Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson continued to press White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on President Obama’s 1996 support for same-sex marriage at today’s press briefing, leading Gibbs to again dodge the question by re-stating Obama’s now much more conservative position on the issue. At one point Gibbs even seems to accept Johnson’s premise that Obama has to “re-claim” his earlier progressive support for marriage equality:

GIBBS: I was not with the President in 1996…I would simply say that throughout the campaign of 2004 and the campaign of 2008, he’s made his position clear on that.

JOHNSON: Was there a political motivation for the President to drop his support for same-sex marriage as he sought higher office?

GIBBS: Again, I would refer you to my previous answer. [...]

JOHNSON: Will the President re-claim his support for same-sex marriage before the 2012 election?

GIBBS: I’m not in the business of predicting. I think you’ve seen this President be clearly committed to issues of equality and justice…I can speak to 2011 as a year in which a policy like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will end.

Watch it:

In 1996, while running for state senate, Obama told the newspaper Outlines that he supported same-sex marriage, saying “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Since running for national office, Obama has devloved back to his current position of only supporting civil unions but has recently suggested that he may again “evolve” on the issue. Johnson asked Gibbs a similar question last week.

In today’s installment of State Marriage Watch, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn will sign a bill recognizing same-sex unions, while lawmakers in Utah are considering legislation to prohibit same-sex couples from making contractual arrangements:

- ILLINOIS: This afternoon, Gov. Patrick Quinn will sign SB1716, the “Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act,” which allows gay and straight couples to enter into civil unions. They will receive some of the same benefits available to married couples, “including the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital, disposition of a deceased loved one’s remains and the right to make decisions about a loved one’s medical care.”

- WYOMING: On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee narrowly defeated House Bill 150, which would have enacted civil unions in the state. Opponents claimed civil unions were a stepping stone to marriage equality and one witness even argued that “contrary to the media’s portrayal of gay couples as loving and healthy, there were “mental and physical health risks involved” with homosexual relationships.”

- COLORADO: State Sen. Pat Steadman said he will soon introduce a measure allowing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. In 2006, voters approved Amendment 43 to the Colorado constitution, specifying that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Colorado.” A 2010 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Roster Research and American Viewpoint showed that 72 percent of Coloradans support legal recognition of gay couples. Republicans hold a slight majority in the state senate (33-32) while Democrats control the house (20-15).

- RHODE ISLAND: The House Judiciary Committee will take up a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island on Wednesday.

- UTAH: State Representative LaVar Christensen (R), who pushed through the state’s same-sex marriage ban, has “reintroduced a bill he tried to run in 2006 which prohibits same sex couples from making contractual arrangements such as wills and financial arrangements.” HB 182, slides in under the generic title ‘Voiding Transactions Against Public Policy’ but would “strip even more rights away from the same sex couples who desperately depend on contractual arrangements as Utah denies them any of the inherent protections afforded to any other couple.”

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

Last year, Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos became the face of the opposition to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, going so far as to argue that if Congress lifted the ban against open service and allowed gays to serve without hiding their sexual orientation, the Marines could be so distracted that they would die in the line of duty. But since President Obama signed repeal legislation on December 22, Amos has moderated his rhetoric and has now taken part in a video asking Marines to respect and accommodate the policy change:

AMOS: Above all else we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our chain of command and the American people….I want to be clear to all Marines. We will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new law. It’s important that we value the diversity, background, culture and skills of all Marines bring to the service of our nation. As we implement repeal, I want leaders at all leaders to re-emphasize the important of maintaining dignity and respect for one another throughout our force.

Watch it:

Last week, in a sign that the Defense Department is moving to accelerate the process for certifying the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to prepare a plan “to facilitate the timely and orderly realization” of certification by February 4, 2011. Significantly, DOD announced that it would not recognize the partners of gay servicemembers or establish a new non-discrimination policy across the armed forces.

Still, Amos’ support for an orderly implementation — the General did always stress that he would work to change the policy in an orderly fashion should Congress vote for repeal — takes the wind out of the sails of several conservative lawmakers who clung on to Amos’ remarks as a reason to preserve the policy and are now trying to slow-walk the certification process. In fact, Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA) and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (D-CA) both cited Amos as a reason to oppose repeal and are now backing legislation to add the service chiefs to the certification process.

The Department of Defense is moving to accelerate the process for certifying the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, two memos obtained by the Wonk Room reveal. Under the legislation passed by Congress last year, the policy prohibiting gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces cannot be lifted until 60 days after the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President certify that repeal does not undermine the goals of the military.

