Category Archives: Chad Griffin

LGBT groups push back against threats to gay-inclusive immigration bill

Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, John McCain, United States Senate, gay news, Washington Blade

(From left) Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have expressed varying positions on LGBT-inclsuive immigration reform (Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)

LGBT groups are urging supporters of the Uniting American Families Act to stand firm in the face of threats from Senate Republicans that inclusion of gay couples in immigration reform would derail the larger legislation.

A number of LGBT advocates made statements this week calling for inclusion of bi-national same-sex couples amid expectations that the vote on including them as part of immigration reform could happen as early as next week. These advocates are seeking the addition of language along the lines of UAFA, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement late Wednesday saying Congress must pass an immigration bill that includes gay couples and the notion that their addition would block the legislation from passing is an “offensive ruse.”

“This bluster is nothing more than a political maneuver designed to divide the pro-reform coalition and at the same time appease a small but vocal group of social conservatives that will do anything to stop progress for lesbian and gay couples,” Griffin said. “The LGBT community will not stand for Congress placing the blame of their own dysfunction on our shoulders.”

Another joint statement earlier in the day from a quintet of LGBT organizations — the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, United We Dream and Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project — expressed a similar sentiment.

“We do not believe that our friends in the evangelical faith community or conservative Republicans would allow the entire immigration reform bill to fail simply because it affords 28,500 same-sex couples equal immigration rights,” the organizations state. “This take-it-or-leave-it stance with regard to same-sex bi-national couples is not helpful when we all share the same goal of passing comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship.”

Both of these statements emphasize that LGBT groups support passage of comprehensive immigration reform and take note of an estimate from the Williams Institute that 267,000 of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are LGBT.

The moment of truth for whether UAFA will come up as an amendment when the Senate Judiciary Committee considers comprehensive immigration reform will come soon. The deadline for committee members to submit amendments to the bill is Tuesday at 5 p.m.; the members will decide which to offer during committee mark ups.

LGBT advocates say they’ve received assurances that UAFA will come before the committee — likely from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who sponsors the standalone bill. A committee aide wouldn’t say on Thursday whether a decision has been made on whether the amendment will be introduced, but added Leahy believes equality in family unification needs to be part of the reform package.

During a committee hearing last week, Leahy said the first day for voting on amendments will be next week on May 9. Thereafter, the committee will continue to consider amendments on May 14, May 16, May 20 and every day that follows to complete consideration and have a final vote on the bill. Chances are the amendment will come up on one of these later days.

Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for the LGBT group Immigration Equality, said on Tuesday he still expects a UAFA-like amendment to come up during the committee markup and remains confident  the measure will succeed.

“Our expectation is still that we have the votes,” Ralls said. “I think, to be totally honest, at the end of the day, this is going to come down to a question of whether our friends on the committee buckle to the bullying of our opposition on the committee. I hope that’s not the case. I hope that’s not the case we’re counseling on all the Democrats to stand strong, but, as I predicted before, the opposition is going to be loud and is going to put a lot of pressure on our friends.”

But Senate Republicans are warning that inclusion of this provision would dismantle the bipartisan coalition and prevent the larger vehicle from finding the necessary 60 votes to pass on the Senate floor.

An article earlier this week in Politico titled, “Gay rights push threatens immigration deal,” quotes Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as saying inclusion of UAFA will “virtually guarantee” the legislation won’t pass.

“This issue is a difficult enough issue as it is,” Rubio is quoted as saying. “I respect everyone’s views on it. But ultimately, if that issue is injected into this bill, the bill will fail and the coalition that helped put it together will fall apart.”

A similar article in the New York Times quotes Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another member of the “Gang of Eight,” as saying he believes LGBT-inclusion in immigration reform would lead to failure for the immigration package.

“There’s a reason this language wasn’t included in the Gang of Eight’s bill: It’s a deal-breaker for most Republicans,” Flake is quoted as saying. “Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is the only Democrat on the panel who doesn’t co-sponsor UAFA or made a public statement in support of it — even though she’s known as an LGBT advocate and has been the lead sponsor of legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ralls said another Democrat on the committee that’s of concern is Sen. Chuck Schumer, another member of the “Gang of Eight” — even though the New York Democrat is among the co-sponsors of UAFA because of his desire to see the overall immigration bill passed.

