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

Today the Center for American Progress, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law released a comprehensive database of research documenting the immediate need for federal policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This database includes nearly 40 documents totaling 680 pages of research from the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Freedom To Work, and the Williams Institute.

The findings of the research contained in this database are consistent and conclusive: LGBT workplace discrimination is a pervasive and persistent problem that requires an immediate solution. Additionally, this research establishes a strong business case for workplace nondiscrimination laws and policies, examines the potential impact of an LGBT nondiscrimination executive order for federal contractors, and highlights strong public and voter support for workplace fairness.

Given these realities, Congress should pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and President Obama should sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to have LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies. These actions would bring quick relief to the hundreds of thousands of LGBT workers who face employment discrimination in our country today.

Delta Airlines is siding with an organization that compares pro-choice groups to Nazis and shuns adoption if the parents happen to be gay.

Today, the airline company confirmed that it will stop advertising on the Daily Show after the far-right anti-gay Catholic League, headed up by Bill Donohue, took issue with a graphic used on the Daily Show that showed a manger between a woman’s legs.

The Catholic League and its president have called the comedian’s joke “hate speech.” They have made no comments or attempts to apologize, however, for their own hateful speech which includes blaming gay people for pedophilia in the Catholic Church, saying that HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius was no better than an anti-semite, or claiming that a lesbian’s children aren’t her own because they are adopted.

NOM's Brian Brown

Opponents of marriage equality are not happy that Vice President Joe Biden expressed his support for marriage equality yesterday. They’ve taken to Twitter and other outlets today to mock the White House, accusing Biden of being off-message and reiterating their standard anti-gay talking points. Here’s a selection:

BRYAN FISCHER: President Obama is a homophobic bigot: won’t endorse gay marriage like the enlightened Joe Biden. http://ow.ly/aJYqJ

TONY PERKINS: Ok, Mr. Vice President, how about 3′s Company? Two Guys & a Girl? Sitcoms are the inspiration for this admin’s policies? I’m not laughing!

BRIAN BROWN: It’s always hard to know what Vice President Biden is doing whenever he speaks. He could be launching a trial balloon, or he could just be being Biden with his foot in his mouth again. Whether he realizes it or not, Biden is declaring war on  those 30 states in America that have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman… What Joe Biden wants—genderless marriage that kowtows to the demands of gay couples—cannot exist alongside traditional marriage.

Such aggrandizing rhetoric unsurprisingly distorts the entire conversation on the freedom to marry. For simply wanting all couples to have the “same exact rights,” Biden is “declaring war” and promoting polygamy? Hardly.

Reporters grilled White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage Monday afternoon, just one day after Vice President Joe Biden told NBC’s Meet The Press that he is “absolutely comfortable with…men marrying men, women marrying women.”

Carney had little to say and reiterated the administration’s claim that both Obama and Biden believe that all couples who are married “are entitled to the very same rights and very same liberties,” but don’t, at the present time, support the right of gay and lesbians to marry. The press responded by accusing Obama of laying the political groundwork for eventually embracing marriage rights and pushed back against Carney’s redundant talking points, asking marriage-related questions for 21 of the 44 minute press conference. Significantly, the press secretary could not explain if Obama agrees with Biden’s claim that he is “comfortable” with “men marrying men” or if he believes that marriage is a “civil liberty.” Below are some highlights:

Q: Why does the president oppose same-sex marriage?
CARNEY: I would just point you to what the president has said in the past, both during his campaign for president in 2008 and in answer to a question in 2010. I really don’t have an update for you.

Q: Is the president comfortable with the fact of men marrying men and women marrying women?
CARNEY: The president is comfortable with same-sex couples, as the Vice President said, being entitled to the same rights and the civil rights and civil liberties as other Americans.

Q: Is marriage a civil liberty?
CARNEY: You have to ask civil libertarians or lawyers.