“The implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a milestone event for the Department,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates writes in one memo, in which he instructs Clifford Stanley, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to prepare a plan “to facilitate the timely and orderly realization” of certification by February 4, 2011. “This is not, however, a change that should be done incrementally,” he writes. “The steps leading to certification and the actual repeal must be accomplished across the entire Department at the same time, and consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.” Gates lays out six “guiding principles” for achieving repeal, which do not appear to include the establishment of a new nondiscrimination policy:

- All personnel will be treated with respect.
- No policy should be established that is solely based on on sexual orientation.
- Harassment or unlawful discrimination of any member of the Armed Forces for any reason will not be tolerated.
- Standards of personal and professional conduct will apply uniformly to all military personnel, regardless of sexual orientation.
- Implementation will be timely, deliberate, comprehensive, and consistent with the standards of readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
- Implementation standards will be consistent across all Services.”

The second memo from Stanley himself details the changes that will take effect once repeal is certified. These include: (1) all open investigations commenced under the DADT policy will be dismissed, (2) recruits will not be required to specify their sexual orientation, (3) discharged service members will be allowed to re-enlist and (4) the existing standards of conduct will apply to all servicemembers regardless of sexual orientation.

In response to concerns from conservative lawmakers and chaplains, the memo stipulates that “[t]here will be no changes regarding Service member exercise of religious beliefs, nor are there any changes to policies concerning the Chaplain Corps of the Military Departments and their duties. The Chaplain Corps’ First Amendment freedoms and their duty to care for all will not change.”

The memo also directly addresses personal privacy, noting that “the creating of separate bathroom facilities or living quarters based on sexual orientation is prohibited, and Commanders may not establish practices that physically segregate Service members according to sexual orientation.” Citing the restrictions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the memo says that there will be no changes “at this time” to eligibility standards for military benefits. Medical policies, duty assignments, and release from service commitments will also be left unchanged.

The memo concludes that once the ban is lifted, “The Department will not authorize compensation of any type, including retroactive full separation pay, for those previously separated ” under DADT.

After Congress repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R) introduced legislation to prevent gay people from serving in Virginia National Guard. On Wednesday, Marshall added to his claims that gay people undermine military readiness and unit cohesion by arguing that gay soldiers would harm America’s ability to fight “beside Muslim troops”:

MARSHALL: There is about 200 militaries in the world, roughly 27 of them allow open homosexuals to serve, most of them are in Western Europe. These are the results of court decisions, not military decisions. The two biggest ones with voluntary militaries, Pakistan does not allow open homosexuals. China, which has conscription does not do it, India does not allow it. Russia does not do it. So we’re pushing the envelope here and we’re going to jeopardize our alliances, I think, when we fight beside Muslim troops who have a real hard time, you know, dealing with this kind of behavior.

Watch it:

Significantly, gay troops have not undermined the alliances of the nations that do allow open service. In fact, those countries have not reported any disruption or reduced military capacity, despite initially sharing some of Marshall’s anxieties about implementing the change.

Marshall’s proposal stands little chance of being enacted and has been condemned by Virginia’s conservative governor Bob McDonnell. “The governor is a retired United States Army officer, and he knows it is critically important that there be one set of rules for all our men and women in the military, since uniformity of major policy across all branches is essential to effective operations,” McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin told the Washington Post. “We are not aware of a single instance in recent history where the Virginia National Guard has not complied with the policies and procedures of the Department of Defense. Furthermore, approximately 90 percent of the Virginia Guard’s funding is federal, and any departure from federal policies may put this funding at risk.”

Delegate Joseph Morrissey (D) has also proposed a counter bill that would “codify in state law that the Virginia National Guard is subject to the same eligibility requirements as the U.S. military.”

Wyoming is moving even further away from its ‘Equality State’ slogan, having just advanced another anti-marriage initiative through the Senate. Meanwhile, Maryland is pushing forward same-sex marriage legislation with substantial public support. All that and more in today’s State Marriage Watch:

- WYOMING: The AP is reporting that the Wyoming Senate has passed a bill that would allow voters to decide whether the state should recognize same-sex marriages. The Senate voted 21-7 on Tuesday in favor of a resolution, which will face “two more votes in the Senate before it can advance to the House for debate.” Yesterday, the Wyoming House passed House Bill 74 — banning the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere — by a vote of 32-27. That measure is now also in the Senate.