“The bill is Sen. Schumer’s baby; he’s part of the ‘Gang of Eight,’” Ralls said. “We know that he wants to see it passed. I know that probably, to be honest, Sen. Schumer is getting some of the biggest pressure from Republican colleagues on the committee because of his role in crafting the bill. Now, he has told families in New York that have met with him that he really wants to get this done. I don’t doubt that, and I hope that that’s the message he’s delivering to Republicans on the committee as well.”

Schumer’s office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment for this article. An article earlier this month from Gay City News quotes the senator as saying, “I believe strongly in UAFA and I’m going to do everything I can to get it into the bill,” but also says he declined to speculate on how that would be accomplished.

Still, at least seven of the 10 Democrats on the committee have offered strong statements in favor of including UAFA as part of immigration reform, such as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who said during a committee hearing that supporters of the bill will do “everything we can” to make sure UAFA is included in the bill.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the lone GOP co-sponsor of UAFA in the Senate, is pledging to take an active role in determining whether UAFA should be included in the bill. Kevin Kelley, a Collins spokesperson, told the Blade she’ll work with Leahy to determine “the best way to bring their bill before the Senate for consideration.”

“Sen. Collins’ Maine offices have been contacted by same-sex couples who have found themselves forced to choose between the person they love and the country they love due to our current immigration laws,” Kelley said. “More than two dozen countries already recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. The Uniting American Families Act would simply update our nation’s immigration laws to treat bi-national, same-sex permanent partners fairly.”

With questions over whether gay couples will be included in immigration reform, attention may turn to President Obama and whether he’ll push to make sure a provision for them is included. The White House has said Obama’s vision for immigration reform includes gay couples, but at the same time Obama has said he doesn’t want to be “heavy-handed” in telling Congress what the legislation should entail.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said during a press gaggle abroad Air Force on Thursday that Obama has been in contact with the major players on comprehensive immigration reform, but doesn’t have a read on whether LGBT inclusion was among the topics that were discussed.

“The legislation crafted by the ‘Gang of Eight’ broadly reflects the principles that the president has laid out, but it is not word for word in keeping with all of what he would do if he were to write it himself,” Carney added. “And we have said that we support that provision, but we also think it’s very important to recognize that the overall bill here accomplishes what the president believes needs to be accomplished and is in keeping with his principles.”

Should the amendment pass as part of the bill in committee, the next hurdle for UAFA will be making sure that it remains in the bill when it comes to the full Senate floor. But Immigration Equality’s Ralls anticipated that the 60-vote threshold to remove the provision wouldn’t be met and was confident it would remain intact.

The more daunting issue is the Republican-controlled House. That chamber hasn’t been amenable to pro-LGBT legislation, although it did pass an LGBT-inclusive bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act at the start of this Congress. Moreover, how the House will approach immigration reform remains in question. House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has said he plans to handle immigration reform as a series of bills as opposed to a larger package at one time.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who sponsors UAFA in the House, said in a statement to the Blade on Thursday he’s talking with Senate colleagues about including UAFA as part of immigration reform, but the process in the House is still in an early phase.

“Inclusion in the Senate, or in the conference report that ultimately reconciles the Senate and House bills, may be our best chance for passage,” Nadler said. “It’s too early to speculate about the House process, as there is no bill, nor clarity from the Republican Leadership on its intentions. I have spoken directly with the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and others about UAFA, and I am gathering new cosponsors every day. I can assure you that I continue to work publicly and behind the scenes to ensure that the LGBT community is a part of immigration reform. We cannot solve one of our most pressing social problems – immigration – by leaving out a large and vital segment of our society.”

Time for laws to catch up to nation’s values

Chad Griffin, Human Rights Campaign, gay news, Washington Blade

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin. (Washington Blade file photo by Blake Bergen)

By CHAD GRIFFIN 

For the LGBT community, equality in immigration is one of the many struggles that have driven our movement since its earliest days. For much of the 20th century, in the days before Stonewall, immigrants to the United States that were deemed to be sexual or gender minorities were labeled “deviants” or “psychopaths” and turned away—often sent back home to even more unfriendly shores.

