The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out the legislation, known as Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, on a party-line vote of 10-8. The bill aims to strengthen and improve programs authorized under the existing law — first enacted in 1994 — to assist victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

Sen. Patrick Leahy

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) spoke highly of VAWA in his opening statement and said no other statute “has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities.”

“As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence,” Leahy said. “Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims. We have come a long way since then, but there is much more we must do.”

According to a statement from the committee, among the ways the bill builds on existing law is setting aside grant money for programs addressing sexual assault crime and enhancing training for officials to identify high risk offenders who could commit domestic violence homicide.

But the legislation also has enumerated protections for victims of domestic violence in the LGBT community. The bill would make grants available for programs providing services to LGBT victims of domestic violence. Additionally, the bill has non-discrimination language prohibiting VAWA grantees from discriminating on the basis sexual orientation or gender identity.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, thanked the committee in a statement for passing legislation that has specific language related to the LGBT community.

“Victims of domestic violence need assistance, not irrational barriers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Solmonese said. “We thank the members of the Judiciary Committee that have recognized the discrimination LGBT domestic violence victims face when seeking assistance. Specifically, Chairman Leahy has shown great leadership in reauthorizing VAWA and ensuring that the bill would explicitly make grants available for service providers doing innovative work with LGBT victims.”

But Leahy also chided Republican members of the committee for voting against the legislation for reasons that possibly alluded to the LGBT protections in the legislation.

1. The next decisions on Proposition 8

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals could release its opinions any day now. That’s “opinions,” plural.

Before the panel can rule on the constitutionality of California’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples, it must decide whether the Yes on 8 coalition has legal standing to appeal the federal court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and it must decide whether there is any justification for Yes on 8’s request that the lower court decision be vacated.

The list of possible outcomes in Perry v. Brown -- the case brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights with famed attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies leading the charge -- is mind-boggling. Whatever the results, any or all aspects could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately or they could be appealed to a full 9th Circuit bench and then to the Supreme Court.

But the panel’s decision will almost certainly have political impact, too. Not only will it affect the momentum of the marriage equality movement, it will almost certainly become fodder in the presidential campaigns.

2. The decision, on appeal, in DOMA

A three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments, perhaps as soon as early February, in a powerful challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denial of federal benefits to same-sex married couples.

The challenge, referred to most often as Gill v. OPM, is actually three consolidated cases, two brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and one by the state of Massachusetts. While there are other challenges underway to DOMA, this is the “big guns” challenge and the one most likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court first.

And while there is no deadline by which the panel must render its decision, it is likely to turn out one by year’s end.

Then, as with Proposition 8, the case could go to the full circuit court for appeal or straight to the Supreme Court. And, if the appeals court decision is rendered before the November elections, it will almost certainly provoke debate on the presidential campaign trail.

3. Tammy Baldwin’s historic bid

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) is not the first openly gay person to run for U.S. Senate, but she’s the first who has a real chance of winning.

The daily Capital Times is already referring to her as the “likely” Democratic nominee to fill the seat being vacated by Democrat Herb Kohl. She doesn’t have a challenger for the nomination. But she will have a very tough battle against whomever the Republicans put on the ballot. That’s because the battle will be for more than just one seat in the powerful U.S. Senate, which currently has a breakdown of 53 in the Democratic Caucus and 47 in the Republican.

It will be part of a multi-state slugfest between the parties over control of the chamber, the Congress, and the nation’s laws.

4. The fight for the Senate

Polls at the moment indicate voters are inclined to vote for Democrats over Republicans next November. But that sentiment is not providing a large margin (one or two points), and it’s too soon to guess who the voters will blame for what 11 months from now.

But some Senate races -- in addition to Baldwin’s -- could have big consequences for LGBT voters.

In Virginia, a pro-gay former governor, Tim Kaine, will likely be pitted against an anti-gay former senator, George Allen. In Massachusetts, a pro-gay challenger, Elizabeth Warren, will almost certainly be the Democrat facing incumbent Scott Brown, whose attitude toward the community has been much less friendly. And at least seven other states are expected to have competitive races for the Senate.

5. Counting the “Gay Caucus”

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) will be starting his 40th year in Congress when the House reconvenes January 17. And it will be his last. He announced last year that he would retire. When he does, the clique of four openly gay members of Congress -- Frank, Baldwin, and Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) -- will shrink by one. If Baldwin fails to win a Senate seat, it could shrink by half.

But there are prospects for adding members. Openly gay Wisconsin Democratic Assemblymember Mark Pacon is running for Baldwin’s U.S. House seat. And there are two other openly gay candidates for the U.S. House this November: Marko Liias from Seattle and Mark Takano from Riverside, Calif.

