Last week’s election in Anchorage, Alaska was rife with controversy and confusion that continues to play out. At stake was Proposition 5, which would have created non-discrimination protections for the LGBT community. The measure seemingly failed, but opponents of the measure had spread false information about voter registration, many ballots are in question, and many polling stations had to turn voters away because they ran out of ballots. Last night, the Anchorage Assembly rejected a resolution to investigate the election with a 7-4 vote, but some members expressed interest in a re-vote once more information is collected.

Meanwhile, conservatives are boasting the apparent victory after running incredibly offensive anti-trans ads against the measure. The American Family Association highlighted fellow hate group leader Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel using the “stunning defeat” to play into the National Organization for Marriage’s race-baiting tactics:

STAVER: This was a stunning defeat, because the homosexual agenda organizations thought that they were going to have this as an agenda that would just simply roll through Anchorage, perhaps through Alaska, and then push this across the country. They were stopped dead in their tracks. This is a great celebration for the family. It’s a great victory for those of us who believe that we should not elevate sexual behavior to a protected status like race.

Staver also claimed that Anchorage proved Americans “still stand strong to protect the natural family.” This blatant attack on the families of same-sex couples is not only offensive, but irrelevant, considering Proposition 5 had nothing to do with legal recognition for same-sex relationships.

Anchorage makes a compelling example for how the rhetoric in national politics can play a big part in local issues. Because of the animus and dirty tactics utilized by conservatives, Anchorage’s LGBT community continues to be treated like second-class citizens.

White House spokesperson Jay Carney sought to explain the administration’s decision to punt on issuing an executive order that would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal contracting. Responding to multiple questions from NBC News, Washington Blade, and Metro Weekly, Carney engaged in an eight minute back-and-forth with reporters and insisted that Obama had decided against issuing the protections so he could turn his attention to building support for the more-comprehensive Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit all employers from discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees.

Carney insisted that the administration’s legislative approach is similar to its strategy in passing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

Q: Can you make the distinction between ENDA and signing this executive order? In other words, if he does support ENDA, why not sign this executive order which relates to a smaller part of the population to get that policy started?

CARNEY: I think the DADT repeal is instructive here in terms of the approach that we’re taking at this time…We’re deeply committed to working with partners in the LGBT community on a number of fronts to build the case for employment nondiscrimination policies. [...]

Q: Is this a political calculation?

CARNEY: Absolutely not, the president is committed to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans, and that is why he has long supported ENDA….The approach we’re taking at this time is try to build support for passage of this legislation, a comprehensive approach, to legislate on the issue of non-discrimination.

Watch it:

Gay advocacy groups were disappointed with the administration’s decision, particularly since the order had already been approved by the Departments of Labor and Justice and would have expanded employment protections for up to 16 million Americans.

Several activists who attended a meeting at the White House yesterday to discuss the matter told the Wall Street Journal they “left with the impression that the administration is wary of imposing additional requirements on businesses ahead of the election, not that it worries about taking a stand against employment discrimination.” “They want zero new obligations on business before Election Day,” said one gay-rights activist. “This is an artful way of kicking the can down the sidewalk.”

Obama’s decision was also condemned by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who issued a statement expressing his disappointment. “I appreciate the President’s support for ENDA and will keep pushing for legislative action. However, an executive order would be a very constructive step forward and help build momentum to pass the bill,” he said. “It’s disappointing that the White House is passing on an opportunity to make immediate gains for equal opportunity in America.”

No one is arguing that raising children isn’t work. Democratic strategist and CAP Action board member Hilary Rosen is a single mother of twins who had to go through the expensive and challenging process of adoption with her then partner Elizabeth Birch. Now, she’s trying to stick up for other mothers who don’t have the luxury of millionaire husbands to help fund their child-rearing duties, and the backlash is getting ugly. Catholic League president Bill Donohue attacked her family on Twitter this morning:

@CatholicLeague: Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.

