Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is adding his voice to the growing chorus of lawmakers endorsing marriage equality following President Obama’s historic declaration that gay and lesbian couples should have the freedom to marry. “I have believed that the phrase ‘civil union’ was an appropriate definition of a relationship that is both different and the same between two people of the same sex. And I have believed strongly that such couples must be treated equally under the law,” he says:

Because I believe that equal treatment is a central tenet of our nation, I believe that extending the definition of marriage to committed relationships between two people, irrespective of their sex, is the right thing to do and will not, in any way, undermine the institution of marriage so important to our society nor impose a threat to any individual marriage. It will, however, extend the respect due to every one of our fellow citizens that we would want for ourselves and our children.

Since Obama announced his support on Wednesday, Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Harry Reid (D-NV) have also backed the LGBT community and the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee announced that it will take up the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) on June 12.

Mecklenburg County Commissioner Bill James (R) is wasting no time in applying North Carolina’s newly passed Amendment One to the laws in his community. Noting that the measure bans any form of same-sex union recognition, James fired off an email to County Manager Harry Jones yesterday inquiring when they could begin stripping couples’ domestic partner benefits:

Since Amendment One has passed when will we get a memo or something that outlines what changes we need to make to our health plan to be in compliance? I recall when the Democrats on the Commission forced the issue and added these benefits for homosexuals that a number of legal experts said it was illegal then – including the City attorney. Now that Amendment one has passed it obviously is illegal to offer this benefit as there is now only one ‘domestic legal union’ recognized in the state.

James seems only to be concerned with the benefits for “homosexuals,” but Amendment One bans all domestic partnerships, so any benefits going to straight couples would have to be reevaluated as well. His email makes it clear, however, that his support for the measure was motivated entirely by his desire to discriminate against the gay community.

Jones responded that once the county’s legal and human resources staffs have completed their evaluation of the Amendment’s impact, they will brief James and the rest of the commissioners.

The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue offered some stunning candor last night in a conversation with Piers Morgan and the Human Rights Campaign’s incoming executive director Chad Griffin. After arguing a comparison to incest marriage, Donohue openly admitted that he “wants the law to discriminate” against same-sex couples:

DONOHUE: Oh, it’s very simple. It’s absolutely very simple. I have a doctorate in sociology from NYU, and I know what the literature says. The literature is definitive. There is one gold standard, one gold standard for children. That is: there is no substitute for a marriage between a man and a woman. I want the law to discriminate against straight people who live together — I used to call it “shacking up,” but now it’s called cohabitation. I want the law to discriminate against all alternative lifestyles, against gays and unions. I want to promote and to put in a privileged position that institution of marriage between a man and a woman, which has been shown over and over to be the gold standard.

Watch it:
Read more

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said during a press conference on Thursday that a new report has found that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is proceeding “very well,” but refused to give their personal opinions about same-sex marriage.

“No, I have not found any negative effect on good order or discipline,” Dempsey said in response to a question about the DADT policy, before noting that the armed forces had been hesitant to lift the ban on open service because of the uncertainty that accompanied the change. “It’s not impacting on moral, it’s not impacting on unit cohesion, it is not impacting on readiness” Panetta added. “It’s become part and parcel of what they’ve accepted within the military.”

The Secretary also addressed the military’s policy on marriage, reiterating that gay and lesbian servicemembers can wed in states that recognize their relationships:

REPORTER: As a military officer and the idea that everyone in the service is to be treated equally, does it concern you that some service members are allowed to get married, say on military bases, other service members do not have that right? [...]

PANETTA: And with regards to you know, the question on marriage. In that instance it’s very clear that state law controls in that situation. So you know, where state law provides for that, then obviously, that kind of marriage can take place. And if the law prohibits that, then it cannot take place on a military base.

Watch it:

The Pentagon announced that it will allow military chaplains to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies in September and ruled that “Defense Department property may be used for private functions, including religious and other ceremonies such as same-sex unions, as long as it’s not prohibited by state or local laws.” Republicans have repeatedly sought to change the policy and have attached an amendment to the defense authorization bill outlawing same-sex unions on Pentagon property.

Panetta also noted that the Defense Department is reviewing which benefits gay couples can qualify for in light of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships.

It is not uncommon to believe that someone shouldn’t be fired for their sexual orientation — in fact, ninety percent of voters mistakenly say that federal law protects LGBT people employment discrimination.