Q: He opposes bans on gay marriage, but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage?
CARNEY: The record has long been clear that the president opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

Watch a compilation:

Today, Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, spoke with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell about the kick-off of President Obama’s campaign. The conversation shifted to same-sex marriage and Vice President Joe Biden’s endorsement of equality over the weekend. In expressing the Republicans’ opposing position, Priebus split from Mitt Romney, suggesting that “individual states can make those decisions on their own,” whereas Romney has pledged to support a federal marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide:

PRIEBUS: I think Governor Romney and the Republican Party have been pretty clear. We believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We believe, ultimately, that you can’t federalize that kind of mandate, which is why we believe that individual states can make those decisions on their own, and they’re doing that across the country. So we’ve been clear.

Watch it:

Priebus also attempted to conflate Obama and Romney’s positions on the freedom to marry, which is laughable. By signing onto the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge, Romney has committed to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, advance a federal marriage amendment, and appoint anti-equality judges. In fact, Romney offers a three-tier system of marriage, opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples who are already married, and same-sex couples he wants to prevent from marrying. And even at the state level, like in New Hampshire, Romney supports rolling back marriage equality rights.

In stark contrast, the Obama administration has opposed state-level marriage bans (like in North Carolina and Minnesota) and has refused to defend DOMA, instead filing briefs supporting those who are challenging the discriminatory law. The President’s reluctance to support marriage equality in word does not detract from his clear efforts to advance it in action. The RNC, on the other hand, needs to figure out if it wants to be as anti-gay as its presumptive nominee.

The Obama campaign has insisted that Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks about marriage equality echoed President Obama’s belief that gay and lesbians should be treated equally under the law. Senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters that Biden’s statements “were entirely consistent with the president’s position, which is that couples who are married, whether they’re gay or heterosexual couples, are entitled to the very same rights and very same liberties.” Obama and Biden, he insisted, are still evolving in their support for marriage equality, but believe that discriminatory measures like the Defense of Marriage Act are “unconstitutional and that if people are married we ought to recognize those marriages and afford them the rights to which they’re entitled.”

But this afternoon, during an appearance on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter seemed to admit that Biden’s remarks did in fact go further than the administration’s stated position:

MITCHELL: The question to Joe Biden was not about civil unions. The question to Joe Biden was about marriage. Marriage is different from civil rights, civil unions, equal protection under the law. Marriage is a sacrament and a legal sacrament that the Vice President was asked about it and he said he had no problem with it. That is not the same.

CUTTER: He said he had no problem with committed couples forming….he was really impressing the same policies as this president, as this administration….

MITCHELL: [Biden said] ‘I’m absolutely comfortable with men marrying men and women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same equal rights.”… Is the President of the United States comfortable, as the Vice President said, ‘with men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying another’?

CUTTER: Andrea, I’m not going to make news on the president’s views on gay marriage today.

Watch it:

Attorney General Jon Bruning (R-NE)

In an advisory opinion issued last week, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) said that he believes under the state’s constitution, local governments have no authority to enact non-discrimination ordinances. This opinion came at the request of State Senator Beau McCoy, who had proposed legislation earlier this year to strip localities of that power, arguing that uniform state laws for businesses are better than piecemeal local regulations.

Omaha, the largest city in the state, recently enacted an ordinance protecting LGBT citizens from discrimination in employment and public accommodations. Lincoln, the state’s capital, says it will continue its previous plans to consider a non-discrimination ordinance — a public hearing on the measure is scheduled for this afternoon. Lincoln’s city attorney has taken a different interpretation of the state’s constitution, arguing that the city has the authority to pass the measure.

In their non-binding opinion, Bruning and his assistant attorney general write:

[I]t is our opinion that while political subdivisions may pass ordinances or other laws on the same subject matter which are not inconsistent with the state’s civil rights classifications, political subdivisions are not authorized to expand protected classes beyond the scope of the civil rights provided for in the state statute.