It seems like we’ve come a long way since then, and in many ways we have. But as conversations around comprehensive immigration reform heat up, the American people shouldn’t overlook the discrimination that is still on the books to this day.

Because of DOMA, bi-national same-sex couples are treated like strangers by the federal government in immigration cases, even if the couple has a valid, state-granted marriage license. LGBT asylum seekers, often from countries with violently anti-gay environments, are denied a safe place to call home because of an arbitrary one-year filing deadline. And undocumented LGBT youth eligible for the DREAM Act are still waiting for Congress to give them a shot at a hopeful future.

Too many families have been torn apart by legal discrimination based on nothing but animus. Too many committed and loving couples have had to make the truly painful choice between the person they love and the country they love. And too many good, upstanding people are denied a chance for a better life because of who they are or who they love.

It is time to take action to right these wrongs. Today, comprehensive immigration reform is back on the table. The American people, members of Congress in both parties and President Obama all agree that it’s time to take lasting and decisive action. These opportunities don’t come along every day. The last major immigration reform bill was signed into law in 1986. It takes an alignment of the political stars to get it done.

But a lot has changed since 1986. It’s no longer an acceptable option to simply sweep LGBT immigrants and their needs on the back burner. That’s why last week the Human Rights Campaign released our declaration of principles on immigration reform—including nine key reforms that must be included in a truly inclusive and comprehensive bill.

Simply put, a “comprehensive” bill must live up to its name. Any legislation that is signed into law must acknowledge that no matter who you are—LGBT or non-LGBT—if you’ve worked hard and paid your dues, you’ve earned a fair and equal shot at the American Dream. This country has a proud history of rolling back laws that treat people differently for no good reason, and immigration reform must continue that proud heritage.

After all, we’re at a historic moment of national consensus. Today, the American people agree on at least two things: treating LGBT people fairly and reforming our broken immigration system. Now it’s time for our laws to catch up to our national values. As a matter of basic justice for all, it’s time for truly inclusive comprehensive immigration reform.

Chad Griffin is president of the Human Rights Campaign. Reach him via hrc.org.

Poll: 58 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage

Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

The U.S. Supreme Court next week will hear oral arguments in two gay marriage cases. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 58 percent of Americans now support marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Eighty-one percent of respondents under 30 said they support nuptials for gays and lesbians, compared to only 44 percent of seniors. The survey also found 72 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents back nuptials for gays and lesbians.

Thirty-four percent of Republican respondents support same-sex marriage, but this figure jumps to 52 percent among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who are between 18-49.

The latest survey notes nearly three-quarters of liberals and moderates said they back nuptials for same-sex couples. Only 33 percent of conservative respondents said they support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, but this figure is 23 points higher than in 2004.

The poll further notes same-sex marriage support among all demographics has dramatically increased over the last nine years.

“There can be no doubt that this country is on a one-way road to marriage for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said. “This new poll reflects the continued evolution of people’s attitudes through thoughtful conversations over dinner tables and water coolers.”

ABC News and the Washington Post released the poll on the same day HRC unveiled a video in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorses same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court next week will hear oral arguments in two cases that challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

The survey noted 64 percent of respondents said the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples “should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution.” More than two-thirds of Democrats, independents, liberals and moderates said the Constitution should determine the outcome of the cases.

Fifty-six percent of conservatives and 54 percent of Republicans support the aforementioned position.

“This latest poll underscores America’s dramatic and stunning embrace of the freedom to marry, and says to decision-makers—lawmakers, judges, and even justices—that it is time to end marriage discrimination,” Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson said. “With a super-majority of Americans now supporting the freedom to marry, and majority support in nearly every segment of the public, the freedom to marry’s time has, indeed, come.”

37 Senators call on Obama to sign ENDA exec order

Jeff Merkley, Oregon, United States Senate, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) is leading a group of U.S. senators calling on Obama to issue an LGBT executive order (Public domain photo)

A chorus of 37 U.S. senators is calling on President Obama to sign an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers amid increased pressure for him to issue the directive.

