After months of dodging questions about the progress of an executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal contracting, the White House won’t issue the directive, but will instead study whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees require employment protections, ThinkProgress has learned. The news comes after White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett held a meeting with LGBT advocates to discuss the matter.

Existing studies suggest that 11 to 16 million additional employees would have gained protections as a result of the measure, since many “federal contractors do not currently have those policies, and they employ millions of workers.” Among them are Jarrod Scarbrough and Les Sewell, a gay couple who attended Monday’s Easter Egg Roll at the White House to ask Obama to sign the order. “Jarrod works for a company that the government contracts through, and we live in New Mexico — we’re actually protected, we don’t have to worry too much about being discriminated against. However, in June we’re moving to Florida where that protection, we’ll no longer have that,” Sewell explained during an appearance on MSNBC. “Without this administrative action, Jarrod could lose his job and then where would this family be?”

Equality advocates who had been working to advance the measure are asking similar questions. “Today’s news that the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors will launch a study to better understand workplace discrimination against gay and transgender Americans is confounding and disappointing,” said Winnie Stachelberg, the Executive Vice President for External Affairs at the Center for American Progress. “The President should use his executive authority to extend existing nondiscrimination requirements of federal contractors to include sexual orientation and gender identity,” she added.

Earlier this month, 72 Congressional lawmakers urged the administration to enact the order, noting that it would “extend important workplace protections to millions of Americans, while at the same time laying the groundwork for Congressional passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).” Data show that “43 percent of LGB people and 90 percent of transgender people have experienced workplace discrimination” and that the overwhelming majority of Americans — 73 percent — would have supported a measure prohibiting it.

The delay represents a departure for the president who committed to supporting a “formal written policy of non-discrimination that includes sexual orientation and gender identity or expression…for all Federal contractors” as a candidate in 2008 and pledged to fight for the community in 2009 and 2011. “I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight,” Obama told the Human Rights Campaign in 2009, adding, “Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it.”

Our guest blogger is Crosby Burns, Research Associate for LGBT Progress.

Strengthening the economic security of American families remains a key policy priority for decreasing poverty, reducing inequality, and growing our economy through a sustained and supported middle class. Not all families, however, are equal under the law.

Unfortunately, many government-sponsored programs treat LGBT families differently than their non-LGBT counterparts. Due to narrow definitions of who constitutes a “family,” many of the more than 2 million children living with LGBT families do not have the same access to the economic safeguards afforded to other children in the United States today.

Moreover, this discrimination in government programs exacerbates the economic insecurities created by the high rates of unfair treatment facing the LGBT population. Discrimination in health care, housing, and the workplace leaves far too many LGBT families without health insurance, affordable housing, and a job to make ends meet.

No child should go hungry, uninsured, or homeless in the United States, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parent. Still, LGBT families are among some of the most economically vulnerable in the United States. These American families need more economic support from social safety net programs and government tax breaks, not less. This is why the annual budget-making process is so crucial to the health, wellness, and economic livelihood of LGBT families.

Today, the Center for American Progress released an issue brief taking a look at three areas of the budget in particular that are crucial to LGBT families.

• Medicaid – Families headed by LGBT parents are less likely to have health insurance than families with non-LGBT parents. LGBT families often rely upon public health insurance programs – such as Medicaid – to help fill gaps in coverage. This is despite the fact that the program uses a definition of “family” that makes it more difficult for some LGBT families to access health insurance through Medicaid.
• SNAP – Recent research indicates that LGBT families may be disproportionately food insecure. This is why programs like SNAP (formerly the food stamp program) are especially crucial in reducing hunger for children being raise in low-income LGBT households.
• Financial Aid for Higher Education – Like Medicaid, the Federal Application For Student Aid (FAFSA) uses an outdated definition of what constitutes a “family,” making it more difficult for some LGBT families to access equal financial assistance for higher education. Children with LGBT parents need more financial aid to attend college, not less.

These American families need more economic support from social safety net programs and government tax breaks, not less. Unfortunately, Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget turns a precarious situation into a dire situation for these families. Instead of supporting the economic security of households headed by LGBT parents, just last week House Republicans passed Congressman Ryan’s budget which shreds the safety net to tatters, including the three programs outlined above (and then some). Put bluntly, the Ryan budget is a disaster for LGBT families.

Instead, these families need a budget that helps them meet their financial needs. Going forward, lawmakers should use their power of the purse to make sure that no family falls through the cracks during hard economic times, including LGBT families.

