Ford, who represented Tennessee in the House, has said he has not decided yet whether to get into the New York U.S. Senate race, but he wrote a piece appearing in Tuesday’s New York Post in which he said he was “strongly considering running.” He is doing so, he said, because the nation is at its best when “we trust competition to refine the steel of our convictions and the truth of our arguments.”

Ford, 39, moved to New York and took a job with Merrill Lynch & Co. after losing the 2006 Tennessee Senate race. A Senate run in New York would buck the Democratic establishment.

Gillibrand was appointed to the seat by Gov. David Paterson after Hillary Rodham Clinton left to become secretary of state for the Obama administration, and the White House is backing her election.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked Monday about possible efforts to help Gillibrand by getting rid of any Democratic challengers. Gibbs replied, “stay tuned.”

Ford’s spokesman Davidson Goldin shot back Tuesday.

“While Robert Gibbs is saying ’stay tuned’ about Washington insiders obstructing a free election in New York state,” Goldin told The Associated Press, “Harold Ford is focused on independent leadership … not what party bosses want to dictate.”

Ford, a centrist Democrat who had been known as conservative-leaning on many issues, sought to use the New York Post piece to defend what some have called recent flip flops designed to please a more liberal New York voters, including abortion rights and gay marriage.

Ford insists in the piece that he is “pro-choice” and that “any assertions to the contrary are false.”

He described his position this way in 2006: “I believe life is the best choice, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to reduce abortions.”

Ford also wrote in the Post that he has always supported civil unions, and after consideration has come to support gay marriage.

As a congressman he consistently voted in favor of amending the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Anti-gay supporters of Prop 8 say no.

The Courage Campaign says yes.

Now you get to weigh in.

From the Courage Campaign:

 
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker – who will be overseeing a federal court challenge to Prop 8 starting this Monday (January 11) — is considering whether or not to open the court room to TV cameras.

The court just announced that it is seeking public comment on the proposal to televise the trial — and that all comments must be submitted to the court by a Friday deadline.

The interest in this case is unprecedented. And not surprisingly, supporters of Prop 8 - who eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry - do NOT want the trial to be televised.

Opponents of Prop 8 — led by attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson — are seeking to televise the case in the interests of full transparency. They want this historic trial to be watched by as many Americans as possible. And, of course, we agree.

We have just this one chance to make our voices heard — thousands of Americans calling for equality, transparency and accountability. That’s why we’re teaming up with CREDO Action to collect as many signatures as possible asking Judge Walker to televise the case. We need your signature now:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

Together, along with our friends at CREDO, we will hand-deliver your signatures to Judge Vaughn Walker on Friday before the deadline.

This case presents issues that are very important to the public, and will affect millions of people. However, if the case is not televised, only a tiny fraction will ever be able to watch the trial in person.

By televising the trial, the public will be able to see for themselves the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, and will therefore have more confidence in the outcome of the trial.

If you know other people who believe the Prop 8 trial should be televised as well, please forward this message to them ASAP.

Thank you so much for making your voice heard at this critical time. We will update you as soon as further news develops.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute

The governing body for federal courts in Western states last week approved a pilot program that would for the first time allow cameras in civil trials being decided by judges.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said in an order issued Wednesday that he wants to record or webcast a Jan. 6 pretrial hearing as a test run for the trial, in which he’ll consider a constitutional challenge to California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

Lawyers representing sponsors of the ban, approved by voters in 2008, have said they oppose having the trial broadcast outside the courtroom.

Although she shares Kennedy’s position on key issues and is appealing to the same liberal Democratic voters who returned him to office during his 47 years in the Senate, Coakley is helping usher in a post-Kennedy Massachusetts – a state whose politics have been inextricably linked to the family for generations.

Unlike her three Democratic rivals in the recent primary, Coakley refrained from invoking Kennedy’s name or image in her television ads, instead focusing on her personal history, record as attorney general and legislative priorities.

Coakley, who faces a Republican and Libertarian challenger in a Jan. 19 special election, said playing down Kennedy’s persona during the campaign was a simple acknowledgment of the titanic role he played in the politics of Massachusetts and the nation.

“We just felt that no one could replace Sen. Kennedy, that he was such a larger-than-life character and so down to earth,” Coakley said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Someone was going to fill that seat, but it wasn’t going to be anybody even close to his legacy and his talent and his experience.”