So, the number of openly gay members of Congress could go from four to as low as two (though zero is, technically, possible) to as high as six. But no one will have the seniority and clout that Frank has had and used to advance pro-gay measures.

6. On hold, and on defense, in Congress

Pro-LGBT bills -- such as efforts to repeal DOMA and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- are not likely to see much action in 2012. Anti-gay measures might. Why? Because it’s an election year and Republicans still control the House.

Supportive Democrats will not be inclined to push controversial legislation during an election year, because it can detract from the focus on jobs and the economy, where most voters want focus right now. Republicans, on the other hand, have often used hostile measures aimed at gays during election year as a way of putting Democrats on the spot with voters generally and gays specifically.

7. Ballot battles abound

There will be important LGBT-related ballot measures before voters in several states this year: North Carolina and Minnesota will vote on whether to ban same-sex marriage through an amendment to their state constitutions. Voters in Maine will decide whether to strike down their existing ban on same-sex marriage.

LGBT activists in Washington State are gathering signatures to put a measure on that state’s ballot to gain marriage equality. A small group in California has until May 15 to gather more than 800,000 signatures to put a measure on the ballot there to repeal Proposition 8. And the California Attorney General is expected to announce by January 9 whether opponents of a new bill to include information about LGBT figures in history as part of the public school curriculum can begin circulating petitions to get a repeal measure on the ballot there.

All of these have the potential to be big, expensive, and consequential battles.

8. Fight for freedom of religion

The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund and others have a concerted effort underway in the courts to undermine laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Their strategy is to argue that people who discriminate against LGBT people do so because their religious beliefs require them to do so. Their question to the court is, “What rules? The First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion or the equal protection clause that says all citizens should be treated equally under the law?”

One case has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court and failed, but other cases -- many other cases -- are winding their ways through nearly every circuit in the country. And their outcomes have the potential to chip away at the strength of the nation’s legal mandate that all people be treated equally.

9. A fight for the White House

The difference for LGBT people between having President Obama in the White House and President George W. Bush has been stark. So the consequences of November’s presidential election will also be profound.

Either Obama stays, and things continue to improve -- in law and in society’s attitudes -- or a new president is elected from a field of Republicans who seem, at times, to be vying for the mantle of most gay hostile candidate. In the latter case, LGBT people can expect progress to halt or backslide.

10. Ah, the unpredictable

One of the bigger LGBT stories of 2011 happened in February, and it was one nobody expected: The Obama administration announced it considered DOMA unconstitutional and would not argue for its defense in most cases. Another big story that no one expected: The Obama announced a major new diplomatic mission to push for protection of human rights for LGBT people around the world.

And given that Rep. Frank said in January 2011 he’d run for re-election in 2012, it was a surprise, in November, when he announced that he would not. As Frank pointed out, circumstances change.

Circumstances change, things change, people change. And often, they change each other.

But history marches on through time, and only in retrospect can any trajectory be certain as to where it’s going.

This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

I'm Matt Baume at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and welcome to Marriage News Watch for December 26, 2011.

Here's a holiday present for you: yet another Senator has signed on for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. The repeal now boasts 32 sponsors with New Jersey Democrat Bob Mendez, who voted for the anti-gay ban back in the 1990s.

This means that fully one-third of the Senate is now sponsoring the repeal bill. That's a record level of support -- but let's be realistic: we still have a long way to go -- possibly years -- before it has a chance of passing. And even when DOMA does go away, that won't automatically legalize marriage. All DOMA does is prevent the federal government and individual states from recognizing the marriages of LGBTs who live in states that do recognize their marriages.

Or in other words, if you get married in Massachusetts, DOMA prevents states like Utah and agencies like the IRS from acknowledging your marriage. But if you live in Utah and want to get married, DOMA's won't stop you -- it's the local laws of Utah that do that. It's a complicated patchwork of laws that, once again, highlights the need for national uniformity when it comes to full federal marriage equality.

There's lots of reasons LGBTs want to get married -- starting with wanting to spend the rest of our lives with the people we love -- but this issue that keeps coming up is hospital visitation. This week Rolling Hills Hospital in Tennessee denied visitation to the partner of a woman in their care. They're not actually allowed to do that: guidelines issued under President Obama stipulate that hospitals like this one allow patients to designate same-sex partners for visitation. The hospital has since apologized, but it's still pretty incredible that without marriage, we still have to worry about this kind of thing anytime we go to the hospital for care.

