturday.

My exclusive interview at Metro Weekly with Rep. Patrick Murphy — “Murphy’s Law?” — has some good stuff. I think it’s one of the better interviews I’ve done. The opening:

On Friday afternoon, March 19, a day before he was to be the keynote speaker at the 18th Annual National Dinner of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.) took time out of his health care-packed congressional schedule to talk with Metro Weekly.

An Iraq war veteran who served as a captain in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, Murphy took over the leadership of the bill to repeal the military’s ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in 2009 when former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) left Congress for a post in the State Department of the Obama administration.

Calling Lt. Dan Choi — arrested Thursday, March 18, for protesting the policy at the White House — an ”American hero” and saying that, ”Yes,” there would be a vote on repealing the policy this year, Murphy spoke about both the need for repeal and the efforts to make that repeal happen.

. . . .

Of his forthcoming appearance at tonight’s SLDN event, Murphy said, ”It’s an honor to stand shoulder to shoulder with SLDN and with those heroes who are gay and lesbian and willing to take a bullet for their country.”

Check the interview out!

Rep. Murphy (D-Penn.) gives the keynote address at the SLDN dinner on Saturday evening.

Sens. Lieberman, Levin and McCain look at the witnesses - Jenny Kopfstein, Michael Almy and Gen. John Sheehan (Ret.) -- at the 9:45 a.m. start of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. Almy and Kopfstein were discharged from the Armed Forces because of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

My piece about the hearing, “Sheehan’s Stand,” covers the former general’s somewhat extraordinary comments:

Since Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) first began hearings last month on the military’s ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy,” he’s had many witnesses voice disagreement with him. Never, though, has the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee been as plainly frustrated as he was on Thursday morning, March 18, during the testimony of retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan.

At one point during the hearing, Levin looked directly at Sheehan and ended a line of questioning by telling the former Supreme Allied Commander of the Atlantic, ”I think the burden to maintain a discriminatory policy is on the people who maintain the policy – not on the people who want to end it.”

Lt. Dan Choi chained himself to the fence on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House at a little past 1 p.m. Thursday. James Pietrangelo, who previously challenged the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in court, also was chained to the fence, to Choi's left. Both men were later arrested and are being held overnight Thursday. Robin McGehee also was arrested, but later released, in front of the White House.

My article on the Human Rights Campaign’s rally and Choi’s protest and arrest, “Hearing, Rally and Arrests,” covers the breadth of the walk along Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Capitol to Freedom Plaza to the White House. Yusef Najafi covered the men’s arraignment on Friday.

Janine Carmona is escorted from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office by Capitol Police a little past 7 p.m. Thursday evening. She was among five people arrested as the result of a protest organized by Get Equal; they were there calling for the Speaker to commit to a floor vote this month on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

Finally, my first look at Get Equal and the Pelosi office protest, “Not the ENDA the Road“:

Eight activists went into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office in the Cannon House Office Building at 4 p.m. Thursday for what was described as a scheduled meeting in her office. As Samantha Ames later told the Capitol Police, however, ”We’re not leaving until we get confirmation from Nancy Pelosi that she’s going to have this bill up for a vote before the end of the month.”

”So, absent that, we’re not leaving,” Ames said. ”We’re not making any trouble, we’re not causing any damage or anything, but we’re also not going to leave.”

After an official with Pelosi’s office informed the activists that the office would be closing at 7 p.m., four of the eight remained in the office. Capitol Police informed the activists that they would be arrested if they did not leave. About 7:30 p.m. a group of nearly 10 officers entered the office and restrained Ames, Janine Carmona, Chastity Kirven and Michelle Wright. The officers led them out of the office building and into a police van.

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?

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.]