Coakley said she’s acknowledging another fact – that Kennedy’s death necessarily opens “a new day” in Massachusetts’ politics.

“It was daunting and humbling to even be running for this seat, so I thought I can’t really pretend to be Sen. Kennedy,” she said. “I can certainly aspire to follow in his footsteps.”

While she’s avoided using his image in ads, Coakley has mentioned Kennedy at some public appearances. She referenced his battles against discrimination to frame her opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to married gay couples in Massachusetts.

But Coakley’s efforts to avoid direct comparisons with Kennedy is also helping focus attention on her own story – one that includes breaking political gender barriers in a state that considers itself one of the most liberal.

The 56-year-old was the first woman elected to the state’s highest law enforcement office. If she succeeds Jan. 19, she’ll be the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.

Coakley’s attempt to move past the Kennedy legacy was evident early on.

She was the first to declare her candidacy after his death and had quietly begun exploring a run well before he died, at the risk of alienating the Kennedy family. She also declared she would run even if another member of the family, including former U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy, opted into the race. Kennedy decided against running.

In February, Coakley divulged to the AP the existence of a previously undisclosed bank account that she had used to conduct polls to test her U.S. Senate prospects for more than four years.

After her primary win, the Kennedy family issued a statement congratulating her and saying they had “every confidence” she will win in January. Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, and the late senator’s sons hadn’t endorsed anyone during the primary.

In the four-way Democratic primary, Coakley, the only candidate with a statewide organization, garnered nearly half the vote.

That organization, and the fact the Coakley is the Democratic nominee in an state that overwhelmingly elects Democrats to state and federal office, makes Coakley the presumed frontrunner.

Her Republican challenger, state Sen. Scott Brown, has described himself as the underdog in the race and said that while he differed with Kennedy on many issues, he also found areas of agreement, including Kennedy’s opposition to Cape Wind, a proposal to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. Coakley supports the plan.

“I had great respect for the senator as many people did. He was my senator, too,” said Brown, a 50-year-old lawmaker and lawyer.

Brown is also critical, saying the Democratic Party has drifted too far left from the party of Kennedy’s brother, President John F. Kennedy.

“When I go around the state, people are saying, ‘You know what? This isn’t JFK’s party anymore,’” he said.

A third candidate in the race, Joseph L. Kennedy, is a Libertarian running as an independent.

Although he’s no relation to the late senator, having a Joe Kennedy on the ballot could confuse some voters who might mistake him for Edward Kennedy’s nephew, the former U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy.

But Coakley is convinced he poses more of a problem for Brown and has insisted he be included in debates. Brown initially pushed for one-on-one debates with Coakley.

Coakley’s steady focus on higher office served her well in the campaign and in her long public career, according to political observers.

“Martha Coakley has been clear about promoting Martha Coakley as an effective public official,” said Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. “She has run principally as the centerpiece of what she is offering the electorate. She is not running on picking up the baton after Sen. Kennedy’s death.”

As a woman, Coakley would have had a hard time matching Kennedy’s more gregarious, backslapping political nature, according to Carol Hardy-Fanta, director of the nonpartisan Center for Women in Politics & Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. Instead, Coakley has been wise to play to her strengths as a seasoned prosecutor who has spent her life building up her own political resume, she said.

“She is clearly someone who went into the race very well prepared to take control of the race and to say ‘I’m running, I planned to run, I’m ready to run and I can win this,’” Hardy-Fanta said.

Kennedy died Aug. 25 of a brain tumor.

With 34 states lacking any legal recognition of same-sex relationships, Traiman wonders if all the emphasis on matrimony is misplaced.

“When I speak to women from Florida or Wisconsin or Minnesota, they are like, ‘I don’t care what it’s called, I just want to be able to visit my wife in the hospital and cover my children with my health insurance,’” said Traiman, who helped pass the nation’s first domestic partnership law a quarter-century ago in Berkeley.

In the weeks since Maine voters handed the gay marriage movement its 27th electoral defeat in five years, other activists have voiced similar qualms about making marriage their main goal. Gay rights leaders have insisted that anything less than full marriage equality is unacceptable, but some are asking whether the uncompromising strategy has forestalled interim steps that could improve the lives of gay men, lesbians and their families.