- HAWAII: The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 232, civil unions legislation that is identical to the measure vetoed last year by former Governor Lisa Lingle, by a vote of 3-2 vote. “The bill now goes to the Senate floor for the second of three required votes by the full chamber.” A separate measure, SB 231, would accomplish the same goal, but includes various administrative clarifications. A House version of the civil unions bill has not yet been introduced, but may come as soon as tomorrow. Governor Neil Abercrombie (D) has said he will sign such legislation.

- MARYLAND: This morning, Equality Maryland and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve introduced the House version of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, a measure to expand marriage to gays and lesbians. A Senate version was introduced last week. Meanwhile, a new poll finds that “51 percent of voters say they would favor a law in Maryland allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44 percent opposed such a law and 5 percent gave no response.” These results are significant since, anti-marriage activists have promised to place the question on the ballot if the bill becomes law.

- IOWA: A constitutional ban on gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other legal recognition of same-sex couples “cleared the Iowa House Judiciary Committee Monday, setting the stage for a public hearing next week.” The Iowa Independent reports that 12 Republicans and 1 Democrat — state Rep. Kurt Swaim of Bloomfield — voted in favor of House Joint Resolution 6. Eight Democrats voted against it. The measure is expected to pass the House, where Republicans have a majority of 60-40, but will likely stall in the Senate, where Democrats are have a two-seat advantage (26-24).

- DC: The Hill reported today that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), has pledged to push for a vote that would ban gay marriage in the nation’s capital. Jordan had previously pledge to focus on economic issues.

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

President Obama will announce tonight that gay and lesbian servicemembers will be able to serve openly in the armed forces as soon as this year, suggesting that he will soon certify repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Under the measure Congress passed last year, the repeal does not go into effect until 60 days after the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Obama certify that it does not undermine military readiness or unit cohesion. From the speech, as published by the National Journal:

OBAMA: Our troops come from every corner of this country – they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.

Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the Defense Department would begin implementing repeal of DADT “as quickly but as responsibly as possible,” describing implementation as a three-step process that involves changing regulations, prepare training materials, and training the servicemembers. Gates has tasked Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley to accelerate the first two phases of implementation and said the Pentagon was approaching the task with the philosophy of, it’s better to end the policy “sooner rather than later.”

Several Republicans, however, have introduced a measure in the House to delay implementation. That measure would require the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to sign off on allowing openly gay service members, even though the chiefs have previously suggested that such a measure would undermine the military’s chain of command.

Since the Supreme Court declined to hear their petition to challenge Washington D.C.’s 10-month-old same-sex marriage law, opponents of marriage equality are now going to try and challenge the ban in Congress, the Hill reports:

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), told The Hill that he will push for a vote on the controversial issue in the 112th Congress. The RSC has 175 members.

“I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it. I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it,” Jordan said.

In the last Congress, Jordan was the lead sponsor on the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act. The bill was introduced after the D.C. City Council and then-Mayor Adrian Fenty indicated they would recognize same-sex marriages.

Jordan’s measure garnered 53 co-sponsors last year. But it is expected to attract more support in the GOP-led House in 2011.

The problem, as Adam Serwer notes, is that Jordan is from Ohio and that undermines conservative’s efforts to present their campaign as a local effort to give DC residents the right to vote on the issue and contradicts the Republican criticism against federal involvement in local affairs. But, the party is willing to swallow the hypocrisy to impose their prejudices on the District and take away gay people’s right to marry. Jordan himself had lobbied the Supreme Court to take up the marriage case and has said that he won’t be attending CPAC because of the presence of the gay GOP group GOProud.

D.C.’s marriage law was enacted in 2009, after the D.C. Council passed two measures to recognize marriages performed outside and inside the District. Both bills passed though a mandated congressional review period without challenge, even though several conservative Republicans “sponsored bills to ban same-sex marriages in the District or mandate a referendum.” Jordan’s measures will likely get a vote in the Republican-controlled House, but will be vetoed by Obama if it makes it through the Senate.

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) has finally issued an executive order barring discrimination in state-based employment, after allowing his predecessor’s EO to briefly expire. Like former Gov. Ted Strickland’s EO, the measure prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin (ancestry), military status (past, present or future), disability, age or sexual orientation, but does not include protections for gender identity — which Kasich specifically promised to extend during the gubernatorial campaign. (The measure does add a new category for genetic information.):

Kasich had said in response to a Dispatch questionnaire that he would continue Strickland’s 2007 order, and the question specifically mentioned gender identity.

