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The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.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

AT SIGNING OF THE RYAN WHITE HIV/AIDS

TREATMENT EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

Diplomatic Reception Room

11:58 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.

AUDIENCE:  Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT:  We often speak about AIDS as if it’s going on somewhere else.  And for good reason — this is a virus that has touched lives and decimated communities around the world, particularly in Africa.  But often overlooked is the fact that we face a serious HIV/AIDS epidemic of our own — right here in Washington, D.C., and right here in the United States of America.  And today, we are taking two important steps forward in the fight that we face here at home.

It has been nearly three decades since this virus first became known.  But for years, we refused to recognize it for what it was.  It was coined a “gay disease.”  Those who had it were viewed with suspicion.  There was a sense among some that people afflicted by AIDS somehow deserved their fate and that it was acceptable for our nation to look the other way.

A number of events and advances over the years have broadened our understanding of this cruel illness.  One of them came in 1984, when a 13-year-old boy from central Indiana contracted HIV/AIDS from a transfusion.  Doctors assured people that Ryan White posed no risk to his classmates or his community.  But ignorance was still widespread.  People didn’t yet understand or believe that the virus couldn’t be spread by casual contact.  Parents protested Ryan’s attendance in class.  Some even pulled their kids out of school.  Things got so bad that the White family had to ultimately move to another town.

It would have been easy for Ryan and his family to stay quiet and to fight the illness in private.  But what Ryan showed was the same courage and strength that so many HIV-positive activists have shown over the years and shown around — show around the world today.  And because he did, we didn’t just become more informed about HIV/AIDS, we began to take action to fight it.

In 1990, the year Ryan passed away, two great friends and unlikely political allies, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, came together and introduced the Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act — the CARE Act — which was later named after Ryan.

In a few minutes, I’m going to sign the fourth reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.  Now, in the past, policy differences have made reauthorizations of this program divisive and controversial.  But that didn’t happen this year.  And for that, the members of Congress that are here today deserve extraordinary credit for passing this bill in the bipartisan manner that it deserves:  Tom Harkin and Mike Enzi in the Senate, we are grateful to you for your extraordinary work; Speaker Pelosi, who’s always leading the charge on so many issues; Frank Pallone, Jr., Joe Barton, Barbara Lee and Donna Christensen in the House, thank you for your extraordinary work — oh don’t worry, I’m getting to Henry.  (Laughter.)  Nancy is always looking out for members, but we’ve got a special section for Henry.

And Chairman Henry Waxman, who began holding hearings on AIDS in 1982, before there was even a name for AIDS, was leading here in Washington to make sure that this got the informed attention that it deserved and who led the House in passing the original Ryan White legislation in 1990.

I also want to acknowledge the HIV community for crafting a consensus document that did so much to help move this process forward.  Some of the advocates so important to this legislation are with us here today:  Ernest Hopkins from Cities Advocating for Emergency AIDS Relief; Frank Oldham, Jr., President and CEO of the National Association of People with AIDS; and Julie Scofield, Executive Director of the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors.

And I’m especially honored that Ryan’s mother, Jeanne White-Ginder, is here today.  For 25 years, Jeanne had an immeasurable impact in helping ramp up America’s response to this epidemic.  While we lost Ryan at too young an age, Jeanne’s efforts have extended the lives and saved the lives of so many others.  We are so appreciative to you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

You know, over the past 19 years this legislation has evolved from an emergency response into a comprehensive national program for the care and support of Americans living with HIV/AIDS.  It helps communities that are most severely affected by this epidemic and often least served by our health care system, including minority communities, the LGBT community, rural communities, and the homeless.  It’s often the only option for the uninsured and the underinsured.  And it provides life-saving medical services to more than half a million Americans every year, in every corner of the country.

It’s helped us to open a critical front on the ongoing battle against HIV/AIDS.  But let me be clear:  This is a battle that’s far from over, and it’s a battle that all of us need to do our part to join.  AIDS may no longer be the leading killer of Americans ages 25 to 44, as it once was.  But there are still 1.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, and more than 56,000 new infections occur every single year.

Some communities still experience unacceptably high rates of infection.  Gay men make up 2 or 3 percent of the population, but more than half of all new cases.  African Americans make up roughly half of all new cases.  Nearly half of all new cases now occur in the South.  And a staggering 7 percent of Washington, D.C.’s residents between the ages of 40 and 49 live with HIV/AIDS — and the epidemic here isn’t as severe as it is in several other U.S. cities.

So tackling this epidemic will take far more aggressive approaches than we’ve seen in the past — not only from our federal government, but also state and local governments, from local community organizations, and from places of worship.

