Despite how politically unpopular anti-LGBT views are becoming, efforts are still underway in various states to roll back rights. Others, like California, are making what small strides they can, and a new study about Massachusetts shows us there are consequences for not advancing equality:

- CALIFORNIA: A bill passed this week by the Senate would require that for contracts over $100,000, the State of California can only work with businesses that provide benefits to same-sex spouses of their employees.

- MASSACHUSETTS: A new study by the Williams Institute reports that Massachusetts, by not protecting its transgender citizens from employment discrimination, loses millions of dollars annually to public health insurance coverage and lost income tax revenues.

- NEW YORK: Following Monday’s rally in Albany, Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell (D) has introduced a marriage equality bill in the General Assembly. The General Assembly has passed such bills twice before.

- MICHIGAN: Over 100 graduates of the University of Michigan Law School walked out of Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) commencement speech because of his votes against same-sex marriage and adoption.

- MINNESOTA: The Senate today passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. If the House passes it as well — as it is expected to — it will be sent to the people for a referendum. Faculty from the University of Minnesota law school recently spoke out against the ban.

- TENNESSEE: The Senate State and Local Government Committee has advanced a bill that would void Nashville’s LGBT employment protections. Both this bill and the “Don’t Say Gay” bill will be voted upon by the Senate tomorrow.

- TEXAS: A number of pro-LGBT bills will not be passed in Texas this year, including one that would remove the unconstitutional law against “homosexual conduct.”

- VIRGINIA: A new poll finds that a plurality of Virginians support marriage equality and the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, despite the fact a provision to allow adoption by same-sex couples was soundly rejected last month.

Keep track of how LGBT issues are advancing in the states at our State LGBT Watch.

Our guest bloggers from the Center for American Progress are Lawrence Korb, senior fellow, Laura Conley, research associate, and Alex Rothman, special assistant.

When the House Armed Services Committee marks up the FY 2012 defense authorization bill today, among the proposed amendments will be an effort by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to slow down the repeal of the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” law.

Training to implement the repeal of DADT, which prohibits openly gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the armed forces, is already underway. The policy will be phased out 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that repeal will not undermine military effectiveness, a decision that could come as soon as next month. Hunter’s amendment would insert another unnecessary step in this already comprehensive process, requiring that all four military service chiefs also provide certification before repeal can be implemented.

Hunter claims that the service chiefs should weigh in because they “are far more closely connected to the day-to-day realities facing each respective service than those who are currently required to sign off on the repeal,” but this argument is misleading. The Pentagon has already completed an exhaustive survey of hundreds of thousands of members of the armed forces. On the basis of this survey, a high-level study group formulated recommendations for the type of pre-repeal training currently taking place across the military services. This unprecedented effort more than satisfies Hunter’s requirement for closer examination of the day-to-day realities of the troops.

Moreover, our military leadership, including the service chiefs, has repeatedly disagreed with the need for additional certifiers. In fact, General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army until last month, has noted that such a requirement could undermine the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he noted is designated by law as “the principal provider of military advice.” In a December 2010 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) asked each of the service chiefs to weigh in on their input in the certification process:

UDALL: I move to what Secretary Gates said yesterday. He said that the certification process is a critical piece of the legislation and that he would not sign any certification until he was satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs…that we had in fact mitigated, if not eliminated, to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion, and effectiveness. I’d like… to ask each of you if Secretary Gates’s comments alleviate some, if not all, of your concerns? General Casey, perhaps I could start with you…

CASEY: I would agree with that statement, Senator. And I would also agree with what I’ve said several times here already. I’m very comfortable with my ability to get my opinions and advice to Secretary Gates and have them listened to.

ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD (Chief of Naval Operations): I agree with that statement, sir.

GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT  (Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff): I agree with that statement.

GENERAL JAMES AMOS (Commandant of the Marine Corps): Senator, I absolutely do agree.

GENERAL NORTON SCHWARTZ (Chief of Staff of the Air Force): Likewise.

ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP (Commandant of the Coast Guard): I agree too, Senator.

Hunter’s effort to insert additional certification requirements is nothing more than another attempt to slow-walk the process with the hope of keeping DADT in place in perpetuity. Hunter, a Marine himself, should instead listen to Cpl. David McGuire, a 24 year old Marine who spoke with Washington Post reporter Ed O’Keefe after a DADT training session last week. McGuire reported that his unit had fervently discussed the policy change. He concluded:

It doesn’t matter what you are, whether you’re black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, as a person, you deserve the respect. As a professional and as a Marine you earn the right to wear the Eagle Globe and Anchor and can’t ask for anything more or less than that.

This week, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) officially approved the ordination of openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and people in same-sex relationships as ministers, elders, and deacons. The General Assembly has attempted to remove the ban against noncelibate gay and lesbian clergy four times since 1997, but the same change failed just two years ago. But now, a majority vote of the church’s 173 regional presbyteries have signed on, with 19 changing their votes in recent months.

The Book of Order from the church’s constitution will now read the following:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

While individual presbyteries will still be able to apply their own criteria to who they ordain, the constitution will no longer require that those ordained live “either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman” or in “chastity in singleness.”

This change is only the latest indication that mainline Christianity and anti-gay attitudes are not synonymous as they once may have been. A majority of Americans now support marriage equality, and some polls suggest that individuals might even be further along in their support than the church they belong to, such as one that showed 63% of American Catholics support marriage equality.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joins the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Episcopal Church in welcoming gay clergy and leaders. As the paradigm continues to shift (especially at the rate it is shifting), it will soon be unChristian to be anti-gay.

Last month, Chief of the Navy Chaplains Rear Admiral Mark Tidd issued a memorandum declaring that since the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Navy has made a preliminary decision to allow gay couples to marry on Navy bases in states that allow same-sex marriages and permit chaplains to take part in the ceremonies. The ruling sparked outrage from conservatives and far-right organizations, which immediately claimed that the policy undermined the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last night, Tidd announced that the Navy would be suspending its preliminary ruling until further notice “pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination.”

The Pentagon had insisted that DOMA “does not limit the type of religious ceremonies a chaplain may perform in a chapel on a military installation,” stressing that the Defense Department would still “not recognize those unions as valid marriages” under DOMA. Same-sex couples would also be prohibited from receiving any of the benefits — health, housing — offered to heterosexual married couples.

Legal sources have told ThinkProgress that while DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, it does not prevent the government from providing benefits to same-sex couples. Therefore, if the law allows Navy facilities to be used for recreational purposes — like celebrating family or “personal use as deemed appropriate by the base commander” — but does not use the word marriage, DOMA would not prevents the federal government from letting couples celebrate their marriage on Navy property.

Still, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — an organization that has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center — condemned the the administration for “trying to enlist the troops in its war on DOMA.” Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and 63 members of the Republican caucus in the House drafted a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus protesting the preliminary decision and Akin offered an amendment to the defense authorization bill prohibiting the practice. Akin’s office told the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson that the Congressman “may still offer” his amendment during the House Armed Services Committee’s consideration of defense budget legislation this week. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) has also offered a separate amendment reiterating that the Defense Department must apply DOMA “in determining the meaning of or applying any ruling, policy, regulation, benefit, or benefit program.” (H/T: Lez Get Real)