Asked why Kasich decided to omit it, spokesman Scott Milburn replied: “The governor is opposed to discrimination in state employment and has made that clear in this executive order in the way that he feels is most appropriate.”

As Autumn Sandeen of Palm’s House Blend notes, “So apparently it’s now ‘appropriate’ to discriminate against those state employees in Ohio who were who were once protected by the gender identity provision of the previous governor’s antidiscrimination order.” “Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but feel that Republican Governor John Kasich threw a bone to social/religious right conservatives — he singled out a very small minority population that were once protected by the state’s antidiscrimination policy, and has now has left them vulnerable. The chances of a large and effective enough protest against the change of policy means he gives his socially conservative base something to be pleased about that won’t be effectively countered by a broad coalition of people on the left. ”

The Ohio House passed a measure prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in, but the legislation never came up for a vote in the Senate. The state does not offer non-discrimination protection for LGBT employees.

CNN is teasing this segment from Piers Morgan’s upcoming interview with Pastor Joel Osteen, in which the usually jovial TV evangelist says he believes that that homosexuality is a “sin” and that God can give gay people the “grace to change”:

OSTEEN: I’ve always believed Pierce, that the scripture shows that it’s a sin, but I’m not one to bash homosexuals or tell them that they’re terrible people and all that. There are other sins in the bible too. …I don’t believe that homosexuality is God’s best for a person’s life. [...]

MORGAN: And when you see civil partnerships sanctioned, you think that’s wrong, presumably?

OSTEEN: Yes, I think it’s wrong, but I’m not going to bash those people. I’m not going to be against those people, they’re good people. I say it’s wrong because that’s what the scripture says. [...]

MORGAN: Say a friend of mine like Elton John watching this at home, who with his partner – a civil partner, David Furnish – have just had a surrogate child which was born on Christmas day. They’re going to be pretty angry what they hear. They’re going to think who are you to call them a sinner.

OSTEEN: Yes.

MORGAN: But why are they sinners in your eyes?

OSTEEN: Well, it’s strictly back to what the scripture says. I mean, I can’t grab one part and say God wants you to be blessed and live an abundant life, and not grab the other part that says, you know what? You know, live that kind of life. So it comes back to the scripture. I’m not the judge. You know, God didn’t tell me to go around judging everybody.

MORGAN: I’m not so sure though, you see. I think you are a kind of judge, I think you can’t abrogate that responsibility — because of your influence. Seven, eight million viewers every Sunday. When you say things like homosexuality is a sin, it’s a big statement to make. You are a judge. And you’re encouraging your congregation to believe that. [...]

V. OSTEEN: We’re not judging the person. [...]

MORGAN: You are judging the person, aren’t you?

OSTEEN: Well, to me, I’m not the one to judge and say who’s bad or who’s good….I don’t know that God is judging sins on different levels, but we pick out that one. If you listen to my message, they’re about lifting people up and so it’s not, I mean I really talk about homosexuality when we get on the interviews.

MORGAN: Yea, but now I’m curious, what would you say to a homosexual watching this? How do they change? What do they have to do to change to be better people?

OSTEEN: Well, I don’t know that I understand it all. I believe that it’s a process. But I believe that God can give us grace to change. We’ve seen people break addictions, and do other other things as well.

Watch it:

Osteen has been criticized by some members of the evangelical community for not stressing “sin” enough. During a 60 Minutes profile in 2007, one Christian reverend said that Osteen “tells only half the story of the Bible, focusing on the good news without talking about sin, suffering and redemption” and went so far as to accuse him of teaching “heresy.”

Wyoming and Iowa are advancing anti-marriage legislation, while Maryland is getting closer to voting on expanding marriage equality to its residents sometime next month — all this and more in our latest installment of State Marriage Watch:

- WYOMING: Moments ago, the Wyoming House passed House Bill 74 — banning the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere — by a vote of 32-27. The measure now moves to the Senate. On Friday, the Wyoming Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation by a 3-2 vote that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, but amended the legislation to allow for civil unions. The House Judiciary Committee will take up civil unions legislation — H.R. 150 — this week.