In a letter dated Feb. 14, first made public by the Washington Post’s Greg Sergeant, the group of 37 senators — led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) — identifies themselves as supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and ask Obama to take administrative action against anti-LGBT workplace discrimination.

“Issuing an Executive Order that includes sexual orientation and gender identity is a critical step that you can take today toward ending discrimination in the workplace,” the senators write. “By expanding protections for LGBT employees of federal contractors, you would be helping to ensure that all Americans get an equal opportunity to succeed and that federal taxpayer dollars are used to support companies with the best employment practices.”

In addition to Merkley, who has sponsored ENDA in the Senate, signers of the letter include longtime members of the chamber who’ve supported the bill, such as Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Senate Health, Labor & Pensions Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who pledged to move the ENDA legislation out of committee this year.

New faces to the Senate have also signed the letter, including Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), William Cowan (D-Mass.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only openly gay member of the Senate, is also a signer. No Republicans signed the letter, but an Independent, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), penned his name.

As noted by the letter, a report from the Williams Institute from February 2012 estimated such an executive order would protect an estimated 16 million workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. But the report also estimates the pool workers who are actually LGBT within the 16 million is smaller, and between 400,000 and 600,000 people.

Shortly after the news broke on the letter from 37 senators, the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, a coalition of more than 210 civil rights groups, announced it had also sent a letter to Obama calling for the executive order.

The Feb. 14 letter, cosigned by the Leadership Conference’s CEO Wade Henderson and Executive Vice President Nancy Zirkin, recalls Obama’s inaugural address in making the case for the directive.

“The Leadership Conference agrees with your recent remarks in your second inaugural address that ‘our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,’ and believes that issuing an executive order to ban federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees helps promote equality for all individuals under the law,” Henderson and Zirkin write.

Since April, the White House has repeatedly said it won’t issue such a directive at this time and prefers a legislation approach to protecting LGBT workers against discrimination as opposed to executive action.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said Obama continues to support ENDA in response to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on the letters.

“The president has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and his administration will continue to work to build support for it,” Inouye said. “We welcome Chairman Harkin’s announcement that he will hold a vote on ENDA this year.”

However, the Washington Post reported on Sunday that Obama is thinking about reversing that decision if Congress doesn’t act. On Sunday, activists affiliated with the LGBT grassroots group GetEQUAL held a protest in front of the White House calling on Obama to take action on the directive.

In a statement, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, reiterated his organization’s position that the executive order could provide immediate relief to LGBT workers as ENDA languishes in Congress.

“An executive order from President Obama would ensure that hundreds of thousands of LGBT federal contract employees could go to work every day without fear of being fired for who they are or who they love,” Griffin said. “I am grateful to these leaders in the Senate for speaking out on behalf of LGBT Americans who want nothing more than a fair shot at a job.”

The letter is similar to another letter that 72 House Democrats wrote to Obama in April calling on him to issue the non-discrimination directive. Shortly after the House members sent that letter, the White House first announced it wouldn’t issue such an executive order against anti-LGBT job discrimination at this time.

Pentagon to extend partner benefits to gay troops

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to extend limited partner benefits to gay troops this week (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to extend limited partner benefits to gay troops this week. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Pentagon is set this week to announce that it will extend long-sought partner benefits to gay and lesbian service members, according to a report in The Washington Post confirmed as accurate by an LGBT advocate familiar with the process.

The Defense Department has reportedly decided to extend these benefits amid media scrutiny and calls from LGBT advocates to make the change before outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta leaves his post.

It’s not immediately clear which benefits that LGBT advocates have been calling for will be extended to gay troops with same-sex partners or when this week the decision will be formally announced. A White House spokesperson deferred comment to the Defense Department, which didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

LGBT advocates, including the LGBT military group OutServe-SLDN, have been calling on Panetta to issue via secretarial directive certain partner benefits they say could be extended administratively at any time. Among them are military IDs, joint duty assignments, housing, access to the commissary and availability of family programs and legal services.