Robert Spitzer

Robert Spitzer has a storied history in the LGBT movement. In 1973, he utilized his position of power in the American Psychiatric Association to help rewrite the definition of homosexuality so that it was no longer a mental illness (a story perhaps best told in the This American Life episode, “81 Words.”) But in 2003, the seeming savior of gays and lesbians everywhere published an extensive study claiming that ex-gay therapy works for some people, for which he was largely criticized by the LGBT community and lauded by its opponents. Now, in an interview with The American Prospect at age 80, Spitzer has completely retracted his own study, pointing out that some people can say that ex-gay therapy worked for them, but there is no evidence that it does:

“In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.)

Spitzer said that he was proud of having been instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Now 80 and retired, he was afraid that the 2001 study would tarnish his legacy and perhaps hurt others. He said that failed attempts to rid oneself of homosexual attractions “can be quite harmful.” [...]

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add.

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”?

Spitzer also told Warren Throckmorton in a follow-up interview this week that he now believes “his conclusions don’t hold water.”

The magnitude of this disavowal cannot be overstated. Almost every anti-gay organization has used Spitzer’s 2001 study to help justify its opposition to LGBT equality, including the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and numerous ex-gay organizations like PFOX and NARTH. National Organization for Marriage spokesman Frank Turek once highlighted Spitzer’s study as his sole proof that ex-gay therapy works. Jerry Falwell himself cited the study to defend his belief that God commands that “homosexuals must change.” And as Jeremy Hooper points out, Focus on the Family’s Candi Cushman still uses the study to support the “Day of Dialogue,” which encourages Christian students to condemn their gay classmates as a response to GLSEN’s Day of Silence.  Will these groups purge their websites and resources of citations to Spitzer’s research per his retraction?

Ex-gay therapy is harmful and ineffective, and no research has ever found otherwise. If conservatives continue to promote it, they are not practicing a religious belief, but in fact imposing a lie in an attempt to stigmatize — if not erase entirely — the gay community.

In today’s New york Times, Bill Keller profiles the four New York Republican senators who bucked their party and voted in favor of marriage equality, providing the bill with the support it needed to become law. All four seem are vulnerable re-election but as Keller concluded, “if they lose, it is likely to be in spite of their marriage vote, not because of it.”

The three senators who spoke with the former executive editor — Roy J. McDonald, Jim Alesi, Mark Grisanti — all stood by their votes, which have aroused only limited ire from the Conservative Party (a powerful third-party in state politics whose endorsement can make or break a Republican candidacy) and constituents. “I did what I thought was right,” McDonald said, predicting that voters “understand that,” and are looking to focus on “jobs and foreclosures, not marriage.” He boldly announced that “if doing the right thing costs him his seat, ‘They can take the job and shove it.’” Alesi and Grisanti were no less direct. Grisanti framed marriage as an issue of equal civil rights — “I swore with my hand on the Bible to uphold the Constitution, I didn’t swear with my hand on the Constitution to uphold the Bible” — and Alesi reflected that “wherever I end up, we’ll have marriage equality in New York State.” “There isn’t anything you can point to in a political career, if you’re just looking over the years you served, that you can say was as big as this,” he added.

Indeed, in a sign of the growing acceptance of marriage equality, even the Conservative Party has rebranded the marriage vote as a question of “integrity,” not policy, arguing that “it wasn’t so much that Grisanti had voted for marriage….It’s that when he changed his mind he should have announced that to voters and then submitted himself to another election before casting such an important vote.” Conservatives sought to find “nonmarriage reasons” to dump both Grisanti and Alesi:

When I met with [Alesi], his mood verged on fatalism. The club his enemies would use to pummel him, he surmised, would not be gay marriage but a loopy episode known in his district as “the lawsuit.” Back in 2008, Alesi was exploring houses for sale in a new development called Trolley Brook Estates. Finding one house locked, he went in the basement door. The house was still under construction, so he climbed up a ladder being used as a makeshift stairway, fell and injured his leg. It turned out this house had already been sold, but the owners agreed not to press trespassing charges. Then last year, a day before the statute of limitations was set to expire, Alesi sued the homeowners, a retired couple, for his injuries. [...]

After Mass I drove around Alesi’s district and was struck by two things: first, most people I spoke to knew the name of their state senator, which — trust me — is nowhere close to normal. And second, the prevailing popular view was admiration and shared pride that a politician had not followed the path of least resistance. I found people who disagreed with his vote, and a few who said they might hold it against him in November.

With support for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the same-sex marriage running high, most state politicos dismiss the influence of anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage, which has promised to spend $2 million to defeat the four Republican senators. “I think they’re full of smoke,” Thomas D. Cook, chairman of the Monroe County party organization said, suggesting that their anti-gay message is resonating with few voters.

