It’s crunch time this week for the Illinois House of Representatives to pass marriage equality, and the Catholic Conference of Illinois is trying to mislead potential supporters. Criticizing a Chicago Tribune editorial endorsing the legislation, Executive Director Robert Gilligan offers some confusing suggestions for how same-sex couples in civil unions can get federal benefits:

Lawmakers two years ago approved civil unions, granting participants the same legal benefits given to married couples in the state. The editorial states civil union partners are missing out on federal benefits, legal protections and tax advantages because they aren’t married. These benefits are covered by federal law – not state law. The proper venue to get these benefits is not through an Illinois marriage license, but through legislation in the U.S. Congress.

While it’s true that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the current obstacle for same-sex married couples to access federal benefits, many are optimistic the Supreme Court will overturn that law at the end of June, which means it likely wouldn’t have a chance to apply to Illinois’s law before it takes effect. Gilligan is clearly trying to convince lawmakers that they don’t have to act to protect same-sex couples by misstating how those families can actually access their benefits. Contrary to his claims, the federal government defers to states to define marriage and issue licenses — DOMA is an exceptional law in how it limits which of those marriages the federal government can recognize.

Regardless of DOMA, the federal government does not recognize civil unions for the hundreds of benefits it offers to married couples. The only way for Illinois couples to ever receive them is if they have access to marriage under state law.

Given Gilligan’s opposition to the law, it’s unlikely he has any legitimate interest in ensuring the same legal and economic security for same-sex families as other families enjoy. Instead, this feigned concern is clearly a ruse to sway lawmakers into not supporting access to those very protections.

A significant point of contention in the immigration reform legislation currently undergoing mark-up in the Senate Judiciary Committee is whether individuals in binational same-sex couples should have the same right to sponsor their partners for citizenship as opposite-sex couples already enjoy. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages and thus extends those couples no immigration benefits. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been adamant about adding these protections to the bill through amendment versions of his Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), but Republicans like Sens. Marco Rubio (FL) and Lindsey Graham (SC) have made it clear the protections are a deal-breaker for reform.

Committee mark-up is nearing its end this week and Leahy’s amendments have still not been introduced. Sources suggest that President Obama encouraged Leahy not to introduce these amendments in committee, but save them for introduction on the floor of the full Senate. Obama has said publicly he believes that including protections for same-sex couples is the right thing to do, but UAFA would likely face an even bigger hurdle on the Senate floor than it would if included with the bill in committee.

Despite Republicans’ threats to let the inclusion of same-sex families derail the entire bill, several of the major conservative groups that support the bill also back UAFA’s protections. Some, like The DOMA Project’s Lavi Soloway, have called out Senate Democrats on the committee for caving to these threats rather than defend the gay community’s inclusion on principle. United Methodist Church Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño has suggested that any Senator willing to walk away from the bill over the inclusion of LGBT families “should be ashamed of themselves.”  In contrast, blogger Bil Browning argues that immigration reform is too important for all LGBT immigrants to worry about specific protections for couples. The legislation does contain some provisions that will especially help LGBT people, including a protection that people cannot be targeted for solitary confinement because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Nevertheless, the absence of UAFA would limit gay, lesbian, and bisexual immigrants to one less path on the roadmap to citizenship. Should the Supreme Court overturn Section 3 of DOMA next month, however, the federal government may be able to recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes.

There are estimated to be at least twenty-four thousand binational same-sex couples in the United States and many will undoubtedly be helped by the bill’s legalization provisions. Countless stories of these families being separated by deportation have permeated the media over the past few years. Republicans are insisting that this should remain the status quo, and it seems they might just have the political leverage to keep it that way.

Rep. David Scott (D-GA)

Though many Democratic Senators came out for marriage equality during the weeks around the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8, many House Democrats remain opposed or have indicated no position. ThinkProgress and Joe.My.God. have been working to narrow down this list by seeking clarification of these lawmakers’ positions, and this week another has declared his support for same-sex couples’ right to marry.

An email ThinkProgress received from a spokesman in Rep. David Scott’s (D-GA) office read simply the following:

Congressman Scott fully supports marriage equality.

According to Joe.My.God., Scott attended former Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) wedding last summer and is considering signing on as a co-sponsor for the Respect for Marriage Act, which repeals DOMA. This is a significant reversal for Scott, who twice voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

There are now only 21 House Democrats who oppose marriage equality or have not clarified their positions.

Today the U.S. Department of Education announced a small but significant change to the FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, that will make the application a more fair, effective, and efficient tool for students seeking financial aid to finance their college education.