But it will also take an effort to end the stigma that has stopped people from getting tested; that has stopped people from facing their own illness; and that has sped the spread of this disease for far too long.  A couple of years ago Michelle and I were in Africa and we tried to combat the stigma when we were in Kenya by taking a public HIV/AIDS test.  And I’m proud to announce today we’re about to take another step towards ending that stigma.

Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS.  Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease — yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat.  We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic — yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country.

If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it.  And that’s why, on Monday my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the New Year.  Congress and President Bush began this process last year, and they ought to be commended for it.  We are finishing the job.  It’s a step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment, it’s a step that will keep families together, and it’s a step that will save lives.  (Applause.)

We are continuing the work of crafting a coordinated, measurable national HIV/AIDS strategy to stem and suppress this epidemic.  I’m pleased to report that the Office of National AIDS Policy, led by Jeffrey Crowley, has already held eight in a series of 14 community discussions in cities across the country.  They’ve brought together faith-based organizations and businesses, schools and research institutions, people living with HIV and concerned citizens, gathering ideas on how to target a national response that effectively reduces HIV infections, improves access to treatment, and eliminates health disparities.  And we are encouraged by the energy, the enthusiasm, and great ideas that we’ve collected so far.

We can’t give Ryan White back to Jeanne, back to his mom.  But what we can do — what the legislation that I’m about to sign has done for nearly 20 years — is honor the courage that he and his family showed.  What we can do is to take more action and educate more people.  What we can do is keep fighting each and every day until we eliminate this disease from the face of the Earth.

So with that, let me sign this bill.  (Applause.)

The legislation provides care, treatment and support services to nearly half a million people, most of whom are low-income.

Obama also announced that the Department of Health and Human services has finally crafted a new regulation spelling the  end to the HIV Travel and Immigration Ban. The regulation goes into effect in January.

“We often speak as if AIDS is going on somewhere else. Often overlooked is that we face a serious HIV/AIDS epidemic of our own,” Obama said prior to the signing. He noted that early on, AIDS was considered a “gay disease, and those who had it were viewed with suspicion.”

This is the fourth re-authorization of the Ryan White bill, and Obama said it was the first time that the bill was not controversial or divisive, and passed with bi-partisian support.

There are 1.1 million living with HIV/AIDs in the United States; more than 56,000 cases are added each year. Obama noted that gay men, though they comprise 2 to 3 percent of the population, make up about half of all new cases, and that African-Americans make up almost half.

Obama said he hoped the lifting of the travel ban would help end the stigma attached to HIV/AIDS. He also said that he and his wife Michelle would be getting a second AIDS test soon.

For 22 years, United States had one of the most restrictive policies on the immigration and travel of HIV-positive people in the world. According to a historian writing for SHAFR.org:

“It compelled all non-citizens to attest that they were HIV-negative before being admitted to the United States for any reason – despite the obvious impossibility of enforcing this provision. At the same time, non-citizens living long-term in the United States were denied permanent resident categorization solely on basis of their HIV-positive status. While invoking its sovereign rights to control immigration and tourism, the U.S. government clung to policies suffused with the ignorance and bias toward HIV-positive people illustrated at the earliest stages of the AIDS pandemic.

“It disregarded the fact that for almost 25 years, it has been common medical knowledge that one cannot contract or transmit HIV casually. AIDS activists asserted that the HIV bar dissuaded immigrants unsure of their HIV status from getting tested; prompted HIV-positive immigrants not to seek to medical treatment until they had full-blown AIDS; and caused HIV-positive people seeking visas to lie on their applications and then enter the U.S. without their medications – situations posing exactly the threats to public health the 1987 ban aimed to prevent.”

In July 2008 as part of an AIDS bill,  Congress voted to restore the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to remove HIV from the immigration and visitor ban list. George W. Bush signed it into law – but HHS had not yet issued a revised rule until today, which meant that those with HIV and AIDS were still banned from the country.

AT RECEPTION COMMEMORATING THE ENACTMENT OF THE MATTHEW SHEPARD AND JAMES BYRD, JR. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT

East Room

5:45 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, everybody.  Thank you so much, and welcome to the White House.

There are several people here that I want to just make mention of because they helped to make today possible.  We’ve got Attorney General Eric Holder.  (Applause.)  A champion of this legislation, and a great Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.  (Applause.)  My dear friend, senior Senator from the great state of Illinois, Dick Durbin.  (Applause.)  The outstanding Chairman of Armed Services, Carl Levin.  (Applause.)  Senator Arlen Specter.  (Applause.)  Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House, Representative John Conyers.  (Applause.)  Representative Barney Frank.  (Applause.)  Representative Tammy Baldwin.  (Applause.)  Representative Jerry Nadler.  (Applause.)  Representative Jared Polis.  (Applause.)  All the members of Congress who are here today, we thank you.

Mr. David Bohnett and Mr. Tom Gregory and the David Bohnett Foundation — they are partners for this reception.  Thank you so much, guys, for helping to host this.  (Applause.)