Somehow, Rosen’s family is less valid, less worthy of respect because she adopted her children. This insults not just lesbian couples, but all non-birth mothers. In fact, it seems like few even recognize that Rosen is a mother at all, perhaps an inherent cultural consequence of her choice (or lack of choice) to not be a stay-at-home mom. Consider this Twitter quip from Alice Stewart, who until this week was Rick Santorum’s National Press Secretary:

@alicetweet: Being a mother is the most valuable work a woman can do, my heart goes out to @hilaryr children if she doesn’t believe that

Such comments play into archaic stereotypes that de-emphasize the important work men can do as fathers and that women can do in the professional world. The most valuable work a woman can do is whatever work she chooses to do. To otherwise qualify women’s roles in society is to prove Rosen’s point. Ann Romney is not qualified to speak on behalf of women who have had to earn the living they need to raise their children, and discounting those women’s life choices as “less valuable” is the true controversy.

Earlier this month, two Catholic bishops of the Archdiocese of Seattle wrote a letter asking parishioners to take part in a campaign to repeal Washington state’s recently enacted marriage equality law. Calling the effort “critically important,” Archbishop J. Peter Sartain and Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio Elizondo argued that denying same-sex couples the rights of marriage does not constitute discrimination since gays and lesbians are inherently “different” from straight relationships.

But at least one Catholic leader — Father Michael Ryan of St. James Cathedral — is resisting the effort and refusing to “circulate petitions inside his parish for the campaign to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law”:

Dear Friends,

Archbishop Sartain has written a letter in which he has expressed his support for Referendum 74 and for the collecting of signatures in parishes. Media reports regarding this are somewhat misleading. While the Archbishop has given his support to the effort, he has wisely left it up to each pastor to decide whether to allow the collection of signatures in his own parish.

After discussing the matter with the members of the Cathedral’s pastoral ministry team, I have decided that we will not participate in the collecting of signatures in our parish. Doing so would, I believe, prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.

Father Ryan

Opponents of Washington state’s new marriage equality law have only gathered 5,681 of the 120,577 signatures necessary (and 150,000 goal) to repeal the law at the ballot through Referendum 74. They have only two months left to collect the rest, as the law is set to take effect on June 6. The Seattle Times notes that Preserve Marriage Washington, a campaign funded by the race-baiting National Organization for Marriage, has not yet utilized paid signature collectors and the totals do not seem to reflect the outreach to 1,500 churches with 50,000 completed petitions the group has boasted.

(HT: The Stranger’s Slog)

Politico examines Mitt Romney’s campaign donors and discovers that some strongly disagree with the candidate’s opposition to same sex marriage:

Paul Singer, Dan Loeb and Cliff Asness — three hedge fund managers and major players in donor circles — each cut six-figure checks toward the landmark effort to legalize gay marriage in New York. Singer, the intensely-private head of Elliott Associates, has been especially active in donating to groups aimed at legalizing gay marriage in different states over the last five years, concurrent with his rise as one of the Republican party’s mot prominent bundlers and donors to party committees. According to a recent New York Times story, Singer has donated $8 million to pro-gay marriage efforts since 2007.

He’s also helped raise more than $1 million for Romney’s campaign, as well as donated another $1 million to the super PAC supporting the all-but-assured Republican nominee.
The New York moneymen and some other Republican movers-and-shakers — such as former George W. Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman, who came out two years ago and is now raising money from a broad swath of donors to push for gay marriage but who hasn’t made a presidential campaign endorsement — are at odds with Romney, who signed a pledge proffered by the conservative National Organization for Marriage promising to, among other things, support “sending a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.”

NOM of course endorsed Romney yesterday and told Politico that Romney enthusiastically signed the pledge “very early” to fight marriage equality in its early stages. “He’s been very clear in the debates of his position on tradition marriage. It’s a strong pledge, a strong statement and it’s time for people who believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman to unite. Just because some donors may have a different view, doesn’t mean that’s going to have any effect at all.”

That seems to be the case for now, even as some observers predict that Romney may moderate his position as he transitions into the general election. After all, this is the same candidate who in 1994 met with the Log Cabin Republicans and pledged, “I’m with you on this stuff… I’ll be better than Ted Kennedy” and in 2002 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 should have no trouble walking back to his old position.