As marriage equality legislation continues to move through the Maryland house, two polls from North Carolina and Iowa find that a majority oppose denying rights to same-sex couples. That and more in today’s State Marriage Watch:

- NORTH CAROLINA: As Republicans in the state propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay unions, a new poll finds that “more than half of North Carolina residents now support legal recognition of same-sex couples, and more than one-quarter believe they should have full marriage rights.” “An Elon University survey released Monday found that only 35 percent of respondents opposed all legal recognition, down from 44 percent when the question was asked two years ago.”

– IOWA: A new poll suggests that a majority of Iowans support same-sex marriage or don’t care one way or the other. “According to the Des Moines Register, when asked whether they favored or opposed the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry in that state, 30 percent said they just don’t care much one way or the other, while 37 percent opposed or strongly opposed the court ruling and 32 percent favored it or strongly favored it.”

- MARYLAND: A House version of the marriage bill which passed the Senate on Thursday is moving through committee, with a vote expected as early as Tuesday. The full House could vote on the measure by Friday. Opponents of marriage equality are already gearing up to challenge the measure through a voter referendum in 2012, however.

- CALIFORNIA: Imperial County in California, which has stepped in to defend Proposition 8 has filed papers Friday seeking to continue to defend the law. In January, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it could not rule on the constitutionality of the measure until the higher court confirmed the standing of the plaintiffs, which the Supreme Court is now in the process of doing. In a separate document, the court ruled that Imperial County — one of the counties that voted for Proposition 8 and claimed “direct financial interest in assuring that the vote of its residents is defended and ultimately upheld” — lacked standing to appeal the decision.

- WYOMING: The Wyoming House “adjourned without taking action on a same-sex marriage bill that had already passed the state Senate” which would prohibit the state from recognizing gay unions from out of state. House Majority Floor Leader Rep. Tom Lubnau (R) “said he didn’t want to spend hours of floor time debating a bill that didn’t have the votes to pass. The Legislature is set to adjourn next week.” A separate measure that would only recognize marriages between one man and one woman is still pending, but House and Senate haven’t agreed “whether same-sex couples who enter civil unions in other states should be allowed access to Wyoming courts to resolve issues in their relationships.”

– NEW HAMPSHIRE: New Hampshire’s House Judiciary Committee will vote on three separate same-sex marriage bills as early as tomorrow. The committee is expected to recommend holding on to the bills until next year so as to give lawmakers an opportunity to focus on fiscal issues. For highlights from the committee’s public hearing, click here.

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.

Likely presidential candidate Mike Huckabee warned that expanding marriage to gays and lesbians would lead to polygamy and promised to use his Constitutional powers and the presidential bully pulpit to prohibit same-sex unions if he were elected. Huckabee made the comments during an appearance on Fox Business’ Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano on Friday, where he also implied that same-sex couples are “dysfunctional” and should not raise children:

HUCKABEE: If we change the definition to a man or a man and a woman and a woman, why can’t we accommodate a man and two women or a woman and three men. [...]

There is a role that a father plays that is different than a role that a mother plays. The ideal relationship for a child is give them both. [...] There is a Natural Law that supersedes even Constitutional and statutory law. That Natural Law that says it is wrong, to murder, to steal.

NAPOLITANO: If you became the President of the United States would you use your bully pulpit to address this or would you use your powers under the Constitution to address this?

HUCKABEE: Well, I think that the President uses both…I would use both….if you have families that are dysfunctional, broken, and totally falling apart, that’s going to be reflected in every level of government upon which government is built.

Watch it:

Numerous studies dispute Huckabee’s unsubstantiated suggestion that kids fare worse in gay households, showing that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in different-sex households. In fact, a recent study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that “children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.” The researchers also found that “children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”

After issuing a muted condemnation of President Obama’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is suggesting that he may seek to defend the law in the government’s stead. During a recent appearance on CBN’s ‘The Brody File’, Boehner assured Christian listeners that Republicans will soon decide how to proceed in upholding the Act:

BOEHNER: Now, it’s happened before where administrations have decided they weren’t going to go out and vigorously defend a law that Congress passed but I really am disappointed in the President in his actions but if the President won’t lead, if the President won’t defend DOMA then you’ll see the House of Representatives defend our actions in passing a bill that frankly passed overwhelmingly. [...]