And finally, and most importantly, because these were really the spearheads of this effort  – Denis, Judy, and Logan Shepard. (Applause.)  As well as Betty Byrd Boatner and Louvon Harris  – sisters of James Byrd, Jr.  (Applause.)

To all the activists, all the organizers, all the people who helped make this day happen, thank you for your years of advocacy and activism, pushing and protesting that made this victory possible.

You know, as a nation we’ve come far on the journey towards a more perfect union.  And today, we’ve taken another step forward.  This afternoon, I signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  (Applause.)

This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade.  Time and again, we faced opposition.  Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed.  Time and again we’ve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit.  But the cause endured and the struggle continued, waged by the family of Matthew Shepard, by the family of James Byrd, by folks who held vigils and led marches, by those who rallied and organized and refused to give up, by the late Senator Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation — (applause) — and all who toiled for years to reach this day.

You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear.  You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights — both from unjust laws and violent acts.  And you understand how necessary this law continues to be.

In the most recent year for which we have data, the FBI reported roughly 7,600 hate crimes in this country.  Over the past 10 years, there were more than 12,000 reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation alone.  And we will never know how many incidents were never reported at all.

And that’s why, through this law, we will strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth.  We will finally add federal protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.  (Applause.) And prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes.  Because no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love.  No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability.

At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people.  This is about whether we value one another — whether we embrace our differences, rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.  It’s hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead.  It’s hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who’d offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.

But we sense where such cruelty begins:  the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity — the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same fears and hopes, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.

We have for centuries strived to live up to our founding ideal, of a nation where all are free and equal and able to pursue their own version of happiness.  Through conflict and tumult, through the morass of hatred and prejudice, through periods of division and discord we have endured and grown stronger and fairer and freer.  And at every turn, we’ve made progress not only by changing laws but by changing hearts, by our willingness to walk in another’s shoes, by our capacity to love and accept even in the face of rage and bigotry.

In April of 1968, just one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King, as our nation mourned in grief and shuddered in anger, President Lyndon Johnson signed landmark civil rights legislation.  This was the first time we enshrined into law federal protections against crimes motivated by religious or racial hatred — the law on which we build today.

As he signed his name, at a difficult moment for our country, President Johnson said that through this law “the bells of freedom ring out a little louder.”  That is the promise of America.  Over the sounds of hatred and chaos, over the din of grief and anger, we can still hear those ideals — even when they are faint, even when some would try to drown them out.  At our best we seek to make sure those ideals can be heard and felt by Americans everywhere.  And that work did not end in 1968.  It certainly does not end today.  But because of the efforts of the folks in this room — particularly those family members who are standing behind me — we can be proud that that bell rings even louder now and each day grows louder still.

So thank you very much.  God bless you and God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

They were not sisters, as in siblings or nuns. They were partners of more than 15 years and they were making a difference in a their neighborhood in the Quad-Cities, Ill., where I worked as a reporter for a daily newspaper in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Their neighborhood, their community, was managed by a local housing authority under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Tricia and Keya’s goal was to make their public housing complex feel like home, to inspire others to care about home sweet home and to lobby HUD for the right to manage their residences, their community, their lives.

Sister Tricia and Sister Keya were vital to the neighborhood and to the movement, but one day I knocked on their door to interview them about a tenant-management issue and new occupants answered.

Sister Tricia and Sister Keya and their two children had been evicted for violating their tenant agreement, which allowed for family occupancy, but only certain kinds of family occupancy — a single parent with children, an extended family of blood relatives and a legally married couple with children.

Sister Tricia and Sister Keya were not sisters, and they were not married. They had no marriage license and, with no hope of securing one at that time, they lost their home, however transitional it might have been.

I’ve thought of Sister Tricia and Sister Keya many times over the years, wondering if they eventually settled in one of states where they now can marry, wondering whether they continue to organize and agitate, wondering how their children grew.

I thought of them last week when HUD announced a series of proposed initiatives that could dramatically impact same-sex couples and their families, whether they are seeking affordable housing assistance, buying a first home or needing help in their retirement years.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan announced that the department is submitting a proposed rule to make three changes to federal regulations.

The first involves including language that guarantees same-sex couples and their children are recognized as families covered by HUD programs, including housing assistance.

That hopefully would mean no more evictions of a same-sex couple from their home because they are not bound by blood or a marriage license.

The second change would require organizations that administer HUD grants to abide by state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The third change would emphasize that creditworthiness — not sexual orientation and not gender identity — is to be considered in the awarding of mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

A fourth proposal, though not a change in the federal regulations, would result in HUD conducting a nationwide survey of housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Donovan said the process to change the federal regulations would begin immediately and the survey is on the fast track.