Their reasoning? Nebraska is generally a “Dillon Rule” state. Based on the reasoning of 19th century Iowa Chief Justice John Dillon, several states take the view that localities may only enact laws when given explicit permission from the state government. Other states, known as “Home Rule” states, let localities make any decisions not specifically prohibited by the state government. The opinion argues that, while Nebraska laws give some Home Rule authority to local governments, this falls out of their scope. Only voters, amending their city charters by referendum — or the state legislature — could grant protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This is not the first time localities have been big-footed by their state governments, undermining attempts to protect LGBT constituents. In Virginia, for example, a Republican Attorney General used the same principles to dissuade Fairfax County’s school board from enacting a non-discrimination rule. Last year, Tennessee enacted a law stripping localities of the right to enact non-discrimination protections beyond the state’s protected catagories. And a 1992 Colorado referendum — later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court — sought to nullify all local protections based on sexual orientation.

In Nebraska too, the question may eventually be decided by the judicial system. Omaha’s city attorney has said that Bruning’s ruling will change nothing without a court order, telling the press “If someone sues us, we’ll deal with it in court.”

Just 16 states and the District of Columbia provide legal employment protections for LGBT citizens (another 5 protect based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity or expression). That means that in most U.S. states, someone who is — or even seems to be — to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered may legally be fired or not hired purely on that basis.

In a sense McCoy is right — this is not an issue that should be dealt with by piecemeal regulations. It is time for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ensure that no American is fired just for being LGBT.

On Friday, Vice President Joe Biden taped an interview with Meet The Press, in which he endorsed same-sex marriage and admitted to host David Gregory that he is “absolutely comfortable with…men marrying men, women marrying women.”

The comments came just as the LGBT community had grown frustrated with President Obama’s alleged evolution toward supporting marriage equality and admonished the administration for failing to issue an executive order that would have prohibited employers who contract with the federal government from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

But rather than finally confronting those who oppose granting gay and lesbian people all of the same legal rights and protections of their heterosexual counterparts and embracing Biden’s remarks, the White House and the campaign — after two days of considering their response — settled on pretending they didn’t happen. After the segment aired Sunday morning, administration officials hurriedly tweeted that Biden’s position was consistant with Obama’s. They said that had not endorsed full equality after all and implied that his claim that gays are “entitled to the same exact rights” apparently didn’t extend to marriage. The message beecame even more confused after one official told NBC’s Chuck Todd that Biden was only speaking for “himself” on the issue:

– HE WAS ONLY SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF: As NBC’s Chuck Todd revealed following Biden’t interview, “the Vice President’s office reached out to me to say, yes we know the vice president was speaking about himself. He is not speaking speaking for the administration. And they pointed out like the president he is evolving on this issue.”

– HE DID NOT ENDORSE MARRIAGE: David Axelrod tweeted, “@chucktodd @meetthepress What VP said-that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights-is precisely POTUS’s position.”

– HE IS STILL EVOLVING ON MARRIAGE: “The vice president was saying what the president has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.

And so the joy that LGBT advocate groups felt upon hearing Biden’s remarks turned to confusion. The Center for American Progress’ Winnie Stachelberg noted that while “We commend Vice President Biden for supporting marriage equality and call on President Obama to do the same. The campaign shouldn’t force Biden’s comments back into the closet, but should instead embrace the growing popular support for the freedom to marry.” Obama aides have previously sought to squash the perception that members of the administration are more supportive of the LGBT community than the president and have walked back the remarks of Michelle Obama and Melody Barnes .

The Human Rights Campaign’s incoming president Chad Griffin, however, noted that Biden’s remarks — and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s surprise embrace of same-sex marriage Monday morning — presented the administration with an opportunity. Griffin asked, “Is there even a question?” that Biden has evolved in his thinking, and added: “His words speak for themselves — and they send an incredibly important message outside Washington to the young LGBT teenager hearing the vice president of the United States talk about his belief in marriage equality and the fact that he or she can grow up and have the same dreams and aspirations as their friends, their colleagues, their parents.”

For a president seeking to reconnect with young people and reclaim the spark of 2008, this sounds like a message worth embracing.