Other benefits, such as health and pension benefits, cannot be extended at this time to gay troops because of the Defense of Marriage Act and U.S. law governing rights for service members.

Since the time that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was lifted in September 2011, Pentagon officials have said they’ve been reviewing the issue to determine which benefits can be extended under current law. However, no action has been taken.

LGBT advocates responded to the news by urging the Pentagon to provide partner benefits to the fullest extent under the law.

Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, said Panetta has a “strong civil rights record” during his tenure at the Pentagon and his reluctance to extend these benefits for so long has “baffled many” seeking the benefits.

“We are hopeful that he will not take half-measures here; for him to grant anything less than the full extent of benefits available under current law would be an anticlimactic end to an otherwise exemplary record on civil rights,” Robinson said.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed a similar sentiment that the Pentagon should go as far as possible in extending benefits to gay troops.

“We welcome the news that benefits will be extended to the same-sex spouses and partners of gay and lesbian service members, and urge Secretary Panetta to make sure every benefit possible under the law is included,” Griffin said. “This is the logical next step in ensuring all our military families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.”

The issue has also received attention on Capitol Hill. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to the Pentagon last week calling on Panetta to extend these benefits. A group of 25 House members led by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) also signed a letter sent last week calling for enactment of the benefits.

In a statement, Schiff said he’s “encouraged to hear” the Pentagon will finally take action.

“We need to make sure that all military families – including those with same-sex partners serving at home or abroad – have access to the very best care, facilities and services possible,” Schiff said. “In his last days before leaving office, Secretary Panetta can add to his already long list of accomplishments, take up this cause and make sure that the administration acts.”

The issue has received more attention in the wake of a controversy over a spousal club at an Army base in Ft. Bragg, N.C., refusing to offer membership to Ashley Broadway, the spouse of a lesbian service member. At one point, Broadway was informed she was ineligible for membership because she lacked a military ID. The spousal club has since offered Broadway full membership.

Top strategist to depart HRC

HRC, bomb threat, gay news, Washington Blade

Human Rights Campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C.(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

WASHINGTON — The top policy and strategy strategist at the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy organization will depart this summer, according to a statement released earlier this week.

David Smith, who joined the organization in 1995, led efforts to make the Human Rights Campaign “a household name,” according to a statement on Smith by HRC President Chad Griffin, who also credits Smith with helping to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” and the passage of federal hate crime protections, as well as helping create the HRC National Dinner, where Bill Clinton became the first sitting U.S. president to address an LGBT advocacy group.

“Those of you who have worked with David directly know him to be incredibly passionate, kind, hard-working and generous,” Griffin’s statement reads. “He’s been a mentor, a sounding-board, and an advocate for good ideas wherever they emerge.”

Mixed reaction to Boy Scouts plan on gay members

Zach Walls, gay news, Washington Blade, Boy Scouts of America

‘This would be an incredible step forward in the right direction,’ said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and founder of the group Scouts for Equality. (Photo courtesy of Change.org)

A statement issued by the Boy Scouts of America on Monday saying the organization is considering dropping its national policy banning gay scouts and scout leaders was hailed by LGBT advocates as an important breakthrough in the fight for equality.

But two of the nation’s leading anti-gay groups warned that if the BSA’s board votes next week to drop its ban on gays, as predicted by sources familiar with the Boy Scouts, it would lead to a “mass exodus” of scouts and scout leaders from traditional, religious-oriented families and communities.

In its statement released on Monday, the BSA said the change it was considering would allow the religious, civic and educational organizations that are chartered to operate scouting units throughout the country to make the final decision on whether or not to accept gays.

“Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation,” the statement says.

“This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs,” says the statement.

“BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families,” it says.

NBC News, which first reported that BSA was considering lifting its gay ban prior to the release of the statement, also reported that the organization was expected to approve the changes at a board of directors meeting within the next week.

Janelle Moritz, a public relations representative for the Boy Scouts of America, told the Blade she could not confirm the NBC report about the timing of a board meeting or what the board would decide. She said BSA would not comment on the matter beyond what it said in its statement, which doesn’t say when the group will decide on the issue.