“They think the best way to achieve their goal of marriage with all the rights and benefits of marriage is a complete frontal assault, and any other strategy is a betrayal of their goal,” Traiman said.

Activists like Traiman point to the success of efforts to extend spousal rights and other civil rights protections to same-sex couples, even as the passage of gay marriage bans grab headlines.

On the same day that Maine rejected a gay marriage law approved by its Legislature, for example, voters in Washington state approved a law giving same-sex couples or straight older couples who register as domestic partners all the state rights and responsibilities of marriage. Washington’s so-called “everything but marriage” law passed by the same margin as Maine’s gay marriage rebuff, 53 percent to 48 percent.

And earlier this year, Nevada lawmakers overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Gibbons to enact a domestic partnership law extending marriage rights to couples, gay or straight, who “have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.” Colorado’s legislature and governor also adopted a “reciprocal beneficiaries” law providing some legal benefits for all unmarried couples.

Colorado and Nevada are among the 29 states with constitutional prohibitions against gay marriages.

The success of partner measures in those states suggests that there’s room for gay couples to secure spousal protections even if they can’t marry, said William Dobbs, a veteran activist in New York.

“It’s a huge tactical mistake to be arguing that nothing less than marriage will do,” Dobbs said. “One size does not fit all.

“There is a real need among some folks to put their lives together, to have joint credit cards, a house and children,” he said. “We need a set of actions for that, but the marriage fight is toxic to other types of reforms.”

Since 2004, $78 million has been spent on fighting efforts to outlaw same-sex marriage, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Out of 28 elections, gay marriage supporters have won only one: when Arizona voters rejected a 2006 measure that would have outlawed domestic partnerships as well as same-sex marriages. Arizona subsequently approved a constitutional ban on gay marriages last year.

Dan Hawes, the head organizer for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, agrees that it makes sense to seek even limited legal protections in states where gay people have none, but disagrees that fighting for marriage has detracted from that work.

“It’s not that these fights are mutually exclusive of each other, so that’s why we don’t think it makes sense to negotiate against ourselves,” Hawes said.

State Sen. Ed Murray, a gay Democrat who led the three-year push to introduce and expand Washington’s domestic partnership laws, said he had little support from national organizations that thought he was settling for less than full equality. Murray says he still regards marriage as the ultimate goal, but has no regrets about taking an incremental approach.

“We knew we had families who needed immediate help and wanted to give relief to families who needed it while building support in the Legislature on the way to marriage,” he said.

A recent member survey by Equality Federation, a network of state-based gay rights groups, showed that passing laws to reduce the bullying of gay students in school and adopting anti-discrimination measures that prevent gay people from losing their jobs or getting evicted are high on the agenda for next year.

“The reality is if people have to fear for keeping their jobs, they cannot stand up and advocate for marriage equality,” the federation’s executive director, Toni Broaddus, said. “Though we need the full range of rights we are fighting for to include marriage equality, that is not always the best place to start in North Carolina or Texas or many, many states.”

Even if activists set their sights on a status short of marriage, there’s no guarantee that would diffuse the organized opposition they have faced from religious and social conservatives.

This month, more than 150 Christian conservative leaders published a 4,700-word declaration, pledging to fight any legislative efforts to equate same-sex unions with traditional marriages. In theory, though, the Manhattan Declaration would not oppose extending legal protections to two people in a nonsexual relationship, such as two sisters or even a same-sex couple that abstained from sex, said Robert George, a Princeton law professor who serves as board chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.

“What you couldn’t have is … an explicit reference to partners in intimate relationships because ‘intimate’ is an euphemism for ’sexual,’” George said. “In that case, all a civil union scheme is a semantic substitute for marriage, or same-sex marriage by another name.”

The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts – the first state to allow gay marriage – over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law “does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages,” according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

“There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” according to the 36-page filing.

The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to sue the government over the DOMA law. Some gay couples have filed their own lawsuits challenging the law, but this case is unique in pitting a state against the federal government over the issue.

Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state “can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits.”

“Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses,” she said.

In earlier filings, the government has sought to dismiss the DOMA lawsuits brought by individuals.

The Massachusetts case could also have implications for Democratic Party politics. The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is trying to win the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, at the same time her office is leading the lawsuit against the Democratic administration on the issue of gay rights.