David Blankenhorn

The coalition continues to grow against North Carolina’s discriminatory Amendment One, which would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Last night, the Asheville City Council unanimously passed a resolution opposing the measure, and there were not even any dissenting public comments.

Perhaps even more striking this week is an op-ed by David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt of the Institute for American Values, an organization that typically opposes the freedom to marry. Blankenhorn was the “star witness” called to testify on behalf of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, but his testimony largely served to help the couples fighting it. Continuing his seeming appreciation for the experience of same-sex families, Blankenhorn and Marquardt argue that Amendment One goes too far in its “disdain” for gays and lesbians and their children:

The proposed amendment states that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” That’s a big mouthful, and it goes well beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.

For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.

That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.

With less than four weeks until the May 8 vote, the growing number of pro-equality voices offers great hope for Amendment One’s defeat, but polls suggest that a significant percentage of voters still do not understand the magnitude of its impact. As the coalition grows, hopefully public awareness will increase so that the harmful measure can be rightfully defeated.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins would not commit to supporting Mitt Romney as the GOP presidential nominee during an appearance on MSNBC this morning. Perkins — who is head of an organization that has been branded a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center — accused Romney of supporting “special employment rights based upon sexual behavior” and said that he “has a record that does not match his rhetoric.”

“The question is the level of enthusiasm and intensity,” Perkins said, predicting that conservatives would only grudgingly support Romney’s candidacy:

Indeed, conservatives have raised eyebrows about Romney’s support for LGBT causes in the early part of his political career. For instance, in 1994, Romney met with the Log Cabin Republicans and pledged, “I’m with you on this stuff… I’ll be better than Ted Kennedy.” Romney promised, in writing, to fight for “full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens,” co-sponsor a federal employment nondiscrimination act, and characterized Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as “the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” He told Richard Weld, the group’s founder, that marriage equality was “not appropriate at this time” and insisted that the issue should be left to the states.

Romney continued his somewhat welcome embrace of gays and lesbians while serving as head of the 2002 Utah Olympics. He approved an amended workplace nondiscrimination policy that covered sexual orientation and “later reached out to Salt Lake’s gay community as part of the committee’s effort to enhance diversity in the Olympic workforce.”

Later as a gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney told a meeting of gay equality proponents that he would “support everything that it calls for in terms of recognizing unions between people. But just don’t use the M-word.” He promised to “promote tolerance and fight discrimination….[and] proposed a thorough review of state laws to see where lifelong gay and lesbian relationships were negatively affected, and how the state could change its practices to make them nondiscriminatory.” “At a very young age, my parents taught me important lessons about tolerance and respect,” he told gay equality groups. “I have carried these lessons with me throughout my life and will bring them with me if I am fortunate enough to be elected governor.” Romney’s campaign distributed flyers at a gay pride parade and he promised to strengthen laws against hate crimes, expand funding for AIDS treatment and prevention and “said he would look to both ‘protect already established rights and extend basic civil rights to domestic partnerships.’”

As he prepared to make a run for national office, however, Romney “adopted a wholly new tone on gay rights.” He railed against the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and lobbied Congress to pass a federal amendment outlawing the practice and questioned the fitness of gays and lesbians to serve as parents. “Some are actually having children born to them,” Romney said of gay couples before a nationally televised address to South Carolina Republicans in February 2005. Romney ultimately “sought to amend Massachusetts’s antidiscrimination laws so a Catholic adoption agency could deny placements to gay couples” and “eliminated the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, a panel that funded programs for gay teens and their schools.”

In this latest campaign, the former Massachusetts governor holds more moderate positions that still fall short of his earlier advocacy. He says he wouldn’t reinstate the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy or strongly lobby for a Constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. But he continues to pander to the right, telling a gay veteran in New Hampshire that he would support the repeal of same-sex marriage in the state. In its place, he would institute a complicated three-tier system for married gay couples.

The National Organization for Marriage — which has been using race as a wedge in the marriage debate — will endorse presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney this morning, Politico reports. “Now is the time for all people who recognize the importance of marriage to come together to support a true champion, Mitt Romney, against an incumbent who has done virtually everything in his power to undermine the institution of marriage,” the group’s President Brian Brown will say in a statement.

Romney has secretly given the group $10,000 to advocate for Proposition 8 in 2008 and signed-on the group’s pledge to strongly oppose the advancement of LGBT equality:

NOM is funded by the Catholic Church hierarchy and its affiliates like the Knights of Columbus. Following the now-infamous memos leak, LGBT equality groups have called on the Church to immediately stop supporting NOM and its “race-baiting, ethnic exploitation, division, and anti-gay campaigns.”