In response to the controversial brief defending DOMA last week, HRC’s Joe Solmonese has issued the following statement which finally addresses the case of incest cited in the brief. Snippets of the statement below, full PDF available here.

Dear Mr. President:

I have had the privilege of meeting you on several occasions, when visiting the White House in my capacity as president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization representing millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across this country.  You have welcomed me to the White House to express my community’s views on health care, employment discrimination, hate violence, the need for diversity on the bench, and other pressing issues.  Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours.  I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

…

Next, the brief indicates that denying gay people our equal rights saves money:

It is therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges [the government] has afforded to [different-sex marriages] without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize.

The government goes on to say that DOMA reasonably protects other taxpayers from having to subsidize families like ours.  The following excerpt explains:

DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.

These arguments completely disregard the fact that LGBT citizens pay taxes ourselves.  We contribute into Social Security equally and receive the same statement in the mail every year.  But for us, several of the benefits listed in the statement are irrelevant—our spouses and children will never benefit from them.  The parent who asserts that her payments into Social Security should ensure her child’s financial future should she die is not seeking a subsidy.  The gay White House employee who works as hard as the person in the next office is not seeking a “subsidy” for his partner’s federal health benefits.  He is earning the same compensation without receiving it.  And the person who cannot even afford to insure her family because the federal government would treat her partner’s benefits as taxable income—she is not seeking a subsidy.

…

I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones:

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages, performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.  See e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened public policy of th[at] state.” [3]

As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief.  In the course of your campaign, I became convinced—and I still want to believe—that you do, too.  I have seen your administration aspire and achieve.  Protecting women from employment discrimination.  Insuring millions of children.  Enabling stem cell research to go forward.  These are powerful achievements.  And they serve as evidence to me that this brief should not be good enough for you.  The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it’s good enough forus?

This is so far the strongest statement issued by an LGBT group in response to the DOMA defense. Hopefully it will garner a more detailed response from the administration.

At the 77th annual U.S. Conference of Mayors, mayors have passed a resolution titled “Equality and Civil Rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans,” defining support for gay marriage, ENDA and hate crimes legislation and opposing DADT. From the press release issued by Freedom to Marry:

“By passing this resolution, America’s mayors spoke for the families they know and serve in communities across the country, and said that excluding those families from the freedom to marry must stop,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People’s Right to Marry. “The mayors have their fingers on the pulse of the country, and their voices today said loud and clear that ending discrimination in marriage is the way to go.”

In reference to the freedom to marry, the resolution stated, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors supports marriage equality for same-sex couples, and the recognition and extension of full equal rights to such unions, including family and medical leave, tax equity, and insurance and retirement benefits, and opposes the enshrinement of discrimination in the federal or state constitutions.”

“The nation’s mayors are proud to take the lead in recognizing the importance of protecting all our citizens equally. It is now time for state legislatures and our federal government to enact the same protections for all our nation’s citizens,” said U.S. Conference of Mayors President Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle.

The resolution which was submitted by Mayor Christopher Cabaldon of West Sacramento, CA, Mayor David N. Cicilline of Providence, RI, and Mayor Sam Adams of Portland, OR, reads as follows:

EQUALITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS FOR GAY AND LESBIAN AMERICANS

1. WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution in 1984 calling for the legal protection of gay and lesbian rights at all levels of government, and within two years dozens of cities had adopted anti-discrimination policies or executive orders; and

2. WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors has long supported granting the protection of federal hate crimes laws to all citizens, including lesbian and gay communities, and adopted its first resolution calling for increased vigilance in preventing hate crimes in 1991, citing statistics compiled by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; and

3. WHEREAS, subsequent hates crimes resolutions were adopted by the Conference in 1992 and 1994, designed to strengthen protections for all communities; and

4. WHEREAS, the Conference of Mayors, in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has awarded nearly $12.6 million in HIV/AIDS prevention grants, and the Conference took the lead in issues affecting gay/bisexual men of color, conducting a national HIV prevention needs assessment as well as 48 local HIV prevention project; and