We’ve been researching all the options that are available to us. We’ll be talking to the members in the next few days about that and I expect we’ll have a decision by the end of the week…I’d be very surprised if the House didn’t decide that they were going to defend law.”

Watch it:

Boehner’s comments align the Speaker with the most social conservative faction of the Republican party and seem to undermine the belief that “the wedge has lost its edge.” Most mainstream Republicans have stopped short of calling on the House to defend the law, but conservatives like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) have embraced the messaging of anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association and are calling on House Republican to push back against the President’s decision.

Santorum asked Boehner to defend DOMA in court, while Gingrich and King have both proposed “cutting the funding to the Justice Department” in response to the decision. Gingrich even went so a far as to argue that Obama is violating his “Constitutional oath.”

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) appeared at the National Press Club this afternoon, where he promoted his new book A Simple Government and reiterated his opposition to President Obama’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. “I think the President made an incredibly, amazing, inexplicable political error yesterday because he is out of touch with the voters in every state in which this has been on the ballot,” Huckabee said, before suggesting that Obama broke a campaign promise by refusing to uphold the Act in a court of law:

HUCKABEE: If he wanted to keep his promise, which he said this should be handled legislatively, he should have kept his promise. He broke it. He should also explain why this isn’t the position he took during the campaign. I’m convinced that had he taken this position in the campaign, he might not have been elected. But it is very different than the position he took during the campaign. He said he did not support same-sex marriage, in fact supported traditional marriage of man and woman.

Watch it:

But Obama openly opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as a candidate in 2008, pledging to “fully repeal” the law and grant LGBT couples federal rights. He is also still “grappling” with his position on marriage, which while not yet supportive of same-sex unions, is “evolving.”

Moreover, despite Huckabee’s claim that Obama followed the whims of a district court in finding DOMA unconstitutional, the administration argues that two new challenges to DOMA in November of 2010 brought about the change. As the New York Times explained, “Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people.” The administration decided that sexual orientation deserved a higher level of constitutional scrutiny and that under that standard of review, Section 3 of the law was unconstitutional.

Huckabee is wrong in his assessment, but it’s worth pointing out that he didn’t call on the House or the Senate to step in and defend the law, suggesting that Republicans are reluctant to run on the issue in 2012.

New Iowa measure would prohibit the state Supreme Court from ruling on same-sex marriage, while a proposed bill in Tennessee would prohibit teachers from discussing gay people in elementary or middle school. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

- MARYLAND: Maryland’s same-sex marriage legislation passed a second reading this afternoon in a vote of 25-22, paving the way for final approval later this week.

- HAWAII: Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie “signed same-sex civil unions into law Wednesday, calling it ‘a triumph for everyone’ that gay and lesbian couples will have the same state rights as married partners.” Civil Unions will begin on January 1, 2012.

- MONTANA: The Montana House passed a measure that would prohibit local governments from enacting policies seek that protects residents from real or perceived discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender, while the Montana Senate “voted Wednesday to remove an obsolete state law that criminalized gay sex.” “The Senate endorsed the bill 41-9 with 19 of 28 Senate Republicans supporting the measure. It has one more usually procedural vote before it goes to the House.”

- TENNESSEE: A proposed bill in the Tennessee Legislature “wants to spell out how schools can introduce sexuality – and only heterosexuality – to your child.” The bill, known as House Bill 229 or Senate Bill 49, says in part: “No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.”

- IOWA: House File 330 would prohibit county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and “the Iowa Supreme Court would be unable to rule on the issue.” A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the bill is unquestionably unconstitutional.

- NORTH CAROLINA: A proposed amendment would “ban any recognition of any ‘domestic legal union’ other than a marriage between an opposite-sex couple. If approved by the legislature, the amendment would appear on the November 2012 ballot. Three-fifths of both the House and Senate must approve the amendment before it can appear on the ballot; the governor has no veto authority on amendments.”

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.