The lawsuit brought by Massachusetts says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married since the state allowed it in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans’ cemetery.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states – Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa – have legalized gay marriage.

He said the administration “will take the necessary steps” to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, which bars federal recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to pensions, health insurance and other government benefits. The administration is also committed to getting rid of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy applying to military personnel.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center

Washington, D.C.

8:10 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  Please, you’re making me blush.  (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC.  (Applause.)  To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC.  (Applause.)  Representative Patrick Kennedy.  (Applause.)  David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa.  (Applause.)  John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job.  (Applause.)  Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality.  (Applause.)  Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank.  (Applause.)   And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house.  (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you.  It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa.  (Applause.)  I’ve made it.  (Laughter.)  I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.  (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice.  That’s not easy.  For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open.  There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted.  And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking.  (Applause.)  And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities.  And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them.  It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.  It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need.  (Applause.)  And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America.  (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now.  And I’m here with a simple message:  I’m here with you in that fight.  (Applause.)  For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room.  I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough.  I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago.  (Applause.)  But I will say this:  We have made progress and we will make more.  And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community.  (Applause.)  We all have a stake in reviving this economy.  We all have a stake in putting people back to work.  We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care.  We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole.  (Applause.)  You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures.  You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job.  You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance.  You’re soldiers.  You are neighbors.  You are friends.  And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future.  (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with.  But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems.  And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.  (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield.  (Applause.)  You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.  (Applause.)  You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part.  I am committed to these goals.  And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago.  In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son.  (Applause.)

This struggle has been long.  Time and again we faced opposition.  Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up.  (Applause.)  They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment.  (Applause.)  Countless activists and organizers never gave up.  You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress.  The House passed the bill again this week.  (Applause.)  And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law.  (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation.  (Applause.)  And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated.  And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear.  Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America.  (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love.  (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do.  We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill.  (Applause.)  For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law.  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.  (Applause.)  And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms.  (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world.  (Applause.)  We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future.  (Applause.)  We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status.  (Applause.)  The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway.  And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia.  Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  (Applause.)  We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country.  We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars.  (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy.  Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen.  I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  That’s my commitment to you.  (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country.  And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation.  But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people.  Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides?  Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share?  Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded:  that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness?  I believe we can; I believe we will.  (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.  (Applause.)  I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples.  I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows.  And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.  (Applause.)  And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law.  It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another.  It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment.  It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes:  to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger.  (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle.  That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences.  That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message.  (Applause.)  And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America.  (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford.  It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police.  Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids.  Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose.  So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard.  And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.”  (Laughter.)  Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know.  Why are you bothering him?”  (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York.  She carried a sign that stated her support.  People cheered.  Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents.  And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well.  At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up.  But slowly, interest grew.  Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS.  But the cause endured.  Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays  — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person.  I didn’t even cross the street against the light.”  (Laughter.)  “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.”  (Applause.)

That’s the story of America:  of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.  (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember.  Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out.  What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community.  But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person.  For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow.  These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today.  (Applause.)  These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable.  That’s the promise of America, HRC.  That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill.  (Applause.)  Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing.  God bless you.  God bless America.  (Applause.)

I don’t mean to pile on Cleve Jones, the organizer for the National Equality March, but there are times when he talks and its easy to wonder if he likes Mary Jane a bit too much. In a recent interview he says two things that are rather naive and dismissive of local organizers who are doing important grunt work.

When asked what issues the October 11 march will address, here is Mr. Jones:

“We want decisive, unequivocal action from the president, Congress and the United States Supreme Court to ensure equal protection under the law in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, period.”

What the devil does that mean? Repeal of DOMA and DADT? Gay marriage in all 50 states (good luck with that!). Civil rights laws for gays and lesbians? Can the man be more vague? And last time I checked the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to ensure some political outcome. Its role is only to make meaning from the laws (and if you look at the history of the Court, minus the past 50 years, its a rather conservative institution, but that is for another time).

Jones also seems to have a disdain for the daily work done by locals. You know those folk you call when the police do some shady stuff or you get beat down for having the gall to think you can walk the streets at night.

” We who are organizing the march are tired of a state-by-state, city-by-city struggle. It certainly has produced victories, but these victories are incomplete and impermanent.”