The FAFSA currently uses the terms “mother/stepmother” and “father/stepfather” when requesting information about an applicant’s parents. Applicants with same-sex parents then must either arbitrarily designate one parent as “mother” and the other as “father,” or omit one parent from the form entirely. In other words, the current FAFSA puts these applicants in a lose-lose scenario forcing them to complete and submit an application that is inaccurate and not reflective of their family structure.

Today’s proposal will help change that. For the 2014-2015 FAFSA, the Department will amend the terms “Mother/Stepmother” and “Father/Stepfather” to instead read “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” This change also means that for the first time the Department will collect same-sex parents’ financial information in the same way that it does for different-sex parents. In addition to accurately reflecting LGBT families, these changes will capture the economic situation of these families so that students applying for aid can access financial aid based on their true financial need — without any bearing on their parents’ sexual orientation.

This change mimics similar changes made at other federal agencies. In 2011, for example, the State Department initiated reforms to give passport forms a more gender-neutral parental designation. Doing so required minimal changes to federal forms while significantly enhancing the accuracy, fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency of government operations.

At its core, this much-needed change achieves two important policy objectives.

Read more

Crosby Burns is a Policy Analyst for LGBT Progress.

Judge Harry Pregerson and his wife of 64 years, Bernardine.

A federal judge has ruled that an Oregon public defender, Alison Clark, is entitled to health benefits for her same-sex spouse under the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits. Judge Harry Pregerson ruled that the denial of benefits was a violation of the Employment Dispute Resolution Plan’s nondiscrimination protections, arguing that both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage (Measure 36) are unconstitutional. Clark’s marriage, he concluded, should be recognized under both state and federal law.

Though Pregerson did not specifically rule on Measure 36, he thoroughly debunked three possible objectives behind the law, pointing out that none of them provide any rational basis for banning same-sex couples from marrying:

The first possible objective of Measure 36 is to encourage responsible procreation. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying, however, will have no effect on the procreation of opposite-sex couples in Oregon. Further, same-sex couples can and do procreate — through adoptions, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Denying same-sex couples the status of marriage will not discourage their procreation. Instead, it will lead to children being born out of wedlock to these couples. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage is not rationally related to the promotion of responsible procreation.

A second possible objective of Measure 36 is to ensure that children will be raised in stable and enduring families. Even if it is true that children are better off if their parents are married, this objective is not furthered by banning same-sex marriages. First, banning same-sex marriage cannot reasonably be believed to improved the stability of families headed by opposite-sex spouses. Moreover, without same-sex marriages, fewer couples can be married and hence, there are fewer couples who can provide a stable, marital environment for their children.

A third possible objective of Measure 36 is to “proceed with caution” in changing the definition of marriage under Oregon law. If Measure 36 had been a temporary suspension of same-sex marriage that would allow the state legislature or the people of Oregon to consider the issue thoroughly, Measure 36 may have been rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution. But, as with California’s Proposition 8, “the purpose and effect… was to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry… not to suspend or study that right.” As a permanent and wholesale ban of same-sex marriage, Measure 36 is not rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution.

An effort is already underway to repeal Measure 36 through a ballot initiative in 2014.

Pregerson ruled that the United States Court must submit Clark’s request to the appropriate health insurance carrier to provide benefits for her wife, and provide the same to any future same-sex couples who apply. If the Office of Personnel Management blocks this, he also ruled that Clark should then be granted monetary relief, including “back pay and associated benefits.”

Pregerson’s ruling does little to change how the Supreme Court may rule on DOMA or California’s Proposition 8 in the coming months, but it is still a symbolic blow to the validity of such discriminatory measures.

On Saturday, former President Bill Clinton became the inaugural recipient of GLAAD’s “Advocate for Change” award for his advocacy for marriage equality over the past few years. During his speech, Clinton praised GLAAD for their work in helping people better appreciate the lives of LGBT people, and he committed to doing the same until equality is achieved:

CLINTON: I want to keep working on this until not only DOMA is no longer the law of the land, but until all people, no matter where they live, can marry the people they love. For example, when I flew here from New York, I knew I’d still be married when I got here. Heck, I’m going to Texas next week to George W. Bush’s library dedication, and I’ll still be married when I get there. You have helped me come to the place where I am today; that’s why you are the true agents of change.

But we have all learned in our interdependent society in our increasingly interdependent world that whenever people anywhere are denied any rights, it diminishes us all. That’s why we were so gripped to our television after those bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon… And the same is true here. I believe you will win the DOMA fight, and I think you will win the Constitutional right to marry. If not tomorrow, then the next day or the next day.

Watch his full remarks:

Clinton added that his daughter Chelsea and her gay friends had a “profound impact” on how he understands the LGBT community and what it means to treat them equally.

In March, before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments, Clinton wrote that he believed that the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be overturned. Still, some — including attendees at the awards ceremony — still criticize Clinton for signing DOMA into law in the first place, an action for which he still has not technically apologized.