The good news is that public opinion keeps turning in our favor. This week a survey in Utah showed that 64% of residents support legal recognition for LGBT couples. And across the country, a council member in Washington DC has introduced a bill that would reform the district's divorce laws in 2012 to provide greater parity to LGBT couples. The move is necessary because, once again, differing laws in other states have complicated the process of recognizing DC marriages and divorces.

Advocates in New Hampshire have begun airing a new marriage equality television ad. It's designed to pressure lawmakers into resisting an attempt by a small group of Republicans who want to eliminate both marriage and domestic partnerships. It's about as no-frills as an ad can get, so we'll see if this stoic approach resonates with natives.

In international news, Ireland will begin recognizing marriages performed in New York. That means that married New Yorkers will have more rights when they travel abroad than they do in their own country. And Scotland is considering a compromise on marriage. The country may recognize civil marriage recognition while prohibiting marriage ceremonies in churches. That proposal has drawn strong criticism from Quakers, Unitarians, and numerous other faith groups that support the freedom to marry.

And in Australia, a Queensland MP is attempting to undo that state's new civil unions law. That's drawn strong opposition from psychologists, who explain that it would "re-traumatize" an oppressed minority group. Meanwhile the Australian Psychological Society issued a strong statement in favor of marriage equality on the grounds that social exclusion is harmful to mental health.

Those are the headlines, visit us at MarriageNewsWatch.com for more on all these stories and more. And visit AFER.org for more on the federal fight to overturn Prop 8 and win full federal marriage equality in every state. I'm Matt Baume at the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Have a great holiday time and we'll see you next week.

Aponte has served as temporary ambassador to the Central American nation since September 2010 after the President, facing GOP opposition to her nomination, made her a recess appointee. Her temporary tenure is slated to expire at the end of this year.

Mari Carmen Aponte

Her confirmation in the Senate was blocked by a 49-37 vote. Reaction from the White House was swift -- Press Secretary Jay Carney called the move "political posturing."

“Today’s filibuster is one more example of the type of political posturing and partisanship the American people are tired of seeing in Washington," Carney said, in a prepared statement.

"Whether it’s allowing up or down votes on our representatives to the Western Hemisphere, allowing consumers to have someone looking out for their interests, or extending and expanding the payroll tax cut for the middle class, Republicans in Congress need to stop thinking about the next election and start putting the best interests of the American people first," Carney said.

According to a source on Capitol Hill, speaking to LGBTQ Nation on the condition of anonymity, the principal reason Senate Republicans -- led by tea-party favorite, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) -- blocked Ambassador Aponte's nomination was due to her pro-LGBTQ advocacy, citing an editorial column she wrote last June in the Salvadoran newspaper, La Prensa Grafica.

Aponte authored the column, “For the Elimination of Prejudices Wherever They Exist,” in response to a memorandum distributed in May at the direction of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that urged ambassadors and U.S. foreign service diplomatic personnel to support LGBT pride month.

In her editorial, Aponte highlighted the fact that both the United States and El Salvador were among more than 80 sovereign states whom had signed a United Nations declaration calling for the elimination of violence against LGBTQ people.

“No one should be subjected to aggression because of who he is or who he loves. Homophobia and brutal hostility are often based on lack of understanding about what it truly means to be gay or transgender. To avoid negative perceptions, we must work together with education and support for those facing those who promote hatred," Aponte wrote.

Aponte also pointed out that El Salvador President Mauricio Funes had signed a decree the previous year in May 2010 prohibiting discrimination by the Salvadoran government based on sexual orientation.

Approximately 57 percent of El Salvador’s population is Roman Catholic, and after the Aponte's column was published, a few prominent Salvadoran family and Catholic organizations wrote to American lawmakers criticizing her for “abusing her diplomatic status," arguing that Aponte displayed a clear disdain for their "cultural values and identity.”

Said one source to LGBTQ Nation, American "family values" organizations, in particular the Washington-based Family Research Council, also played a significant role in lobbying against Aponte, urging lawmakers to oppose her confirmation, and suggested she be removed as a U.S. Ambassador.

In a piece he penned last month in the publication Human Events, DeMint openly criticized Aponte's pro-LGBT stance, and called it a "blatant disregard" for the El Salvadoran culture. "It’s time to bring Ms. Aponte home," he wrote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) issued the following statement last night, leaving open the possibility of revisiting the ambassador's confirmation proceedings:

“Senate Republicans once again put politics above policy by blocking the confirmation of a dedicated public servant. In the fifteen months Mari Carmen Aponte has served as our ambassador to El Salvador, she finalized an important international, anti-crime agreement and forged a strong partnership between our nations.