The national survey would be the first of its kind, but prior studies at state and local levels show a pattern of housing discrimination against same-sex couples.

Two years ago, Michigan’s Fair Housing Centers examined bias based on sexual orientation using testers — some of them posing as same-sex couples and some as opposite-sex couples. The couples were paired, with the same-sex couples having better credentials — higher income, larger down payment, better credit — than the opposite-sex couples.

The testers inquired about rental housing, homes for sale and financing options. They tested housing opportunities in rural areas and metropolitan centers, small towns and cities, college communities and suburbs.

“Testing by the Michigan Fair Housing Centers uncovered widespread discrimination against same-sex couples,” the study states.

In one out of four tests, there were disparities in how the couples were treated. The study found same-sex couples were given higher rental rates and that opposite-sex couples received more encouragement to apply for housing.

The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status in the rental, sale, and financing of housing. Congress is not on the fast track to amending that law, leaving a patchwork of protections in states and localities, leaving LGBTs sometimes literally out in the cold.

HUD’s work to roll out the welcome mat provides some comfort.

This past Sunday when Lt. Daniel Choi introduced Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, he made it clear what he thought about the senator and the President of the United States. Gillibrand was the  real “fierce advocate” who fought for the rights of gay and lesbians, while President Obama gave just pretty words.

Here and at other gay political sites that has been the assessment of Obama when it comes to gay rights thus far. He talks a good game about gay and lesbian equality but that’s it. If I had a dime for every comment when someone whined, after just nine months, she was going to stay home in 2012 due to Obama’s inaction I would be sipping morning coffee on beach front property.

What will those  people say today when Obama signs the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act? Probably the same thing because a portion of the gay disgust for Obama is backwash from the Democratic primary. For some who wanted another Clinton White House, if Hillary had won marriage rights would be the law of the land (even in South Carolina!), lube free, and Jake Gyllenhaal  gay. Nothing Obama does will quell this crowd.

Now before you flip, please read this line: it is necessary and good to prod the Obama White House when it is slow on our issues. One more time: it is necessary and good to prod the Obama White House when it is slow on our issues. Read that sentence again. Yet, it is only fair to give that same White House credit when it makes a forward step. This does not apply if you have a principled stance against hate crime laws.

Facile historical comparisons never do any good (hey there Mr. Glenn Beck!), but as Obama reaches his first year it might be instructive to reexamine the relationship between President Abraham Lincoln and abolitionist Frederick Douglass. The abolitionist was a fierce critic of the president, but when Lincoln did the right thing Douglass acknowledged it.  Loudly and with no shame. Not a bad role to follow.

President Obama to Sign FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act into Law; Will Host Reception to Commemorate the Enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Washington, D.C. – On Wednesday, October 28th at 2:30 PM President Obama will sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. He will deliver brief remarks and will be joined by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Members of Congress, and others.

Later that day, the President will host a reception to commemorate the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He will deliver brief remarks at 6:05 PM, and will be joined by Attorney General Eric Holder, civil rights community leaders and others.

The new law will protect victims of crimes who are targeted because of sexual orientation or gender identity, which is an expansion of the federal hate crime law.

Obama will sign the legislation – and make remarks – at 4:45 pm EST on Wednesday.

That probably doesn’t mean much to you, but it should. That particular Under Secretary presides over the implementation – or repeal – of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, according to Politico’s Ben Smith.

Said SLDN in an email to Smith:

“There were indications of seriousness of purpose on DADT repeal today by this White House with its intent to nominate an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Dr. Stanley is likely to be the President’s key Pentagon player in the DADT debate and will be critical for the President in getting military uniform buy-in. Historically, the position of Under Secretary of Defense provides oversight of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

There is speculation that Stanley, whose wife was shot by a sniper because of the couple’s race and who has expressed satisfaction that the military changes over time, may opposes the military ban on the open serving of gays and lesbians. Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand (D-NY) told the Advocate:

“”I expect that the hearing on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will take place next month after the confirmation hearing for marine general Clifford Stanley. There is a lot more support in Congress for full repeal of DADT than people realize.”

 

This sign from the White House, along with the recent anti-discrimination policies coming from HHS and HUD, seem to indicate that the White House is taking real steps on our issues.

“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes ‘strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.’ Also at the dinner, he said he supports, ‘ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.’”

So it seems – though he doesn’t quite say it – that the President supports retaining marriage in Maine and domestic partnership rights in Washington.

But if he really believes this, than the statement should have tried to persuade voters that they should vote “No on 1″ in Maine, or for Referendum 71 in Washington, or even for the Kalamazoo, Mich. gay rights ordinance.

We all know the president can be clear and forceful and eloquent when he wants to. We also know that his great gift is the power to persuade. He had a chance here to actually do something on our behalf, but didn’t take it.

365ers, what do you think: Is his statement enough? Will it help in Maine and Washington?