Greg Sargent argues that the GOP’s rather muted response to the administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) suggests that the party doesn’t consider marriage a winning issue in the coming 2012 elections. And that’s probably true. The GOP condemns Obama for the decision but does not promise (with the possible exception of Michele Bachmann) to hold-up the mantle of traditional marriage or defend the law in the administration’s stead. Consider this compilation of Republican responses to yesterday’s DOMA news:

- HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

- SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): “President Obama’s personal politics are trumping his presidential duty. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, a Democratic President signed it into law, and the Justice Department has a duty to defend it. It is deeply disturbing to see politics further distort the Department of Justice.”

- SEN. JIM DEMINT (R-SC): It’s increasingly obvious this President cares little about the Constitution, but cares deeply about pandering to liberal interest groups. Traditional marriage is the foundation of America’s culture, and the President’s refusal to defend marriage undermines our nation’s strength.

- REP. LAMAR SMITH (R-TX): The Justice Department has a responsibility to defend the laws passed by Congress regardless of the personal political views of the President or the Attorney General. The Obama Administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act is irresponsible.”

- REP. TOM PRICE (R-GA): “Rather than focus its attention on working with Republicans to cut spending and get our economy moving again, the administration is diverting its attention and abandoning the government’s defense of marriage… Once again, this demonstrates a woeful lack of leadership on the part of the president and his administration. ”

- MIKE HUCKABEE: “I’m deeply disappointed…They are clearly out of sync with the public…When the voters are so overwhelmingly [supportive of DOMA] what does the president believe he knows that citizens in all these other states don’t.”

- REP. MICHELE BACHMANN: I’m sending you this urgent message because if we don’t join together and take action today, it could be a crushing blow to the traditional marriage movement….This is not the end of the fight to save traditional marriage, it is only the beginning. I will continue to do everything in my power to fight back against Barack Obama’s attacks on marriage.”

Sargent argues that this is “another sign that while the culture wars have reasserted themselves with a vengeance in the GOP’s anti-abortion push, gay rights issues have lost virtually all their potency and bite.” “As many have observed already, the generational divide within the GOP is asserting itself on gay rights in a way that it simply hasn’t on abortion.”

Indeed, a growing number of Americans have no problem with expanding marriages to gays and lesbians or at least don’t see it as a major national priority. This is a losing issue politically, and given the prominence of LGBT issues in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa, there is likely no need to add more fuel to the fire or distract from the economic message. A greater emphasis on the anti-gay agenda would also elevate the candidacies of fringe candidates (like Bachmann) who are unlikely to prevail in 2012.

Meanwhile, the anti-gay groups are taking a much harsher view of the DOMA reversal.

The Sacramento Bee’s Claudia Buck is reporting that same-sex couples in three separate states — California, Nevada and Washington — can now “divide their combined income equally and report it on their separate tax returns,” and in some instances, push themselves into a lower tax bracket and pay less taxes. According to the new rule, the IRS will treat community property earned by same-sex couples in the same way that it treats community property earned by married different-sex couples who file separate federal tax returns: add together all the community income earned by both members of the couple and to allocate half to each one’s separate return.

Those who will save the most are same-sex couples with the biggest disparities in income. For instance, a couple where one earns $100,000 and the other is a stay-at-home spouse with little or no income, will split their combined community earnings on their individual tax returns, with each reporting $50,000 in income. The result: an overall lower tax bill for both.

In an example cited by Lambda officials, a hypothetical couple where “David” is an attorney earning $225,000 and “Richard” a librarian with $20,000 in income, will see a combined savings of $6,824 in taxes.

But since the 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and same-sex spouses must continue to file separate federal income tax returns.

In fact, the new income splitting requirement may even add more complexity to gay couples filing their tax returns and could increase the costs of filing a return over the short-term. One CPA contacted by the paper estimates that “the new income-splitting requirements could take twice as long to prepare.” “We have to go through every single item of income and determine if it’s community property or separate property. Then you have to do the same with expenses and deductions. If there’s a prenup (prenuptial agreement), that has to be taken into account. Then you develop a IRS worksheet that has to be attached and show how you split everything up,” because the reported income won’t match what’s on an employer’s W-2 statement.