"The Puerto Rican community and all Americans are right to be proud of Ms. Aponte’s accomplishments as a diplomat representing our nation, as I am.

"I am disappointed Republicans continued a long-running trend of obstructing qualified nominees just to score political points. Unfortunately, defeating President Obama is more important to Senate Republicans than confirming qualified nominees to represent our country in Latin America.”

Conservative anger towards her is also based on unfounded rumours that an ex-boyfriend was a Cuban spy, allegations that were cleared by the FBI as untrue, reported the Associated Press.

Thirteen years ago, when [President] Clinton nominated Aponte, reports surfaced that a former live-in boyfriend, Roberto Tamayo, had ties to Cuban intelligence in Fidel Castro’s regime and that Cuban intelligence agents had tried to recruit her.

In the end, the FBI cleared Aponte, and on two occasions, she has received top-secret security clearances.

The conference report on the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill hammers out the differences in the House and Senate versions of the legislation while allocating $662 billion in funds for military programs and troop compensation.

Absent from the final bill is language found in the House version that prohibits both military chaplains and bases from being involved in same-sex wedding ceremonies. Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) inserted the language during the markup of the bill.

Additionally, conferees dropped language in the House bill that was added by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) reiterating the Defense Department must comply with the Defense of Marriage Act.

LGBT advocates had railed against the Akin amendment as an extension of DOMA beyond the restrictions that are already imposed by the anti-gay law. Its adoption would have rolled back Pentagon guidance issued on Sept. 30 saying military chaplains could officiate at same-sex weddings if they so chose and military facilities could be involved in such events. The Hartzler amendment was seen as simply redundant to existing restrictions under DOMA.

Instead of these provisions, conferees settled on a provision found in the Senate version of the bill that Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) added by amendment on the floor. The language allows chaplains who don’t wish to perform same-sex weddings to opt out of doing so.

“A military chaplain, who, as a matter of conscience or moral principle, does not wish to perform a marriage may not be required to do so,” the language reads.

The Senate language was seen as simply reiterating the principles of the Pentagon guidance — but with different wording — because its passage would impose no restrictions on a military chaplain’s ability to marry a same-sex couple.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, commended conferees for omitting the anti-gay language in the House bill in favor of the Senate provision.

“We congratulate the House and Senate conference committee for having struck the correct balance on the chaplains provisions,” Sarvis said. “Clearly, there was no place for the restrictive Akin language as the Defense Department continues to move forward on effective implementation of open service in our military.”

However, the conference report also leaves out language from the Senate bill that would have repealed Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the long-standing military law classifying consensual sodomy for both gay and straight service members as a crime.

The Pentagon had asked for repeal of the sodomy ban as part of the Comprehensive Review Working Group report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that was issued late last year. The Commission on the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, informally known as the Cox Commission, had also called for an end to the sodomy ban.

LGBT advocates had also been calling for a repeal of the provision. Sarvis expressed disappointment that conferees didn’t include the Senate language in the conference bill.

Late Thursday, the Senate approved by a 93-7 vote its version of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill, which authorizes $662 billion in spending for military programs and troop compensation. The House passed its version of the bill in May, which authorizes $690 billion in defense funds.

The bills diverge in numerous ways and the conference committee will have to resolve the differences. But one issue in particular that is stirring up social conservatives and LGBT advocates is the involvement of military chaplains and facilities in same-sex weddings.

On Wednesday, the Senate approved by voice vote as part of its version of the bill an amendment by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) allowing military chaplains to opt out of performing same-sex marriage ceremonies.

“A military chaplain, who, as a matter of conscience or moral principle, does not wish to perform a marriage may not be required to do so,” the amendment states.

The amendment is apparently in response to guidance the Pentagon issued on Sept. 30 permitting chaplains to officiate over same-sex weddings if they so choose. On the same day, the Defense Department issued guidance saying military bases could be used for same-sex weddings, although the Wicker amendment makes no mention of the use of military facilities.

Wicker’s measure is likely an attempt to appease social conservatives, who have been riled up over the guidance since it was made public. Just Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee held a closed briefing with Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson and Navy counsel Paul Oostburg Sanz on the legal rationale that led to the Pentagon guidance.

But the Wicker amendment won’t produce any change because it reiterates the administration’s policy of giving chaplains the option of whether or not to take part in same-sex weddings.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the passage of the amendment into law wouldn’t change anything.

“This amendment does nothing new as it relates to the rights of chaplains,” Sarvis said. “Indeed, the new Senate language is a restatement of the protections and guarantees that have always been there.”

In a statement, Wicker said the amendment would be a way to “protect” chaplains from being involved in same-sex weddings.