5. WHEREAS, hundreds of mayors have been at the forefront of the battle for marriage equality, from the historic leadership of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco in early 2004 granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, to a paradigm-shifting news conference by Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego in 2008, to Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington DC in 2009 signing legislation to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and

6. WHEREAS, then-Conference President Wellington Webb of Denver spoke on behalf of the nation’s mayors at the Millennium March for Gay and Lesbian Rights in 2000 calling for federal action on hate crimes, employment discrimination protection, repeal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell, and marriage equality; and

7. WHEREAS, current Conference President Manuel A. Diaz of Miami co-chaired the statewide campaign against marriage discrimination in 2008, and incoming President Greg Nickels of Seattle issued an executive order recognizing same-sex marriages; and

8. WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors has a long record of leadership in advancing civil rights and equality for all, answering President Kennedy’s call for national mayoral action in support of the civil rights movement at the Honolulu annual meeting in 1963,

9. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act; and

10. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors supports marriage equality for same-sex couples, and the recognition and extension of full equal rights to such unions, including family and medical leave, tax equity, and insurance and retirement benefits, and opposes the enshrinement of discrimination in the federal or state constitutions.

Outstanding. Our nation’s leaders could definitely learn a thing or two from the folks at the local level.

A source for the Washington Blade has said that hate crimes legislation will likely be attached to a tourism bill which will be voted on by the Senate later this week.

Lawmakers are expected to pass the measure by amending S. 1023, or the Travel Promotion Act, said the source. The bill is geared toward establishing a national travel promotion program to communicate U.S. travel policies and to promote travel to the United States.

“The idea is that that will be an amendment to the tourism bill that’s going to be on the floor this week in the Senate, and we’re thinking that the vote will happen probably [Tuesday] or Wednesday,” said the source.

A press conference is expected later today.

Speaking on authority from the White House, John Berry, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, spoke with the Advocate about the recent outrage over the Obama administration’s defense of DOMA, as well as other LGBT legislative priorities…

On recent controversy over the administration’s defense of DOMA:

This president took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and he does not get to decide and choose which laws he enforces. He has to enforce the laws that have been enacted appropriately and that he has inherited. It would be wrong for me or any of our community to advise him to lie or to shirk his responsibility. He’s doing his job. He has made clear that he stands for the repeal of DOMA. It will be part of this administration’s agenda to accomplish that act. We ought not waste energy and angst attacking him when we should be focusing the energy and effort on getting 218 votes in the house and 60 votes in the Senate, and that’s where we ought to target the energy and the strength of this community and this president is with us, this is our agenda and it’s his agenda.

Again no mention of the incest and underage marriage cases cited in the DOMA defense. Our anger is not out of angst, nor is it a waste of energy. Until the administration takes action on these issues, we should not be silent.

On hate crimes, ENDA, DADT and DOMA:

We have four broad legislative goals that we want to accomplish and legislation is one of these things where you’ve got to move when the opportunity strikes, so I’m going to list them in an order but it’s not necessarily going to go one, two, three, four. Obviously, I think the first opportunity is hate crimes and we’re hopeful that we can get that passed this week. We’re going to try, but if not, we’re going to keep at it until we get it passed. The second one ENDA, we want to secure that passage of ENDA, and third is we want to repeal legislatively “don’t ask don’t tell,” and fourth, we want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

When asked about DADT later in the interview, Berry walks back his opinion on the passage of hate crimes legislation…

We don’t have the votes to do Hate Crimes right now, we don’t have the votes to do ENDA, how are we going [to get “don’t ask, don’t tell]?

And all of this before the “sun sets on this administration.”

Well, there you have it. That’s likely the most official response we are going to get. And dammit, it’s not good enough, not good enough at all. But it’s what we’ve all come to expect now from the Obama administraiton. I’ve skipped the parts of the interview focusing on granting more rights to gay Federal employees. But I’m not a federal employee. Nor is the vast majority of LGBT Americans. Any legislation should target EVERYONE in the LGBT community, not just at the federal level.