It turns out that elected officials hold the same misconception — even ones who voted against such measures. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) today told ThinkProgress that he believes non-discrimination protections are in place for gay workers and that no “citizen of the United States should be discriminated against for any reason:”

STRASSER: Do you believe in other protections for gay people outside of marriage, things like hospital visitation or protection from being fired in the workplace?

MARCHANT: I don’t think any citizen of the United States should be discriminated against for any reason.

KEYES: So if there were legislation saying it’d be illegal to discriminate and fire someone for being gay…

MARCHANT: Those laws are already on the books.

KEYES: I don’t think that’s a law right now.

MARCHANT: Well, I’m not going to stand here and argue with you. I believe that those protections are afforded every citizen of the United States. Whether those laws are enforced or not, that’s up to the Justice Department. I believe that those rights are on the books.

Watch it:

Marchant seems to have forgotten about the role he played in blocking legislation that would have enacted the protections he championed today. In 2007, Marchant voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would have protected LGBT people from workplace discrimination.

In actuality, an employer is able to fire someone for being gay in 29 states and for being transgender in 34 states, and a huge number of LGBT workers have acknowledged discrimination at work.

Luckily, Rep. Marchant will get the opportunity to renew his commitment to fight discrimination of LGBT workers. A bipartisan group of senators released a letter today calling on Congress to hold hearings about putting a non-discrimination law in place. The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee will take up the issue on June 12.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) responded to President Obama’s embrace of marriage equality by issuing a supportive statement in which he reiterated that his private opposition to same-sex marriage should not prevent people from marrying “whomever they want.” Now, Reid has gone a step further, telling reporters in Nevada that he would vote to legalize the freedom to marry in his home state:

Asked about the legalization of gay marriage at meeting with reporters Thursday, Reid said he believed those decisions should be made by states, based on the fact that domestic relations laws are set at the state level.

Asked then how he would vote if gay marriage was on the ballot in Nevada, Reid said, “I would follow my grandchildren and my children.”

“So you would support gay marriage?” he was asked.

He nodded yes as he walked away from the podium.

Reid is a Mormon who has previously said that he personally believes that marriage is a union between one mand and one woman.

Rick Santorum — who ran one of the most anti-gay campaigns in history — is trying to fundraise from President Obama’s embrace of marriage equality and has sent out an email to his supporters criticizing his position. “While we were always suspicious of his sincerity on this issue, his public proclamation that he now opposes preserving marriage as one man and one woman – the very building block of our society – means the charade is now over and our fight begins in earnest,” he writes:

Yesterday was clearly a tragic day for America and a tragic day for all those who believe in traditional, conservative values.

President Obama made it abundantly clear that he would rather submit to the radical left of his party in an effort to shore up his reelection chances, than stand firm for one of our most sacred institutions.

But it shouldn’t come as any surprise that President Obama is trying to redefine marriage, because without a doubt he is the most liberal president in American history.

Santorum’s tone is far harsher than that of his former opponent and the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Speaking to reporters yesterday, the former Massachusetts governor reiterated that he opposes marriage equality, but noted, “that’s my own preference, I know other people have differing views.” During an interview with a Colorado station he went on to imply that marriage wasn’t an issue of significance.

Meanwhile, Santorum made a name for himself on the presidential campaign trail by peddling a series of wacky claims about gay people. The former senator infamously compared same-sex marriage to inanimate objects like napkins and basketballs, promised to annul all same-sex marriages, and defended his support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because “they’re in close quarters” with straight servicemembers.

Republicans have responded to President Obama’s public endorsement of marriage equality by passing an amendment hours later reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and including two more anti-LGBT amendments in a defense bill.

Some members of the party, however, just want to ignore the issue altogether. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who has supported using taxpayer funds to defend DOMA, dismissed the focus on marriage equality as a distraction from important concerns like jobs and the economy:

The speaker suggested the reignited debate over gay marriage is a distraction to other legislative business on Capitol Hill, especially considering the state of the economy.

“Republicans here on Capitol Hill are focused in on the economy,” he said. “The American people are still asking the question, ‘Where are the jobs?’ and our focus is going to continue to be on the economy like it has been for the last year and a half.”

But if jobs and the economy are the Speaker’s focus, he might be pleased to learn that legalizing same-sex marriage has had a strong positive impact on state and local economies, brought in money for tourism, lodging and wedding planning, and offered much-needed relief to state budgets:

– MASSACHUSETTS: A 2009 study found that “marriages have had a positive economic effect on Massachusetts -– likely providing a boost of over $100 million to the state economy.” “Same-sex couples’ weddings injected significant spending into the Massachusetts economy and brought out-of-state guests to the state, whose spending also added to the economic boost,” it concluded.