Other news media outlets, however, reported that BSA sources confirmed that the board meeting would take place next week, mostly likely at the BSA national headquarters in Irving, Texas.

“The Boy Scouts of America have heard from scouts, corporations, and millions of Americans that discriminating against gay scouts and scout leaders is wrong,” said Herndon Graddick, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “Scouting is a valuable institution and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect,” he said.

“This would be an incredible step forward in the right direction,” said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and founder of the group Scouts for Equality. “We look forward to working with BSA Councils and chartering organizations across the country to end the exclusion of our gay brothers in scouting, as well as the gay and lesbian leaders who serve the organizations so well.”

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Boy Scouts’ expected policy change follows the growing support for LGBT equality from the American people.

“The pulse of equality is strong in America, and today it beats a bit faster with news that the Boy Scouts may finally put an end to its long history of discrimination,” Griffin said in a statement. “Our nation and its leaders respect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens, and it’s time the Boy Scouts echo those values.”

A far different response emerged from leaders of the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, two national conservative groups that oppose LGBT rights.

“The Boy Scouts of America board would be making a serious mistake to bow to the strong-arm tactics of LGBT activists and open the organization to homosexuality,” said FRC President Tony Perkins in a statement.

“The mission of the Boy Scouts is to ‘instill values in young people’ and ‘prepare them to make ethical choices,’ and the Scouts’ oath includes a pledge ‘to do my duty to God’ and keep himself ‘morally straight,” he said. “It is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual for those passages to be interpreted as requiring abstinence from homosexual conduct.”

The American Family Associated posted on its website a column by anti-gay advocate Bryan Fischer, who quipped that Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant coach convicted on child molestation charges, would become “the new poster boy” for the Boy Scouts.

“This move, unless the BSA dramatically reverses itself in the immediate future, represents the capitulation to the forces of sexual deviancy,” he said. “The Scouts will have made a deliberate decision to put the sexual integrity of every young man in their care at risk.”

Within a day of the BSA’s announcement that it was considering changing its policy on gay scouts and scout leaders, the FRC and the American Family Association posted appeals on their websites urging members and supporters to call the BSA to urge the group to leave its ban on gays in place.

“As the BSA board meets next week, it is crucial that they hear from those who stand with them and their current policy regarding homosexuality,” FRC said.

Possibly in anticipation of strong opposition by conservative and religious groups, the BSA emphasized in its own statement that the change would allow local units to decide whether or not to admit gays.

“The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a policy to units, members, or parents,” the statement says. “Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs.”

The BSA website says more than 100,000 scouting units are owned and operated by independent chartered organizations.

“Of these, 64.9 percent of all units are chartered to faith-based organizations, 22.7 percent of all units are chartered to civic organizations, and 7.9 percent of all units are chartered to educational organizations,” it says.

It says the chartered organizations are responsible for providing meeting facilities, providing “quality leadership for the scouting unit,” and appointing a representative to coordinate unit operations

A list of BSA chartered organizations posted on its website shows a wide range of religious and civic groups that are likely to differ on whether or not to admit gay scouts and scout leaders.

Among them are the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and “Baptist Churches,” which traditionally have condemned homosexuality. Others, however, include the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church and Lutheran churches, which have had more accepting policies toward LGBT people.

Civic groups listed on the BSA website as chartered organizations include local Chambers of Commerce, Lions and Rotary clubs, American Legion organizations, Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs, YMCA groups, “non-profit agencies,” and “home owners” groups.

The BSA’s statement saying it is considering removing its national policy banning gay scouts and scout leaders comes seven months after the BSA announced it had conducted a two-year review of the ban and decided to leave it in place.

Monday’s announcement also comes after several prominent corporations, including United Parcel Service and Intel Corporation, withdrew as BSA financial sponsors, saying the gay ban violated their corporate polices of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Others opposing the Boy Scouts ban on gays have organized online petition drives that have gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures calling on the BSA to drop its gay ban.

Among those drawing attention to efforts to end the ban is Eagle Scout Wahls of Iowa, who is straight but has spoken publically about his two lesbian moms.