During an appearance on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday morning, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) admitted that a Republican presidential candidate who supports marriage equality is “inevitable” and that such a candidate would receive widespread support from across the political spectrum.

While Flake’s statement is reflective of rapidly shifting U.S. attitudes towards support for LGBT Americans — and come at the end of watershed week when the Supreme Court took up cases regarding the constitutionality of anti-gay laws Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act — it appears that cultural tide hasn’t quite swept up Flake with it yet, as the senator stood by his narrow interpretation of “traditional marriage” between one man and one woman:

CHUCK TODD (HOST): Let me ask you on gay marriage. Could you support a Republican presidential candidate some day who supported same-sex marriage?

FLAKE: Oh, I think that’s inevitable. There will be one and he will receive bipartisan support — or she will. So I think that yes, the answer is yes.

TODD: And where are you on this issue, you say it’s inevitable. Are you — Lisa Murkowski, a Republican colleague of yours called it evolving on the issue. Are you evolving to use her words on this issue?

FLAKE: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman I still hold to the traditional definition of marriage.

TODD: Is there something that you — are you thinking about it? Can you imagine changing your position before you left the U.S. Senate?

FLAKE: I can’t. I tell you, in the past I’ve supported repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I’ve supported the [The Employment] Nondiscrimination Act as well, but I hold to the traditional definition of marriage.

Flake and other politicians opposing marriage equality find themselves on the wrong side of history and, increasingly, the opinion of the American public. Support for marriage equality has skyrocketed in recent years, and the latest election cycle saw the election of the first openly-gay U.S. senator, as well as the first openly bisexual U.S. congresswoman.

Still, a Republican nominee who supports marriage equality would face significant hurdles from members of their own party, as social conservatives have threatened to revolt if the GOP abandons its hardline views on LGBT rights and marriage equality. In fact, during a separate appearance on Fox News Sunday, former RNC chair Ed Gillespie hinted that the growing support for marriage equality could force Republicans to drop their call for a federal amendment against marriage equality from their platform.

On Thursday night’s The Daily Show, Jon Stewart took the Supreme Court to task for the Justices’ ambivalence about the discriminatory intent behind the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, highlighting anti-gay testimony from the House floor in 1996. He also called out Justice Scalia’s claim that there is “considerable disagreement among sociologists,” pointing out that there is actually consensus among medical professionals, “whereas on the opposing side, there’s some fucking guy who put out a thoroughly discredited study, or as that’s known on the right, ‘conclusive proof.’”

Stewart had little patience for Justice Alito’s caution that same-sex marriage is “newer than cell phones or the Internet”:

STEWART: We want you to step in and render a decision based on whether it’s right, and fair, and just under the Constitution — having nothing to do with its “newness” and what you think might happen, which, by the way, what do you think might happen? That they’ll discover that letting two ladies get married is going to rip open a hole in the ozone layer? I got news for you, gay marriage will definitely cause less national harm than cell phones or the Internet.

Here’s one thing I’m pretty sure you don’t have to do: you don’t have to beta-test rights. “Black people have only been here 50 years, I mean, let’s see how the Netherlands does with them before we lift the barriers.”

Watch it:

Conservatives have long claimed that they’re somehow the victim of persecution when they’re called bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, like when Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said at CPAC, “Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.” But conservatives are adding a novel layer to this trite argument, claiming they actually very much support gay people.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who recently said that gay couples can never achieve the same intimacy as straight couples, opened Tuesday’s anti-gay Marriage March rally on the National Mall with the following plea:

CORDILEONE:  I want to begin with a word to those who disagree with us on this issue and may be watching us right now: we love you, we are your neighbors, and we want to be your friends, and we want you to be happy.

Please understand that we don’t hate you, and that we are not motivated by animus or bigotry; it is not our intention to offend anyone, and if we have, I apologize; please try to listen to us fairly, and calmly, and try to understand us and our position, as we will try to do the same for you.

The conservative Media Research Center tried to make the same case with this video from the National Organization for Marriage’s rally, full of anti-equality conservatives proclaiming their love for gay people:

Similarly, inside the Supreme Court, those defending Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) tried to downplay the notion that either measure targeted gays and lesbians. These post-hoc arguments didn’t seem to persuade Justice Elena Kagan, who highlighted a 1996 House report showing Congress passed DOMA to express “moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

Indeed, as the expression goes, “you can’t polish a turd,” and despite the Republican Party’s best intentions to downplay or sugarcoat how offensive its positions against LGBT equality are, that doesn’t actually change that they’re still offensive. Unpacking conservatives’ latest talking points quickly reveals the judgment — and thus prejudice — underlying their claims.

Read more