Maryland’s same-sex marriage legislation passed a second reading this afternoon in a vote of 25-22, paving the way for final approval later this week. Below are just some of the most interesting amendments that were either passed or rejected:

- Religious institutions would not have to engage in “the promotion of marriage, through religious programs, counseling, educational courses, summer camps, and retreats, in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.” ADOPTED.

- “Fraternal benefit societies” can deny admission to or provide insurance benefits to an individual under certain circumstances. ADOPTED.

- Adoption agencies can discriminate against couples based on their religious beliefs. Supporters of marriage argued that the broad language in this amendment would allow agencies to exclude interracial or inter-religious couples. REJECTED.

- Small businesses can deny services to gay couples based on a religious objection. WITHDRAWN.

- Public officials can opt out of performing same-sex marriages. REJECTED.

- Teachers cannot be required to discuss, teach, condone or promote same-sex marriages based on their religious beliefs. REJECTED.

- To take out “Religious Freedom and” from the title of the bill. ADOPTED.

For a complete list of amendments, click here.

As news broke of President Obama’s decision not to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in a court of law, Fox News invited the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)’s Maggie Gallagher to discuss the development. Gallagher, who’s organization has been spearheading the fight against marriage equality, chastised the president for declaring that “gay is like black” and promised to “push very hard” to urge the House of Representatives to defend the law in the administration’s stead:

This is an end-run really around our normal constitutional processes. And we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this by President Obama now that he faces a Republican-dominated Congress. Not only is he refusing to defend the law, but he has unilaterally declared that gay is like black that orientation is subject to strict scrutiny. [...]

Here is the good news Megyn, President Obama wasn’t really defending this law at all. His Justice Department was trying to throw this case and I think this now open up for the House to intervene in this case and to get somebody in court who actually wants to defend the law. So in a backwards way, I think it’s going to end up being good news for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Watch it:

There is no indication that the House will pursue this strategy, however. In a statement issued this afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

Moments ago, in a sharp reversal of policy, the Obama administration announced that it believes that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — is unconstitutional and will ask the Justice Department to stop defending the law. In a press release announcing the change, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also argues that laws regarding sexual orientation should be subject to a higher level of review:

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Back in July, a Federal District Court in Boston ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with the traditional state right to define marriage and forces the state to “violate the equal protection rights of its citizens.” The decision was composed of two separate challenges, one brought by the state of Massachusetts and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) “on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts” who have been denied federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples. In November 2010, plaintiffs also filed two “new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny.”

The Obama administration announced its intention to defend DOMA in October of 2010 and in January filed a brief arguing that “DOMA is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.” The government maintained that Congress enacted the law during an era of upheaval to maintain “uniformity on the federal level” and allow states the flexibility to expand the definition of marriage as they see fit.

Today’s decision is consistent with President Obama’s opposition to DOMA during the 2008 campaign. “I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether,” Obama said in November of 2007.

Last night during a speech in Philadelphia, former House Speaker and potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R) was confronted about the contradiction of opposing marriage equality while repeatedly disregarding his own marriage vows. The former speaker seemed to suggest that the real victims of intolerance are Christians, before going on to say that the mistakes he has made in his private life are irrelevant in the larger public policy debate:

ISABEL FRIEDMAN: You adamantly oppose gay rights… but you’ve also been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second… As a successful politician who’s considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how do you reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that you so vigorously defend?

GINGRICH: I hope you feel better about yourself…the fascist behavior I described was an older woman wearing a cross and I think if you go back and read the news accounts, it was explicitly fascist behavior and if you look at things that have been done to churches, it’s explicitly fascist behavior and frankly if you look at the recent tearing down of the cross in Mojave Desert, in my judgment, that is the kind of anti-religious behavior [...]

I’ve had a life which, on occasion, has had problems. I believe in a forgiving God, and the American people will have to decide whether that their primary concern. If the primary concern of the American people is my past, my candidacy would be irrelevant. If the primary concern of the American people is the future. They have to decide who can effectively get us to a future in which we are economically prosperous, military safe, and maximize freedom. That’s a debate I’ll be happy to have with your candidate or any other candidate if I decide to run.

