“I don’t have any doubt that ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ will be a memory by the end of this year,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told Roll Call yesterday, before suggesting that she will have enough votes to pass the repeal and the more controversial Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). “I’m not going to bring up anything that’s not going to win,” Pelosi said. “And we feel that we’re in a pretty good, strong position on both bills”:

On Wednesday, Pelosi alluded to the thinking of many Democrats, which is to insert language repealing the policy into the defense authorization bill.

“‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’ if it were to be part of a defense authorization bill, it would have to be something that we would have to make a decision about sooner than [ENDA],” Pelosi said. “And we’re having our conversations. “I support ENDA. I have for decades and it’s very important to me,” said Pelosi.

“When the opportunity is there, we want to bring that up, and I hope that will be soon,” she said. “We’ll see what people want to do. It’s not my own personal decision. We’ll just see where we go from here.”

Repeal of DADT is certainly morel likely in the House than the Senate. Yesterday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) officially announced that he would not attach provision repealing DADT to his committee’s defense authorization measure, but leading sponsors of the measure, like Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) have pledged to move ahead on repeal — despite Robert Gates’ insistence that Congress hold off on legislation until the Pentagon completes its year-long review of the policy. Depending on what happens in the Senate next week — Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) is still struggling to convince 15 of 28 committee members to support the amendment in committee — Pelosi may either allow the measure to come to the floor for a vote or (should the Senate successfully attaches the measure) agree to it in conference.

Advocates are also eager to move ENDA, but worry that Republicans could include a ‘poison pill” motion to recommit that would strip the protections for transgendered individuals. The Hill reports, however, quotes “a leading House liberal” as saying that” House leaders had this week told similarly minded members of the caucus that ENDA was going to be taken up before the elections, regardless of what happens with “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” “It’ll be right before we leave,” this Democrat said, “to energize the base.” That vote may occur as early as the second week in June.

On Tuesday, the Iowa Department of Public Health reported that “out-of-staters made up 60 percent of same-sex couples married in Iowa since the state began allowing such unions in April 2009.” Of the 2,020 same-sex marriages that were recorded in Iowa from April 27, 2009 through March 31, “only 815 of the couples were from Iowa,” 199 were from Illinois, 158 from Missouri and 111 from Nebraska.

Business owners are noticing a corresponding uptick in spending and tourism and hotel owners seem particularly grateful for the Supreme Court decision. And while economic data is still unavailable, in April 2008 the Williams Institute published a study estimating that the state could see a “a $5.3 million per year net benefit of same-sex marriage.”

But at least one Iowa lawmaker isn’t happy about the increase in economic activity. Today, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) — who warned that same-sex marriage would lead to socialism — issued a statement lamenting that the 2009 Supreme Court decision has turned Iowa “into the gay marriage Mecca” and called on the legislature to institute residency requirements or a constitutional amendment to repeal it:

KING: Just over one year ago, when the Iowa Supreme Court decided to ignore Iowa law and grant same sex couples the ability to get married in our state, I predicted that the decision, absent action by the state legislature to enact a marriage license residency requirement, would turn Iowa into the gay marriage Mecca…This new report from the Department of Public Health reemphasizes the short-sightedness of the court’s decision to enact a same-sex marriage law from the bench, and it provides even more evidence of the need for a residency requirement and a constitutional amendment to repeal it.

Could it be that King doesn’t want the state profiting from same-sex marriage because it would allow gays and lesbians to wear their sexuality on their sleeves?