President Obama spoke at an LGBT fundraiser this evening in New York City, just as the New York Senate prepares to take up marriage equality legislation. Obama addressed the measure directly, reiterating his position that marriage is best left to the states:

OBAMA: Part of the reason that DOMA doesn’t make sense is that traditionally marriage has been decided by the states and right now, I understand there is a little debate going on here in New York about whether to join five other states and DC in allowing civil marriage for gay couples. And I want to say that under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, New York is doing exactly what democracies are supposed to to do. There is a debate, there is a deliberation about what it means here in New York to treat people fairly in the eyes of the law and that is — look, that’s the power of our democratic system.

Watch it:

Earlier in the speech, Obama was briefly interrupted by marriage proponents who encouraged him to evolve towards supporting full marriage rights. He addressed their requests only once, saying, “I heard you guys. Believe it or not, I anticipated someone might…” Watch it:

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said today that “a formal end to the ban on gays serving openly in the US military will likely come by late July or early August” and would be “left for his successor at the Pentagon, Leon Panetta, who is due to take over from Gates on July 1.” Under the repeal legislation passed last year, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell cannot be repealed until 60 days after President Obama, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff certify that lifting the ban would not undermine military readiness or unit cohesion.

With the force scheduled to complete DADT training in the coming weeks, Gates recently met with the service chiefs to begin “the pre-certification phase of this”:

The chiefs, Gates said, will be asking “are we ready to proceed with this, are you confident that good order and cohesion and discipline will be maintained, and content that people have been trained adequately and so on.”

Based on that exercise, the chiefs will then deliver their conclusions to the defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Obama, he said.

Gates said he sought to start preparations in his final weeks in office to ensure the issue could be taken up by his successor next month without any delays.

“I wanted to get this started because when Mr Panetta comes in he’s obviously going to have a lot of things on his plate. “And I was concerned that if I didn’t get this started it might be delayed several weeks until he was able to get to it and inform himself about it.”

He added: “I think our hope would be that we would be in a position, and I underscore the word hope, to provide the certification sometime in the last half of July, early August.”

Republicans in the House have sought to delay implementation of repeal and successfully attached an amendment to the Defense Authorization legislation that would expand the certification process to include the service chiefs. A similar amendment was not included in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the bill.

Last week, a group of 23 House Republicans wrote Obama asking him to hold off on certification “until Congress can review the Defense Department’s policy changes that would lead to open service.” “Given the necessity for congressional review, which has been limited to this point, we respectfully request that you refrain from transmitting certification until Congress has had sufficient time to review pending legislative matters of policy and law,” the letter said.

A newly released study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (PDF) shows that the public’s understanding of HIV has hardly changed in 20 years. One out of four Americans still mistakenly believes that HIV can be transmitted by sharing a drinking glass:

And though comfort levels have increased over the past 15 years, the stigma against people living with HIV/AIDS is still incredibly severe. Only half the population would be “very comfortable” having a coworker with HIV or AIDS, and the comfort level numbers decline for teachers, roommates, and cooks:

Most respondents indicate that their primary source of information about HIV/AIDS is the media, including radio, television, newspapers, and the Internet. Though public opinion has been trending towards complacency about the epidemic, concern about infection increased this year for the first time, driven mostly by young adults.

Read the full study for more details, including a look at how communities of color are specifically impacted.

Today’s New York Daily News includes a piece by Seth Forman with “Five arguments against gay marriage.” In one short article, he recaps five of the most ill-informed, fear-mongering talking points out there about marriage equality. Here’s a quick check on his rhetoric:

1. Religious freedom: “People who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of ‘enlightened’ bigotry.”

It takes quite a bit of gumption to express an open desire to discriminate against a group of people on solely religious grounds and then take umbrage for being rebuked. Somehow, opponents of equality developed the idea that their religious beliefs could dictate what the law is for everybody. Fortunately, that is not true. And fortunately for them, nobody is forcing any church to change its beliefs or act out of accordance with them. Whether or not willfully discriminating amounts to bigotry can only be decided by the consciences of those who do.