“This amendment will allow the chaplains of our armed forces to maintain the freedom of conscience necessary to serve both their nation and their religion without conflict,” Wicker said. “Protections for military chaplains should be guaranteed in any policy changes being implemented.”

But the amendment stands in contrast to a measure in the bill passed by the House, which would have an impact on a chaplain’s ability to conduct weddings.

Language that was inserted by House Armed Services Committee Chair W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) during committee markup outright prohibits military chaplains or civilian Pentagon employees from assisting with or officiating at a marriage ceremony. The same provision also prohibits the use of military bases for these purposes.

Conferees will have to decide whether to address the issue by agreeing on either the House or Senate language, or by including no language at all related to military chaplains and facilities in the final bill.

The companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives was introduced by Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).

Under the bill, a federal employee and same-sex domestic partner, who are not related by blood and are living together in a committed intimate relationship, would be eligible to participate in federal retirement, life insurance, health, workers' compensation, and Family and Medical Leave benefits to the same extent as married employees and their spouses.

“This legislation is the next step to achieving equity for the gay community,” Lieberman said, in a statement.

"We repealed the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy in the military because we want the best men and women America has to offer to defend our country. The same is true for federal employees: we want to attract the best men and women possible to serve in federal government. One way to do that is by offering competitive benefits to the family members of gay federal employees. This legislation makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do.”

Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Collins, the ranking member, previously introduced the legislation in the past two Congresses. The Committee held two hearings on the bill and approved the measure in 2009.

In the U.S. House, Baldwin said "the federal government must set an example as an equal opportunity employer."

"If we are to treat all federal employees fairly and recruit the best and the brightest to serve in government, we need this legislation," she said.

According to a 2009 UCLA Williams Institute report, more that 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners who are not federal employees.

Nearly 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies now offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners, up from just 25 percent in 2000.

Matt Baume at the American Foundation for Equal Rights has a special episode of Marriage News Watch. Watch here:

Following is the text of this report:

On one side: ten Senate co-sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Dianne Feinstein of California, Chuck Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Al Franken of Minnesota, Christopher Coons of Delaware, and Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut.

On the other side: eight opponents of marriage equality. That's Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Michael Lee of Utah, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Right now the case against DOMA is racing through all three branches of government. This latest advance is in the Legislative branch, but the Executive branch also stands against DOMA, and there's a slew of cases working their way through federal courts.

Meanwhile, although AFER's case, Perry v. Brown. concerns Prop 8 instead of DOMA, the arguments are similar: marriage discrimination violates the Constitution of the United States, whether it's DOMA or whether it's Proposition 8.

Orrin Hatch may have had the hearing's strangest argument -- he claimed that DOMA protects states' rights. But no. Look at the law. DOMA has 3 parts. Part 1's just the name. Part 2 prevents LGBT couples from moving their marriage from one state to another -- so if you're married in Iowa and you move to Utah, your marriage evaporates and there's nothing Iowa can do to protect you. And Part 3 is even worse: it changed the federal definition of marriage, forcing federal agencies to ignore marriages. So even if you're married in Iowa and you stay in Iowa, every single federal agency will work to undermine that marriage.

That's why this state-by-state patchwork of marriage laws is so unfair. You're married over here, you're not over there, you've got to fill out four different sets of taxes, the YMCA can tell that you're married but the IRS can't. This is why full federal marriage equality is the only solution.

Senator Whitehouse put it best. He said that his constituents in Rhode Island are "prejudiced needlessly under this law. ... We owe them better. We should treat [their] commitment with respect."

And Senator Franken was even more succinct. "DOMA hurts families."

The 10-to-8 victory for the Respect for Marriage Act means it now moves to the full Senate, where it has the support of 31 Senators. It's pretty unlikely that it'll be brought up for a vote anytime soon, but that's fine -- it gives time for support to grow in Congress.

Meanwhile, our case continues its expedited progress through the federal courts. Ari Ezra Waldman had a great piece on Towleroad this week about why we get more strength from legal arguments than from popular elections. Remember the misleading ads in California? Our opponents spent millions to trick Californians into thinking that Prop 8 had something to do with protecting marriage.

But when they're in court, they're under oath, and "limited by the compulsion to tell the truth." And that's why they're trying to hide. They want to hide their names. They want to hide their arguments. They want to hide the tapes of the trial ... because they know they have no case.