- MARYLAND: Last week, Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola of Montgomery County introduced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (SB116), which would permit same-sex couples to marry but would not require churches to perform the unions. The House version of that bill is scheduled to be introduced this week by House Majority Leader Kumar Barve. Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons is also due to introduce a “slightly different” bill. ‘ Equality Maryland expects a Senate hearing on either Tuesday, Feb. 1 or Thursday, Feb. 3 and anticipates “a three-day fight on the Senate floor during the week of Feb. 7, culminating with a cloture vote, which requires 29 votes. Twenty-four votes are needed to pass the Senate bill; there are 18 co-sponsors.”

- IOWA: An Iowa house subcommittee will hold the first hearings this afternoon on an amendment that would repeal recognition of same-sex marriages and ban civil unions. “The full judiciary committee is scheduled to consider the bill today at 4 p.m. Republicans have a 12-9 advantage on the committee and a 60-40 majority in the full House.” The Iowa Marriage Amendment (IMA) would “put a question on the 2013 ballot that would define marriage in the Iowa constitution as a heterosexual union – and thereby reverse the 2009 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that brought gay marriage to the Midwest.” The measure is “supported by 56 out of 60 Republicans in the House and supporters claim all 60 GOP members will likely vote for the measure, which has little – if any – support among Democrats.”

– NEW HAMPSHIRE: After initially saying that the party will focus on economic issues, New Hampshire’s House Republican leader, Rep. D.J. Bettencourt told The Associated Press he will ask the committee responsible for the repealing the state’s marriage equality law “to retain it until next year.”

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

On Wednesday, 56 Republicans in the Iowa House introduced a resolution to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Varnum v. Brien, which struck down Iowa’s law denying marriage to same-sex couples. The measure would allow voters to consider an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would eliminate not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions. It states: “Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.”

Conservatives are also rallying behind three-time failed gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, who is spearheading his own campaign to “build statewide support for all ‘pro-family’ government policies” and oust the four remaining judges who voted for marriage in 2009. Plaats is courting potential Republican presidential nominees to endorse his agenda and will likely force national Republicans vying for higher office to take a position on the state’s numerous anti-marriage initiatives. To bolster his case, Plaats has embarked on a 99-county tour of the state to introduce voters to his new group, The Family Leader. During one such event, Plaats was challenged on his marriage views by two supporters of marriage equality. In the amusing exchange that follows, Plaats compares same-sex marriage to polygamy, rails against “absolute tolerance” and calls for government to adhere to “higher standards” than the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence:

Q: How is preventing same-sex couples from getting married not going against the 14th amendment….[or] the first Amendment against the establishment of religion. By using your values and putting them in our legal system, how is that legal? [...]

PLAATS: We’re not denying anyone the right to the institution of marriage….we’re just saying it needs to be one man and one woman.

Q: You’re denying them marriage, just not your definition of marriage. [...]

PLAATS: It’s not my definition of marriage.

Q: It’s the bible’s and the Constitution prohibits any law respecting the establishment of religion.

PLAATS: And the Declaration of Independence, much like the law of nature, and the law of nature is God. ….The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, I’m glad you recite those, but I think there are higher standards. I really do. Because if it comes down to my standards, or your standards, it becomes absolute tolerance [...]

To me, the danger in that — let everyone in this country just explore their truth. So under that paradigm, I can inform Darla tonight, I’m going to marry Mary and Sue with you, that’s my truth…but if you want to explore the truth and say let’s just put whatever standards where. That can happen. And everybody shakes their head and says that’s not what we’re talking about, but that’s what we’re talking. [...] We’re going to be a vehicle of truth about what the Bible says and what the Constitution says.

Watch it:

A poll released last week found that 34 percent of Iowans supported full same-sex marriage rights, while 28 percent favored “only civil unions.” Thirty-four percent of respondents said they were “against any recognition.” Meanwhile, 54 percent of responders said they opposed impeaching the judges who brought same-sex marriage to the state.

Earlier this month, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady defended the court’s decision to overturn the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by reminding lawmakers that “the duty of courts to review the constitutionality of laws is known as judicial review and is one of our most basic responsibilities.” “This is the very duty the court exercised in the Varnum decision,” he said. (H/T: Good As You)

Yesterday, the Wyoming House advanced legislation prohibiting the state from recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages. The measure “passed on its first hearing with 34 votes,” but will not move to the Senate until it is approved by the House two additional times.