Watch it (via Towleroad):

The hypocrisy of Gingrich’s answer is hard to bear: he’s suggesting that his private sexual transgressions have no effect on the larger policy issues facing the country, while holding the position that same-sex marriages threaten American families and must therefore be outlawed.

Gingrich has previously claimed, “There is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it.” He has described Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to overturn Proposition 8 as “an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.”

In an interview with right-winger John Lofton, Gingrich claimed, “you have to” believe “homosexuality is a sin,” adding, “I think that if you believe the Bible then it’s fairly clear.” Though he said he didn’t “want to be judgmental about others,” Gingrich stated he opposes the right of gay people to marry or adopt children.

Lawmakers introduce a marriage equality bill in the Maryland Senate, where the measure is expected to pass, while legislators in Montana approve a measure that would prohibit localities from outlawing discrimination against gay people. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

– MARYLAND: Earlier today, Maryland Senators introduced SB 116, ‘Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,’ which would allow gays and lesbians to marry in the state while exempting religious institutions from conducting the same-sex marriage ceremonies. State Senator Robert Garagiola introduced the measure and stressed that religious institutions would not be required to recognize these relationships. Listen to audio from today here.

– HAWAII: Tomorrow, Governor Neil Abercrombie will sign a bill allowing gays and lesbians to enter into legally-recognized civil unions. The Hawaii Senate passed the final version of the measure by a vote of 18-5 on Thursday. “I have always believed that civil unions respect our diversity, protect people’s privacy, and reinforce our core values of equality and aloha,” Abercrombie said in a statement. “For me this bill represents equal rights for all the people of Hawaii.”

– WYOMING: On Friday, the Wyoming senate passed a bill to prevent “any recognition of civil unions or marriages among same-sex couples who were wed or entered a union outside of the state.” The body added an amendment to allow out-of-state couples in civil unions access to Wyoming courts and the measure will now have to go back to the House, where it already passed last month by a vote of 32 to 27.

– WEST VIRGINIA: Yesterday, supporters of a bill pending in the House and the Senate “to add sexual orientation to the state’s nondiscrimination law gathered at the steps of the Senate. Most wore stickers proclaiming they ‘stand with Sam,’ referring to Sam Hall, a gay coal miner who filed a lawsuit against Massey Energy in December for discrimination. Watch video of the rally here. The bill’s fate “probably lies with the House of Delegates, where similar legislation died in 2008 and 2009.”

– NEW MEXICO: The House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee voted down three proposed measures “that would define marriage, for legal purposes as being between a man and a woman.” House Joint Resolution 7 “would have made gay marriage unconstitutional if approved by the Legislature and by voters in the 2012 general election” and HJR8 would “seek to amend the Constitution to prevent New Mexico from recognizing otherwise legal out-of-state marriages between persons of the same sex.” House Bill 162 would have bared the state from recognizing same-sex marriages from out of state.

– MONTANA: The House Judiciary Committee approved a bill Monday that would “prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances or policies seek to protect residents from real or perceived discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender as the cities of Missoula did through an ordinance and Bozeman did through a policy.” The panel also tabled a separate measure “which would have broadened the Montana Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination statewide based on gender identity or expression and sexual orientation.”

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.

Earlier today, Maryland Senators introduced SB 116, ‘Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,’ which would allow gays and lesbians to marry in the state while exempting religious institutions from conducting the same-sex marriage ceremonies. State Senator Robert Garagiola introduced the measure and stressed that religious institutions would not be required to recognize these relationships:

GARAGIOLA: Under the terms of the Act, an official of a religious institution or body who is authorized to solemnize marriages, may not be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, or Article 36 of our Constitution. As amended, the bill also provides that a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit operated by one, may not be required to provide services accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.

Listen to audio of the introduction:

On Thursday, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee approved the measure in a 7 to 4 vote, along with three amendments, which the Senate is expected to consider tomorrow. The body will vote on the amendments and then on the underlining bill. If that vote is successful, and proponents of the measure expect it to be, Senators will begin to debate the bill and offer amendments on the floor.