And if the country had voted on interracial marriage, it wouldn't have been legal until the 1990s. It was a visionary Supreme Court that ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," and that marriage bans are "subversive to the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental American freedom. And soon, we're going to make that 15 times. See you in court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 -- along party lines -- in favor of the bill, yet it faces significant hurdles in the 100-seat Senate, where only about 30 Senators have voiced support for the repeal. In the GOP-led U.S. House, opposition is expected to be even greater.

"This morning, the judiciary committee took a historic step towards righting an injustice that goes right to the core of what we stand for this nation: freedom and equality," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the committee's chair.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the bill's sponsor, acknowledged after the hearing that she didn’t have the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster on the Senate floor, but called Thursday’s vote a “big first step.”

In a statement to the Judiciary Committee just before Thursday’s vote, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that DOMA, like other discriminatory barriers before it, would inevitably fall. The question was not whether DOMA would be repealed, but when, he said.

"One day, we will debate full marriage equality and that will pass," Schumer said.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 and signed by then-President Bill Clinton, prevents any of the over 1,100 federal rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage from being afforded to legally married same-sex couples, including Social Security survivors benefits, federal employee health benefits for spouses, the right to sponsor a foreign born spouse for immigration, the guarantee of family and medical leave and the ability to file joint tax returns, among many others.

According to a March 2011 poll by the Human Rights Campaign and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 51 percent of voters oppose DOMAm while only 34 percent favor it.

In February, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in two of the four cases where that section of the law is currently under challenge.

Section 3 — the part of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman — was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in July 2010.

In March, a bipartisan House committee, led by GOP leaders, directed the House general counsel to defend the law.

Gary Glenn

Well, today Huckabee made it official, endorsing Glenn and saying he “will be a Senator that will take his values with him to Washington”:

I am very happy to endorse and support Gary Glenn for the United States Senate in Michigan. Gary is a person whose clarity of conviction is refreshing. He has boldly led on issues of life, traditional marriage, and the Fair Tax.

When I needed help in Michigan in 2008, Gary didn't wait until it was convenient or popular, he stood with me out of sheer courage of his views. Gary Glenn won't take a poll to find out where he needs to stand. He will be a Senator that will take his values with him to Washington. I hope you will join me in getting behind Gary with your prayers, your generous and sacrificial contributions, and your vote.

Glenn faces a competitive primary against former congressman Pete Hoekstra and charter school activist Clark Durant and, if he wins the nomination, an uphill climb against Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

While leading the AFA’s state chapter, Glenn has amassed a tremendous anti-gay record. He not only led the successful campaign to enshrine a ban on marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the state constitution, but also targeted openly gay candidates and was a plaintiff in the unsuccessful lawsuit to block the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expands hate crimes laws to protect people targeted because of their sexual orientation.

Glenn supports the criminalization of homosexuality and joined anti-gay radio host and Mission America head Linda Harvey to warn companies against hiring gay and lesbian employees, saying, “What ridiculous folly to suggest that only those individuals who engage in homosexual behavior given all of its severe medical consequences constitute the best and the brightest.”

During an interview with anti-gay extremist Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, Glenn said that anti-bullying programs were a “Trojan Horse” of “homosexual activists” and said that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “defies reason,” predicting repeal will lead to more “sexual assaults” and “security,” “moral,” and “medical” risks.

But for Huckabee, Glenn’s “clarity of conviction is refreshing."

Michael Walter Fitzgerald, whom President Obama nominated in July, was approved the Senate Judiciary Committee en banc as part of a group of nominees.

Michael Key, Washington Blade

Michael Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald is the fourth out federal judicial nominee chosen by the White House. Upon confirmation, he would take a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and would be the first openly gay federal judge in that state.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, commended the panel for moving forward with nomination.

“Moving Michael Fitzgerald’s nomination to the Senate floor is a positive step toward confirming a dedicated legal talent,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We urge the full Senate to confirm him and help make the bench more representative of the diversity of the American public.”

When the full Senate will take up the Fitzgerald nomination remains in question. The Senate is currently is currently facing a backlog of judicial nominees on the Senate floor who haven’t yet received votes.

Erica Chabot, a Senate Judiciary Committee spokesperson, said 22 nominations were already pending on the floor before the committee approved Fitzgerald and other nominees on Thursday.

“This nomination will join those and the others reported today on the floor,” Chabot said. “Sen. Leahy has been very clear about his concerns with how long nominations are pending on the floor after being reported by the committee.”

The Fitzgerald nomination was recommended to Obama by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who also praised the committee for advancing the Fitzgerald nomination and called for swift confirmation on the Senate floor.

The vote was 48-44 in favor of Nathan's nomination to the Court -- among the 44 nay votes were five Democrats and all Republicans.