2. Rights of children: “Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits.”

There is no valid reason to show preference to heterosexual couples. Children grow and thrive as successfully in same-sex families as in opposite-sex families. Thus, any social worker who does show preference could in no way be motivated by concern for the child — only bias against same-sex couples.

3. Whither Traditional Marriage?: “It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much.”

Old-fashioned? Or absurdly misogynistic? This argument falls flat for a number of reasons, and not just for its archaic use of gender norms or its hypothesis that marriage has always followed a “Leave It To Beaver” model. What Forman is saying is that gay men should marry women so they become less “predatory,” and presumably, lesbians should be concerned about domesticating men. How he thinks such relationships will strengthen the institution of marriage is unclear, but it begs the question of whether he has ever met someone from the LGBT community.

4. Education: “In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there’s moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships – and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction.”

This is a gross distortion of what was decided. The ruling stated that parents do not have a right to exempt their children from learning about same-sex families on religious grounds. Given the ever-increasing likelihood that students at a school are actually part of same-sex families, the greater offense is that anybody would try to erase those families, let alone shun them as morally inferior. Children are going to see, interact with, and learn about same-sex families whether marriage equality is passed or not. Shouldn’t school be a place where questions can be answered?

5. Husbands: “Think there are too few marriageable males now? Ask sociologist Orlando Patterson what happens when men are no longer tied to marriage through child rearing.”

It’s unclear how this argument is all that different from #3. Apparently Forman thinks that unmarried gay men add to the population of “marriageable males,” assuming anyone accepts the notion that there is an epic shortage of them. He also leaves no room for the possibility that gay men might be quite eager to be “tied to marriage” and raise children.

If these are the best arguments that can be mustered against marriage equality, one wonders why the debate even persists.

Advocates are pressuring Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos to hold a vote on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage today, after lawmakers spent yesterday negotiating amendments to exempt nonprofit organizations affiliated with religious institutions and individuals from recognizing gay relationships. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) bill “must include enough protections so religious groups that oppose gay marriage aren’t hit with discrimination lawsuits,” the Associated Press is reporting. “Those provisions are intended not just for the undecided senators but to satisfy the whole Republican conference enough to send the bill to a floor vote.”

“We are working on that language now,” Cuomo said during a press conference yesterday where he also insisted that “we have not hit any obstacles” towards reaching an agreement. Undecided Sen. Andrew Lanza (R) seemed to agree: “We’re close on language that I believe satisfactorily addresses the issue,” he said. Right now, 31 senators, including two Republicans, publicly support marriage equality. The measure would need just one more vote to pass.

Last night, the governor remained “cautiously optimistic that it will pass” and called on Skelos to bring the measure to the floor for a vote. “I believe the people are entitled to a vote and let the elected officials stand up and say `yea’ or `nay,’” Cuomo said. “I believe that’s how democracy works.” Republican Sen. Greg Ball, also an undecided, echoed this sentiment, saying “there should definitely be a vote up or down. We live in a democracy.” Senators may also be “concerned they will be called back to Albany for a special session unless they vote“:

“I see it coming to the floor,” said a Republican senator. “People who don’t understand the process are thinking, ‘Don’t bring it up and it will go away for a year.’”

If they block the bill and head home to their districts, the senator said, the governor would likely order them back to Albany for a special session and demand that they take up the measure.

At one point this week, a small contingent of Republican senators floated the idea of settling the matter with a voter referendum — a process for which does not currently exist — instead of a legislative vote. Other Republicans, including the Senate leader, Dean Skelos, shot down the idea, doubting that it would be possible to get Assembly Democrats or the governor to consider such an option.

Meanwhile, Republicans’ fears of fighting off discrimination lawsuits if religious individuals and businesses are not exempt from recognizing gay couples may be overblown. As Reuters points out, “In Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia, all of which have passed gay-marriage legislation with religious exemptions, similar fears of lawsuits have not been borne out.”

If the Senate approves the measure today, the bill would then have to go back to the Assembly — which approved marriage equality last week — for a vote on the additional religious protections before landing on the governor’s desk.

In October, then-Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos (R) said that the GOP would welcome another vote on marriage equality if they took control of the chamber.