The Billings Gazette reports that most lawmakers attempted to portray the measure as a simple clarification of current law — the state does recognize marriages performed elsewhere and does not specifically exclude same-sex marriages — but state Rep. Frank Peasley (R) went a step further saying that conservatives were fighting against “government intrusion” into marriage, likening the expansion of marriage to smoking bans:

“I think all this is, is an outpost in culture that says, ‘Listen, I feel like you’re destroying everything else that I have,’” Peasley said. “You’ve gotten involved in the raising of my children, the way I discipline them, the way I feed them, whether or not I can smoke in the car, whether or not I have them properly equipped; you’ve just gotten into my life so much, let’s just let me define the relationship I’m in, OK?”

“Let’s just back up a little bit and see what’s happened,” Peasley said. “And maybe recognize this as that last outpost in our culture where a group of people has said, ‘please, please, let us be what we’ve always been.’ You can’t even define a family anymore.

The legislature is also “considering a Senate bill that proposes a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,” but that measure may have a hard time garnering the needed 2/3 majority to pass in the House. Meanwhile, Rep. Cathy Connolly, a Democrat who is a lesbian and a supporter of marriage equality, will introduce two bills to legalize same-sex marriages and establish civil unions.

For a complete run down of the progress of marriage initiatives in the states, read our State Marriage Watch. (H/T: On Top Magazine)

This afternoon, the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which Democrats had hoped to pass before the end of the Congress. Given the Republican takeover of the House, however, the issue has likely stalled for the foreseeable future, and so Johnson asked Gibbs if the President would continue to push for ENDA passage in the Senate or if he would be willing to discuss it in the context of jobs during the State of the Union. Gibbs promised the administration would try to “make progress” on the issue:

GIBBS: I think there is a whole host of things that the President has made part of his campaign, we talked about DOMA a few days ago, ENDA, and other things that are important to build off the progress of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell….we will certainly work to make progress on those fronts in obviously a much more challenging Congress…. I think you will see the President continue to push on a whole host of those issues.

Watch it:

Democrats in Congress had assured advocates that they would move on ENDA, but ultimately failed to make any real progresson the issue. In April of 2010, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told a group of gay activists that the House Education and Labor Committee will take up ENDA within several days and that the bill will likely receive a quick vote in the full House within weeks. By May, Democratic aids were assuring groups that the vote on the resolution would occur sometime before the November elections. “It’ll be right before we leave…to energize the base,” they said, predicting that the vote would occur as early as the second week in June or mid July. “When the opportunity is there, we want to bring that up, and I hope that will be soon,” Speaker Pelosi said. “We’ll see what people want to do.” Still, she promised a House vote by the end of the year.

In June, however, the situation began to look even more perilous. Pelosi said she would not bring up ENDA until Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed and Democrats in the Senate began to complain that they were not ready to take-up the bill. “This issue is just not ready for the Senate,” an LGBT advocate and political insider told The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld on condition of anonymity. “The procedural aspects of debate would make it way too easy for a [Sen. Jim] DeMint or a [Sen. Tom] Coburn to demagogue.” “The fact that there’s not a path in the Senate makes it a very heavy lift,” the source said. “It’s not enough to say that Pelosi needs to ram this through. The reason she isn’t able to ram it through is because members don’t want to vote for something that is politically difficult like this issue.” The bill had 45 Senate cosponsors and 199 House cosponsors.

Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner offers some more details on why ENDA was never brought up for a vote.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a new report estimating that it has cost the Department of Defense “about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers” under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy between 2004 and 2009. More than 14,000 servicemembers have been fired under the law since it was enacted in 1993.

According to the report, “1,458 (40 percent) of these servicemembers held skills in a critical occupation, an important foreign language, or both, as determined by us and the services.” Here is a more complete breakdown:

Some Republicans are now hoping to preserve the ban though last-ditch legislative effort that would add the military service chiefs to the certification of repeal. Yesterday, Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA) officially introduced a measure to require the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to sign off on allowing openly gay service members, even though the chiefs have previously suggested that such a measure would undermine the military’s chain of command. The current law requires the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Obama to certify the repeal process.

Meanwhile, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), the new Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel panel, promises to “hold hearings to look at the Pentagon’s plans to allow openly gay people to serve” and plans to “look for chances to reinstate the ban lifted by Congress in December.” The Chairman of the full committee — Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), may also battlefield commanders to testify “about whether lifting the ban will hurt morale and readiness.”

Download the full GAO report HERE.

Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla catches this interesting tidbit from CNS’ hour-long interview with potential presidential candidate former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). Along with reiterating his belief that same-sex marriage and gay adoption are a “violation of natural law,” Santorum also said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color:

SANTORUM: He can’t answer that simple question, which is not a debatable question. I don’t think you’ll find a biologist in the world who would say that is not a human life. The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the constitution? Barack Obama says no, well if that human life is not a person then…I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.