Sure, but can we get our fair due of the freedom pie by ignoring  the local activists who will be on the ground when the rally stage is put away? Former 365 blogger Pauline Park wonders if all of the focus on a national movement will dry up much needed funds for organizations who are the lifeblood for the movement Jones wants.

“What the march will do is divert scarce resources from those state and local organizations doing the real work of the movement just at a moment when they most need resources because of the recession. In fact, a lot of state and local organizations already have events planned for Oct 11 — which is National Coming Out Day — and so the scheduling of this march on that day will force many of those organizations to choose between continuing to organize events in their home communities or send members to Washington.”

I know the complaints. “Why can’t gays and lesbians support something without being so critical?” “If this march is not a success our rights will be taken away.” “Every gay and lesbian needs to support this march. If not you are traitor.”  “Support this march or get out of the way.” Phooey to all of that.

Movements are weak if they can’t stand up to sturdy and fair critique. Sure too many comments about Jones  and the march are silly and those statements need to be taken for what they are: bitter mess by bitter people. However, freedom struggles get no where if there isn’t a hard question every now and then.

None of this means you shouldn’t go to DC this weekend, and if you read it like that get some glasses. Please. Yet ask yourself, and the folk organizing this thing, how do they plan on spreading a national movement if they don’t support the ground troops?

On Sept. 15, U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

I say “so-called” — and I’m not alone — because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not defend marriage, does not provide anything to encourage people to marry or stay married or improve marriages.

And I don’t think DOMA was passed with the intention of defending marriage any more than literary tests were enacted to preserve the integrity of the election process.

DOMA was enacted to maintain legal discrimination of gays and lesbians; to perpetuate the prejudicial notion that gay and lesbian relationships are lesser than straight unions, illegitimate, improper, wrong; and, sickly, if you’ll recall the time, to play partisan games.

We have lived with DOMA for 13 years, and we have seen DOMA cited in multiple ways to deny — not defend — marriage rights. Because of DOMA, legally married same-sex couples in the United States are denied many benefits extended to opposite-sex married couples, some of them small, some significant:

• Social Security survivor benefits are not awarded to the same-sex partner of a deceased spouse.

• Federal COBRA health insurance benefits are not extended to the partner of a policyholder.

•  Married gays are penalized in taxes due to DOMA and not guaranteed unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse.

And the list goes on to include about 1,000 bullet points.

So last week, two of our openly gay members of the U.S. House joined Nadler to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, which, on the day of its introduction, already had 91 co-sponsors.

Nadler was among the 67 members of the House who voted against DOMA in 1996. He knew then the harm it posed, but, he said last week, that injury was not apparent to all members because in 1996 no state allowed for gays to marry.

“This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families,” Nadler said. “Now, in 2009, we have tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, living openly, raising families and paying taxes in states that have granted them the right to marry, and it has become abundantly clear that, while the sky has not fallen on the institution of marriage, as DOMA supporters had claimed, DOMA is causing these couples concrete and lasting harm. Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy. But, with a president who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law.”

Neither Baldwin nor Polis were serving in Congress when the obnoxious and ugly law was passed. But some prominent politicians who held office at the time have endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, and their support proves how far America has come on the issue of same-sex marriage since the hypothetical yesterdays of 1996.

To gays and lesbians saying, “I do,” former US. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., said, “I wish I didn’t.”

Barr wrote DOMA. In 1996, GLBT newspaper reports usually referred to him as the “anti-gay Georgia congressman” and GLBT newspaper columnists usually referred to him as the “virulently anti-gay Georgia congressman.”

Barr no longer believes in DOMA. “This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted,” he said.

Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, issued a statement last week: “When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”

And U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., offered a most candid statement reversing his position on DOMA: “On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: It was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values.”

Blumenauer thought passage of DOMA would mellow the right-wingers. “Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry,” he wrote in an op-ed piece for HuffingtonPost.com.

And the right-wingers feasted for years.

Now, can we say the banquet is over?

The Respect of Marriage Act would not legalize same-sex marriage across the United States, though some loud mouths on cable news programs and talk radio have a segment of America believing that’s the intent of the bill.

Rather, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA and, by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, embrace the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized, according to Nadler’s office. Marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided state by state.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, take care, TCB.