Maryland Equality says it has enough votes to pass the measure and a Washington Post tally from last week “showed 24 senators – the minimum needed for passage – having said they would support the bill.”

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 even taken part in a video asking Marines to respect and accommodate the policy change.

Today, AOL’s Andrea Stone reports that Amos is further distancing himself from his past criticisms, telling reporters that repeal has not created the kind of disruptions that he (and many Republicans) had predicted:

“I haven’t had any indication yet at all, not at all,” Gen. James Amos told reporters when asked if he expected the mass exodus of troops that Sen. John McCain and other critics predicted if the ban was lifted.

Amos was visiting troops in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province when President Barack Obama signed the repeal in late December. He said he addressed some 12,000 Marines about the change and “everyone said, ‘Sir, we got it. We’re going to do this thing.‘”

Amos also said that the Marines have already started preparing the force for implementing repeal. The “training of military lawyers, counselors and chaplains began Feb. 7,” he said, noting that “the service’s three-star generals and their spouses underwent a training session recently in New Orleans.” He “expects all leaders down to company commanders and platoon sergeants to have been briefed by the middle of next month.”

Amos’s comments about the rather smooth process following repeal undermines the warnings of McCain and other Republicans, who cherry picked statistics from the Pentagon’s study of the policy to argue that hundreds of thousands would leave the force if the policy is lifted. McCain, for instance, urged against a “rush to repeal” and said that 12 percent of the military would leave the service if the policy were changed.

Box Turtle Bulletin’s Timothy Kincaid notes that the Family Research Center (FRC)’s claims that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would undermine religious freedoms and lead to a mass exodus of Christian chaplains were overblown at best and lies at worst. From the Christian Post:

Army Chaplain Lt. Col. Carleton Birch said Wednesday that chaplains already have experience in counseling homosexual soldiers and will likely be able to adjust easily to an openly homosexual military.

“I’ve counseled homosexual soldiers when if I told anyone else that, they would get kicked out,” shared Birch, an evangelical.

When asked if chaplains would be limited in their ability to serve soldiers following the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal, he said that no changes were necessary to protect chaplains’ rights.

He maintained, “We’ve always been able to preach and teach” and anticipate little change in the future. [...]

Lt. Col. Lisa H. Tice, a Reformed chaplain who serves in the personnel, budget and readiness division of the Air Force Office of the Chief of Chaplains, said that Tier 1, the first phase of the military training, is geared towards chaplains.

Tice said of counseling gays, “We don’t see this as a big deal.”

The Pentagon has maintained 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.”

During the DADT debate last year, FRC argued that repeal would silence military chaplains and undermine their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of religion. “If chaplains are forced to council same sex couples or are limited in the moral teachings that they can present, you can look for Orthodox Christian chaplains to exit the military, leaving an insurmountable void in the fostering of an environment that ensures that the man and women who wear the uniform are in their best mental, emotional and spiritual condition necessary to defend the nation and the ideals that they represent,” the FRC President Tony Perkins explained back in April.

Yesterday, New Hampshire’s House Judiciary Committee held an eight-hour hearing to consider three proposals to rescind the state’s 2009 same-sex marriage law. More than 600 people attended the marathon session, which ran from 10:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M., and at which supporters of the law far outnumbered its detractors. The committee heard from dozens of happily married same-sex couples, their straight allies and a surprising number of young people, some of whom took the day off from school to attend the hearings.

Below is a video compilation of some of the most outrageous claims levied by opponents of the measure, along with a musical surprise from a supporter of marriage equality:

- REP. ALFRED BALDASARO: “The same thing happened in Canada, where they passed gay marriage. Now they’re fighting in the courts to get 3 husbands, 3 wives.”

- SEN. FENTON GROEN: “[Homosexuality] will significantly increase their risk of serious diseases and can be expected to significantly shorten their lives.”

- HOWARD KAUFMAN: “A future redefinition of marriage that permits polygamy would facilitate the introduction an aspect of Sharia or Islamic law that permits a man to have up to four wives.”