In an e-mail this afternoon following the Senate's confirmation, White House Director of Specialty Media Shin Inouye said, "The President welcomes the confirmation of Alison Nathan. She will serve the American people well from the District Court bench."

The Washington Blade reported that GOP Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who’s known for opposing pro-LGBT initiatives in Congress, both expressed concerns on the floor about Nathan’s legal experience.

“Ms. Nathan and Judge Hickey [Another nominee being voted upon for confirmation.] both have had limited experience in the courtroom,” Grassley said. “They have failed to meet even the minimum qualifications that the ABA uses in rating process.”

“It’s very hard for me to believe that I should vote to confirm a judge who’s not committed to following our law, who believes they have a right to scrutinize the world, find some law in some other country, bring it home, and use that law to make it achieve a result in the case they wanted,” Sessions said.

Nathan has previously served as a Special Assistant to President Obama and as Associate White House Counsel. At the time of her nomination in March, Nathan was serving in the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York as Special Counsel to the Solicitor General.

Alison Nathan

Prior to joining government service, Nathan spent a number of years as an academic, first as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Fordham University Law School from 2006 to 2008 and later as a Fritz Alexander Fellow at New York University School of Law from 2008 to 2009.

Nathan has also served as a law clerk for the Honorable John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States from 2001 to 2002 and as a law clerk to the Honorable Betty B. Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2001. Nathan received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2000 from Cornell Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Law Review. She received her B.A. in 1994 from Cornell University.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said, in a statement, that Nathan's "demonstrated intellect and dedication to public service is a model of achievement."

"She will join Judges Deborah Batts and Paul Oetken in the Southern District of New York as the only openly lesbian or gay federal judges. We look forward to the day when the makeup of the entire federal bench truly represents the diverse American public," Solmonese said.

Nathan lives in New York with her partner, Meg Satterthwaite, and their twin sons Oliver and Nathan,

Linda Lingle

Lingle, whose 2010 veto stopped a civil unions bill giving the Aloha state’s same-sex couples the same protections under the law as married heterosexual couples, is already drawing criticism.

Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser:

"Today marks Linda Lingle's biggest announcement since she nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President [at the 2008 Republican National Convention], an event that typifies Lingle's partisan Republican approach to governing," said Canter.

"Now Lingle wants to go to Washington to become a rubber-stamp for Mitch McConnell and the Republican party whose sole priority is to defeat President Obama at every turn."

Lingle disagreed, saying in an interview with a local radio show:

"I want to be real clear on this point: I don't work for (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell, and for that matter I don't work for President Obama. I work for the people of Hawaii. [...] "And if there is a law being proposed, whether it's from the president or from Mitch McConnell, if it's good for Hawaii I'm for it. If it's not good for us, I'm against it regardless of who introduces it."

Seven months following her veto, the new Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed the same-sex civil unions into law, just one week after the bill again passed the state Legislature.

Tammy Baldwin

The teleconference, sponsored by the Victory Fund, an advocacy group that works to elect LGBT leaders into public office, gave Baldwin a chance to face reporters and discuss why she should be elected the next senator from the Badger State.

"I’m appreciative of the tremendous support I’ve had from the LGBT community and I’m officially in," Baldwin said.

“As I’ve traveled around this summer people have told me again and again how disgusted they are with what’s going on in Washington and in Madison. They tell me that they just don’t think that anyone is listening to their immediate concerns on the economy and on jobs. The middle class is getting slammed in this current economic crisis.”

Baldwin told journalists that her largest hurdle in the state is name recognition (which is roughly at 52-55 percent, depending on the poll), but emphasized the weary fate of the economy will be her major focus.

A recent Gallup poll showed increased frustration across the nation with how Congress handled the debt deal and other economic issues in August -- 75 percent of those surveyed in the most recent poll believed that the economy will continue to get worse with only 20 percent having a positive outlook for the economy.

Baldwin is no political outsider -- she has been serving Wisconsin’s 2nd District since 1999 when she was elected as the first women to represent the state on a national level -- but her plan to stabilize the economy and create jobs will be a deciding factor for voters in November 2012.

“It will be a tough race as Wisconsin is pretty evenly divided,” Baldwin said. "But Wisconsinites are looking to elect someone who will go to Washington and be a fighter."

"If voters look at my record in they house, they will learn that I have taken on incredibly tough challenges. I stood up and opposed the war in Iraq and I’ve stood up against Wall Street. I have shown a lifetime commitment for equality for all -- I’m a fighter and I will continue to stand up to special interests."