Watch it:

Santorum appears to be arguing that because black people were enslaved and not considered full persons at one time, Obama, as a black person, is being hypocritical in not recognizing that a fetus is a person. Or alternatively: as someone who was “not a person,” Obama shouldn’t say that a fetus is “not a person.”

None of this is of course very surprising to anyone who is familiar with the former senator’s long record of homophobic, racist, and sexist remarks. Santorum has said that “mainstream media” treats conservative African-Americans as an “Uncle Tom,” compared homosexuality to polygamy, incest, adultery and bestiality, and railed against “radical feminism.”

Yesterday, newly-minted Florida Governor Rick Scott appointed David Wilkins to head the state Department of Children & Families. Wilkins recently served on Scott’s transition team, but is also the financial chief of Florida Baptist Children’s Homes, which requires adoption applicants to “be a professing Christian, be active in a local Christian church, and follow a lifestyle that is consistent with the Christian faith.” Several LGBT groups are raising concerns about Wilkins’ background and the timing of his appointment, which occurs just months after the Third District Court of Appeal declared Florida’s gay adoption ban unconstitutional:

Both Sheldon and then-Attorney General Bill McCollum chose not to appeal the Third District Court of Appeal’s ruling to the Florida Supreme Court, saying the decision held sway throughout the state. Sheldon ordered his leadership team to cease enforcing the ban.

But Wilkins and Scott could challenge the Miami ruling by refusing to allow a gay man or woman to adopt elsewhere in the state — which could trigger an appeal to the state’s highest court. [...]

Howard Simon, head of of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which represented Martin Gill in his successful challenge to the law banning gays and lesbians from adopting, said, “we’re certainly concerned about whether this might mean the state might try to undo our historic adoption victory.”

“I only hope for the sake of all the people of Florida that Mr. Wilkins is able to step out of his deeply sectarian position and apparent views as part of the Florida Baptist Children’s Home and serve the needs of all Floridians — not merely those of his denomination and not merely those who are Christian,” Simon added.

In an interview with me this afternoon, the ACLU’s Simon said he hopes Wilkins will adopt a broader perspective than that of the organization that he has been affiliated with, but cautioned that conservatives could use the appointment to try to reinstate the ban by creating “some kind of competing case in which a different court of appeals would come to a different conclusion” or passing a bill through the legislature. Simon described the likelihood of a new case making its way through the court system as “remote” but warned that conservative lawmakers could amend the Florida constitution to reflect the ban. “That would be the much more threatening route to undoing the historic victory,” Simon said, noting that there is a possibility of “a very divisive and ugly ballot measure in 2012 that will try to carve out some exception and constitutiaonlize discrimination against gays and lesbians.” The Florida House and Senate are both dominated by Republicans.

Scott told reporters today that he doesn’t have a position on gay adoption, but reiterated that he believes “adoption should be by a married couple.” He said he hasn’t “had any discussion on the gay adoption ban” with Wilkins, but said he – not Wilkins – will decide whether or not to pursue a new gay adoption policy for the state following the court ruling. “First off, I’m the governor,” Scott said. “So whatever my position would be would be the position that would be enforced.”

In September, the Third District Court unanimously upheld a lower court’s finding that there is “no rational basis” for Florida’s statutory ban on gay and lesbian people adopting children in the state. “Given a total ban on adoption by homosexual persons, one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that homosexual persons are, as a group, unfit to be parents,” the opinion stated. “No one in this case has made, or even hinted at, any such argument.” Then Attorney General Bill McCollum decided not to appeal the decision.

Lawmakers in Iowa have announced that they will introduce a resolution to begin the process of placing a marriage referendum on the ballot and are drafting legislation to impeach the four remaining state Supreme Court justices who joined a unanimous 2009 decision that brought equal marriage to the state. But a new poll released today by the group Justice Not Politics has found that just 36 percent of Iowans favor the move. That number falls to 17 percent “after hearing the Iowa Constitution’s standard for impeachment — “misdemeanor or malfeasance“:

Interestingly, the poll also found that only 34 percent support full same-sex marriage rights, while 28% support favor “only civil unions.” Thirty-four percent of respondents said they were “against any recognition.” The results are consistent with another poll released last week by Public Policy Polling, which found that while 55 percent of Iowans oppose impeachment, only 41 percent supporting marriage equity.