Watch it:

The committee is considering three separate bills: HB 437 would rescind same-sex marriage, HB 443 would define marriage as between one man and one woman, and HB 569, would establish domestic unions.

House Republican Leader D.J. Bettencourt asked the committee to hold the bills until next year so lawmakers can focus on fiscal issues and yesterday Rep. David Bates, who had pushed for a vote this year, agreed. “I have been assured the effort to restore traditional marriage will have the full support of House leadership when the time comes to take it up next year.” Democratic Gov. John Lynch is prepared to veto a repeal bill, but “Republicans hold supermajorities in both the House and Senate which would be enough to override a veto.”

This afternoon, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) refused to overtly endorse a fringe Republican effort to rescind the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, telling the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson that he would wait to see what the House Armed Services Committee recommended before pushing for a vote on repeal:

JOHNSON: A question on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Earlier this year, Rep. Duncan Hunter introduced legislation that would expand the certification requirement for the Pentagon to implement repeal. Will that see a vote in the 112th Congress?

BOEHNER: Ah, we’ll see what the committee recommends.

Watch it:

The Defense Department is moving to accelerate the process for certifying the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA) has introduced legislation to slow down the process. His bill, which has 23 co-sponsors, would add the four military service chiefs “to the list of those who must sign off on repealing the policy before it can be officially scrapped.”

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), the new Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel panel, has also promised to “hold hearings to look at the Pentagon’s plans to allow openly gay people to serve” and Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) said he would call battlefield commanders to testify “about whether lifting the ban will hurt morale and readiness.”

Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) released last month estimated 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.

A civil unions bill is headed to the governor’s desk in Hawaii, while marriage advocates are fighting to preserve the right to marry in New Hampshire. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

- HAWAII: The Hawaii Senate passed the final version of a civil unions bill by a vote of 18-5.The bill will now go to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. Watch my video of passage here.

- CALIFORNIA: California’s Supreme Court voted unanimously to decide whether the sponsors of a 2008 ballot measure prohibiting same-sex marriage “have the legal standing to defend it under state law,” delaying a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “The federal appeals court had asked the state high court to provide guidance on whether ProtectMarriage.com, the proponents of the 2008 ballot measure, could defend it before the 9th Circuit after California officials refused to do so.”

- NORTH CAROLINA: Republican state Senator James Forrester is circulating a constitutional amendment that “would not only ban recognition of same-sex marriages but any kind of relationship recognition for gay couples.” “The amendment could also ban private companies based in the state from offering domestic partner benefits,” Equality North Carolina warns. The amendment must pass by a three-fifths majority in both houses and a majority of the state’s voters.

- WYOMING: On Wednesday, in a vote of 17-12, the Wyoming Senate advanced HB 74, “legislation that would ban recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions from outside the state.” The legislation must now pass two additional votes before it would head to Gov. Matt Mead’s desk for his signature. Late last month, the Wyoming Senate also “voted 20-10 to approve a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; that legislation is currently being considered by the Wyoming House, though it’s been pushed down the agenda by House leadership so far this week.”

- MARYLAND: The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee is expected to approve same-sex marriage legislation today, before it moves too the full Senate on Tuesday where supporters say they may have the votes to pass the measure after two days of debate.

- NEW HAMPSHIRE: The House Judiciary Committee will consider two bills to repeal New Hampshire’s same-sex marriage law. The sponsor of one bill, House Republican Leader D.J. Bettencourt, “has said he will ask the committee to hold the bills until next year so lawmakers can focus on fiscal issues. But the sponsor of the second bill believes it would be better to vote on the issue this year.” Democratic Gov. John Lynch has said he will veto a repeal bill, but “Republicans hold supermajorities in both the House and Senate which would be enough to override a veto.” For latest updates, check out Prop8 Tracker.

- UTAH: State Rep. LaVar Christensen (R) has dropped an anti-gay bill that said married straight families are the “fundamental unit of society.” Christensen claimed, “I would like to have time for that dialogue to continue so there is no confusion, misunderstanding or unintended consequences in the bills as they may ultimately be adopted.” Christensen is also abandoning HB270, “which states that Utah laws and policy must support marriage between a man and woman, which, according to the bill, is an institution ‘consistent with the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence.’”