With Wisconsin’s unemployment continuing to rise (it rose to 7.8% in July), voters will be expecting its Senate candidates to bring more than just empty rhetoric to the campaign. As voters across the country continue to ask, “Where are the Jobs?”, Baldwin said she believes she has a bold vision to spur job development in the state.

“I’m in that 80 percent who are disgusted about how things have been handled," she said, commenting on voter's frustration with the debt deal.

"I feel that frustration and anger that Wisconsinites feel toward the economic problems and how [elected officials] in Washington and Madison are not listening," Baldwin said. "So many people believe that our best says are behind us, but we have to have optimism. We can’t give up on what is offered by having a democracy that can change."

Reflecting on her 12 years in Congress, Baldwin said her vision on job creation and the economy, and progressive voting record in the House, will stand for itself.

"I’ve been very successful working across party lines to get things done and being effective," she said "I will continue to do that when elected to the Senate."

Unfortunately, the political outlook isn't quite so positive.

Job market conditions across the Nation deteriorated for the second month in a row. Gallup poll released their Job Creation index and the numbers paint a bleak picture of the potential for more jobs in the upcoming months. The job creation index fell to +13 in August, down from +14 in July and +15 in June. New hiring is at about the level it was during the 2008 recession.

The question remains, will Wisconsin voters believe in Baldwin’s record as much as the Wisconsin LGBTQ community has expressed belief in her.

Asked by Edge Media's senior political reporter Mike Lavers how the Baldwin campaign would respond to homophobia from within Wisconsin or outside the state, she did not directly answer, instead saying, "I am opposed to discrimination in any form and believe in equal opportunity for all Americans ... and equal opportunities for all and I make no apologies for that."

Former Republican Congressman Mark Neumann, who has already declared his candidacy for the same Senate seat, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 1997 that he would not hire an openly gay employee because the "gay and lesbian lifestyle is unacceptable."

Pressed for an answer on the same subject by Washington Blade Senior Political Correspondent Chris Johnson, Baldwin replied, "To the extent that I'm faced with it in my campaign, I plan on responding very directly. The campaign is unfolding across the country, but to the extent that it is raised in the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, I am certainly not going to turn the other way."

On the subject of whether she'll promote LGBT rights, particularly the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while on the campaign trail, Baldwin said she has been talking about such issues in the context of larger discussions, noting that in 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to enact protections based on sexual orientation.

"When I talk about the proud tradition of the state of Wisconsin and labor and equal rights — they are all in the same conversation," Baldwin said. "People in Wisconsin feel proud of those firsts, all of them, and view them as interlinked. That's the same sort of way, I think, at the national level that we weave these things together."

Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund noted that Baldwin has never shied away from her sexual orientation, and it would seem that Wisconsin voters don’t believe being an lesbian should dictate whether or not she should be elected to the Senate.

"We are enormously proud that Tammy has taken this courageous step, and we will be strong supporters of her campaign. Tammy’s record in Congress proves she’ll be a fighter in the Senate for expanding fairness and freedom for all Americans and Wisconsin families will have no better advocate in Washington."

Wolfe stated that since the organization endorsed her in 1992 “she hasn’t lost a race."

Tammy Baldwin

Baldwin is the first Democrat to officially announce her intent, and if elected, would become the first openly gay U.S. Senator.

Khol's seat is one of at least eight open spots that could determine a shift of power in the Senate, where the GOP needs to pick up just four seats to become the majority party in control.

The Congresswoman, who made her announcement in an email and video to supporters early Tuesday, is the first woman, and openly gay non-incumbent, to be elected to the U.S. House from the state of Wisconsin. For fifteen years, her domestic partner was Lauren Azar, until the couple separated in 2010.

Baldwin is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and according to a survey conducted by the nonpartisan National Journal, her voting and legislative record is considered one of the most progressive in the House.

In today's message to her supporters, Baldwin portrayed herself as moving to the political center by positioning herself as the best candidate for middle-class voters feeling squeezed in the tough economy.

"It’s time politicians looked out for seniors, working families and the middle class — instead of protecting the profits of big oil and Wall Street," she said.

Baldwin also used her video message to mention her opposition to the war in Iraq and her support for ending the war in Afghanistan, as well as to hint at the obstacles her candidacy will face as she seeks to win her first statewide election.

"I’m used to facing challenges head on," she said. "When I first ran for Congress in 1998, people counted me out. But we worked hard, campaigned across south-central Wisconsin, and we won."

Political analysts are certain that the Republicans will attack Baldwin’s liberal House voting record, hoping to sway the independent and moderate voters in Wisconsin, a state that has swung between giving Barack Obama a 14-point win in the 2008 presidential race and kicking Democrats out of power in the Statehouse during the 2010 contests.