Sharon Brackett, co-founder and board chair of the statewide transgender advocacy organization Gender Rights Maryland, said she experienced firsthand how at least some Boy Scout troops and the chartered organizations that operate them are LGBT supportive.

Brackett said she served as a scout master for the local Boy Scout troop in Savage, Md., where her sons were members, before she transitioned from male to female. She said after taking a break during her transition period, the troop and a local Methodist church that served as the chartered organization, welcomed her back once she completed her gender transition.

“My experience has been positive,” she said, noting that women have long served as Boy Scout troop leaders and officials in the chartered organization covering her area had no problem with her coming back.

Brackett said she supports the proposed change by the BSA to leave it up to the chartered organizations to decide whether gay scouts or troops can be admitted. At least in Maryland, she said, there are enough local troops and chartered organizations to choose from that would result in gay youth finding one that will be welcoming.

“Having that choice is the best next step for us at this time,” she said.

Hagel a disappointing choice from Obama

The news this week that President Obama wants former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to run the Defense Department marks a disappointing turn for our fierce advocate in the White House.

Rather than use his mandate from winning re-election to reward his key constituencies, Obama has poked a stick in the eye of the LGBT community by turning to Hagel, who had an abysmal voting record in Congress and drew criticism for using anti-gay slurs back in 1998.

At that time, Hagel described James Hormel — a Clinton nominee for ambassador of Luxembourg — as “openly, aggressively gay” and said being gay was an “inhibiting factor” that would prevent Hormel from doing “an effective job.” Last month, Hagel apologized for the remarks and said he’s “fully supportive of open service and committed to LGBT military families.”

The Human Rights Campaign, apparently unaware of its own “0” congressional scorecard rating for Hagel on LGBT issues from 2001-2006, immediately accepted the tepid apology, even though Hagel didn’t reach out to Hormel directly to apologize.

Did HRC extract any promises from the White House or Hagel himself before so quickly forgiving and forgetting his rather serious sins? Hagel voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, putting him in the company of the most rabidly anti-gay members of Congress. In 1999, he said he opposed repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Let’s hope Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) has a longer memory than HRC and works to get some answers on how Hagel would handle an array of LGBT issues at Defense, including granting partner benefits to gay service members.

Better yet, let’s hope former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) gets the nod to fill Sen. John Kerry’s seat on an interim basis so he can have a say on the Hagel appointment.

Frank issued an appropriately stern statement last week assailing the choice of Hagel, noting, “he voted consistently against fairness for LGBT people and there does not seem to be any evidence prior to his effort to become Secretary of Defense of any apology or retraction of his attack on James Hormel.”

Frank continued, “I cannot think of any other minority group in the U.S. today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major presidential appointment.”

Indeed, an attack like that directed at another minority group would have rendered Hagel radioactive. But he merely attacked a gay man, so he gets a pass because that’s perceived as not so bad. Even our most prominent national advocacy group sees no problem with it.

The Log Cabin Republicans denounced Hagel in full-page ads in the Washington Post and New York Times, calling the apology “too little, too late.” They’re right, of course, but where was Log Cabin’s advocacy when its leaders endorsed Mitt Romney for president?

It’s all politics as usual — Log Cabin opposes Hagel merely because Obama wants him. And HRC supports Hagel because it must now support everything Obama does. What’s lost here is accountability. No one’s suggesting that Hagel can’t or hasn’t changed. A lot of folks have changed their views in 10 years. And he’s entitled to forgiveness if his apology is sincere. But there are consequences for actions. Publicly attacking a qualified gay man and casting horrendous votes against our equality shouldn’t be forgotten so easily. HRC won’t stand up to Obama over this regrettable appointment and so it falls to Frank, Baldwin and others to ensure Hagel would support LGB and, yes, T service members and complete the work that lies ahead on full implementation of the gay ban’s repeal.

Hagel is entitled to change his mind. But LGBT service members are entitled to leadership that won’t turn back the clock on recent advances at the Pentagon. Hagel is the wrong choice for Defense and a bad choice for LGBT service members.

Hagel a disappointing choice from Obama