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.

The Indiana House approves a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage while a coalition of more than 40 Pennsylvania lawmakers prepare to introduce a civil unions bill in the states. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

– INDIANA: On Tuesday, in a 70-26 vote, the Indiana House of Representatives voted to amend a ban of gay marriages and civil unions into the state’s constitution that would “lead to voters having the final say in a November 2014 referendum.” The measure now goes to the Senate. It must be approved by two separately elected legislatures and then by voters. Indiana already has a law outlawing same-sex marriage, but supporters argued that “a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect against the possibility of a court decision overturning that law.”

– WYOMING: Thirteen Wyoming lawmakers want permission to file a “friend of the court” brief with the Wyoming Supreme Court to weigh in on a pending case dealing with same-sex divorce. The lawmakers argue that if same-sex divorce is granted, Wyoming would have to revise several state laws and would probably have to recognize “plural marriages” — meaning polygamy — “and other domestic unions found in foreign jurisdictions.” Wyoming already has a law which specifies that marriage is only between a man and a woman but specifies that the state can recognize valid marriages performed elsewhere. The legislature is now considering “measures that would bar the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.”

– RHODE ISLAND: Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox has said that a bill legalizing same-sex marriage is not yet ready for debate, but marriage activists are already rejecting a compromise that would bring civil unions to the state. Martha Holt, of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, told the local NBC affiliate that civil unions are not acceptable. “Absolutely not. Nothing short of marriage equality would satisfy us here,” Holt said.

– WASHINGTON: On Monday — Valentines Day — State Senator Ed Murray introduced a measure granting same-sex marriage to gays and lesbians in the state. Gov. Christine Gregoire signed an expanded domestic-partnership bill in 2009, but same-sex marriage has been illegal since the 1998 passage of the state’s “Defense of Marriage Act.” Murray concedes lawmakers are not likely to pass gay marriage this year.

– PENNSYLVANIA: Pennsylvania Representative Mark Cohen announced that he will introduce H.B. 708, a bill to legalize civil union throughout the state of Pennsylvania along with more than 40 co-sponsors. “I believe that there is a reasonable chance that, with a strong organizational effort, we can enact civil union legislation by the end of 2012,” said Cohen. “Doing so would require the support of the vast majority in the House and Senate, and the backing of a substantial number of Republicans in each chamber.

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.

The Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock is reporting that the Family Leader — a group spearheading a campaign to revoke same-sex marriage in Iowa — has removed a link to a website called ‘Second Hand Effects‘ (of homosexuality) which had described homosexuality as a public health crisis akin to smoking and endorsed discredited ex-gay reversal therapies. Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper first discovered the link by altering the group’s URL and I later found it on the group’s website:

Julie Summa, director of marketing and public outreach for The Family Leader, told Hancock that the link was removed because the seminar series has not been offered for around two years but did not rebuke its most offensive contents:

“The Second Hand Effects link shouldn’t be on our ‘Capturing Momentum Tour’ web page, which was created from an old template,” she said. “We plan to remove it as you are correct, we do not currently offer the seminar and have not had a full seminar in about two years.”

The seminar series, which is advertised as exposing the “public health crisis of same-sex activity,” was first discovered by the “Good As You” blog, but garnered headlines when it was brought up by reporters at a press conference organized by The Family Leader with former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The group’s CEO and president — Bob Vander Plaats — said the seminar hasn’t been offered since he came on board in November and vowed to look into the continued mention of the series on the group’s website.

“It is a true statement that the seminar has not been held under his leadership,” Summa said Tuesday. “I verified with our staffer responsible for the seminar, and it has been about two years ago that our organization has offered a Second Hand Effects full seminar.”

As I discovered in Iowa last week, the group’s message about the consequences of homosexuality on society has not been lost on state lawmakers. Iowa State Rep. Dwayne Alons (R) — a co-sponsor of Iowa’s anti-gay marriage bill — told me, “that whole lifestyle has brought a lot of problems to society” before suggesting that gay people have shorter life spans.