Last week, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady defended the court’s decision to overturn the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by reminding lawmakers that “the duty of courts to review the constitutionality of laws is known as judicial review and is one of our most basic responsibilities.” “This is the very duty the court exercised in the Varnum decision,” he said.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested that President Obama’s “evolving” view on same-sex marriage will not evolve any further in his upcoming State of the Union address, telling reporters at an afternoon press briefing that “I’m not aware that there is any change coming on that in the State of the Union at this point.” At an end of the year press conference in December, Obama said that he struggles with the issue of marriage and hinted that he may soon move beyond simply supporting civil unions.

Gibbs also defended the Justice Department’s recent brief supporting the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Gibbs argued that even though the administration would like to see the law repealed, the Justice Department has a responsibility to “represent the viewpoint of the defendant.” He described the chances of repeal passing in the current Congress as “inordinately challenging”:

CHIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade : Do you still see repeal happening in the course of the Obama administration?

GIBBS: Given the current make-up of the Congress, that is inordinately challenging and I think he said so in interviews.

JOHNSON: Are there any regrets about not pushing for repeal more forcefully when Democrats had control of both chambers of Congress?

GIBBS: I think we are enormously proud of and grateful for the progress that we have been able to make. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an achievement of — I think it will be thought of not just of this administration, but for all those involved, a monumental achievement in bringing equality and justice back….Obviously, we didn’t get everything we wanted to get done done, but we’re proud of what we did get done.

Watch it:

Some scholars and LGBT leaders have argued that the administration is under no obligation to defend DOMA if it believes the law to be unconstitutional and have called on Obama to drop his defense of the law. “The administration claims that it has a duty to defend the laws that are on the books. We simply do not agree. At the very least, the Justice Department can and should acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional,” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said when the brief was filed last week.

In 2009, Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced The Respect for Marriage Act of 2009, which would repeal the DOMA and allow the government to provide benefits to married gay couples.

Legislation expanding marriage to gays and lesbians will soon be introduced in Maryland and New York, while couples will continue to be able to marry in Washington D.C, where opponents failed to convince the Supreme Court to hear a case that would have submitted the district’s marriage law to a popular vote. Meanwhile, an anti-marriage initiative is advancing in Wyoming and conservatives are continuing to rally against marriage equality in Iowa. Here is the latest instillation of State Marriage Watch:

– MARYLAND: Maryland State Senator Rich Madaleno told On Top Magazine that “a gay marriage bill will be introduced in the Maryland Senate this week.” The website notes that previous attempts to legalize gay unions have “suffered setbacks in the Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee, but new assignments have boosted the number of supporters on the 11-member panel to six, paving the way for such a bill to reach the Democrat-controlled Senate floor.”

– NEW YORK: The New York Daily News is reporting that New York State Senator Thomas Duane will introduce a same-sex marriage bill “within weeks” and will push for a vote before June. Although a similar bill was soundly defeated in the Senate in 2009, “Duane and other supporters believe Gov. Cuomo’s support can finally tilt the political landscape.” Cuomo also recently named Erik Bottcher, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn’s liaison to the gay community, “to the newly created cabinet post of special assistant for community affairs.”

– WYOMING: A bill prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside of the state is advancing. On Monday, the House Education Committee passed the bill in a vote of 7-2. The legislation “now must pass three votes by the full House before it would head to the Senate.” “Though similar bills failed in 2007 and 2009, many legislators and gay-marriage opponents think they have the votes this year to pass HB74 as well as a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,” the Billings Gazette reports.

– WASHINGTON DC: Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from same-sex marriage opponents hoping to put the marriage law up for a vote. The District’s board of elections had argued that the ballot would “violate the city’s Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

– IOWA: The Iowa Conservative Alliance and the Iowa Tea Party held a rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa Saturday afternoon and heard speeches from “Rep. Kim Pearson, R-Pleasant Hill, and former Republican state representative and current Family Leader lobbyist Danny Carroll.” “Two women and one man. If you’re bisexual should you have the right to marry? What about two men getting married because it’s convenient for their business,” Carroll said. “Where does it go?” The speakers called on “Senate Majority Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, to allow Senate floor debate on a gay marriage ban resolution,” which is expected to pass the Republican-controlled state house. Pearson, along with two other Republicans in the House, is also drafting a measure to impeach the remaining state Supreme Court justices who joined a 2009 ruling which brought marriage to the state.

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.