– IOWA: Last year, a study found that same-sex marriages brought as much as $13 million in new spending to Iowa in the year since the state Supreme Court overturned a ban.

– MARYLAND: A report last month from the Maryland Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce found that the recently passed marriage equality law could boost the state’s economy by $90 million a year if it survives a November referendum.

– ILLINOIS: In March, a study from the Williams Institute predicted that legalizing marriage equality would boost Illinois’ economy by between $39 and $72 million over three years, and bring in as much as $8 million in tax revenue.

– NEW JERSEY: The Williams Institute also found that legalizing marriage equality in New Jersey could add $119 million to the state’s economy over three years, along with $8 million in tax revenue.

– RHODE ISLAND: One state that has not legalized same-sex marriage, Rhode Island, could be losing as much as $8 million a year. Why? Because same-sex couples simply travel to Massachusetts to get married. Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages from out of state but only allows civil unions within its borders.

– NATIONALLY: A CBO report found that repealing DOMA could actually improve the federal budget by just under $1 billion in each of the next ten years, but only if marriage equality was legal in all fifty states and recognized by the federal government.

-Zachary Bernstein

Last year’s string of heartbreaking suicides by young members of the LGBT community who had been bullied by their classmates led hundreds of celebrities, sports teams, politicians and ordinary citizens to record “It Gets Better” videos. Even President Obama recorded one.

One politician who has not: Mitt Romney, who has been relatively silent on the issue. This morning, a story in The Washington Post reveals that the presidential candidate engaged in bullying behavior during his days at a prestigious preparatory school in Michigan:

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.
[…]
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

Jason Horowitz spoke with five students who attended Cranbrook School at the same time as Romney, and all of them independently recalled the same story. Mitt Romney was asked about the Post’s story during a live radio broadcast with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, apologizing before explaining that he didn’t remember many of the details of what took place: “Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that…I don’t remember that incident,” Romney said, laughing. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case.”

It seems odd that Romney would not recall such a bizarre event, especially since so many other students who were asked about it painted clear pictures of what transpired, but perhaps such “hijinks and pranks” were so frequent he has simply lost track of them all.

A separate incident, in which Romney ridiculed a closeted gay classmate by sarcastically praising him with “atta girl!” comments, helps paint a troubling picture for the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. To date, Romney has not stepped forward to support any bills that seek to protect LGBT students from the kind of bullying that Romney himself participated in while in high school.

But the presumptive Republican nominee has made it clear where he stands on LGBT rights today, 50 years after the incident. Just this week he again affirmed his position that gay couples should not receive equal recognition under the law as straight couples do.

This all stands in stark contrast with President Obama, who less than 24 hours ago became the first sitting occupant of the Oval Office to endorse same sex marriage.

Yesterday we brought you the most inspiring tweets about the President’s new support for marriage equality. Today, we wanted to share some of the worst — and most spiteful — responses on Twitter.

Have you seen others? Share them with us in the comments!

Hours after President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, Republicans in the House took two steps back for gays and lesbians and approved two measures limiting their rights. The amendments, passed in the House Armed Services Committee, would “protects religious freedom of military chaplains and the conscience and moral principals of service members who are opposed to homosexuality” and prohibit same-sex marriages or a “marriage-like ceremony” that involves a same-sex couples “from being held at any military installation or on any property owned, rented or under the control of the Defense Department.” The measures are now part of the House’s $642 billion National Defense Authorization Act.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), a sponsor of so-called “conscience” measure — which may turn into a “licence to bully” gay and lesbian servicemembers — claimed, “The president has repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and is using the military as props to promote his gay agenda.” Akin is running for Senate in Missouri.

Indeed, his claims are dubious at best. Under current policy, chaplains can opt out from performing same-sex ceremonies and have publicly stated that they continue to conduct “religious ceremonies and rites in keeping with the canons [or beliefs, doctrine, policies] of the religious faith group that endorses that chaplain.”

The inclusion of anti-gay measures in the defense bill also represents a reversal for House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), who upon winning back the chairmanship in November of 2010, pledged to pass clean defense bills that were “not weighed down” by social issues. “Congress should pass clean legislation — without the liberal social agenda items Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid have insisted on attaching in the run-up to the election,” McKeon said, referring to amendments to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and enact hate crimes protections. He added: “The National Defense Authorization Act—especially in wartime—should be focused on one core equity: caring and providing for the men and women in uniform and their families.”