A new report from That’s My Congress reveals that of the 79 members of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House of Representatives, less than half support two-thirds or more of the caucus’ slate of 12 pro-LGBT bills.

The LGBT Equality Caucus describes its work in the Congress as “the extension of equal rights, the repeal of discriminatory laws, the elimination of hate-motivated violence, and the improved health and well being for all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.” 79 Representatives have indicated their symbolic support for these ideals by signing up as caucus members, but support beyond symbolism for laws that would actually make those changes is highly variable.

The following are, nominally speaking, members of the LGBT Equality Caucus. But in practice, they haven’t taken the effort to support any more than a quarter of the LGBT policy slate this year. These are the weakest members of the caucus:

Rep. Xavier Becerra of California supports just 3 out of 12 pro-LGBT bills. Bills to which Rep. Becerra has failed to lend his support: H.R. 1616, H.R. 1913, H.R. 2262, H.R. 2625, H.R. 2709, H.R. 3017, H.Con.Res. 92, H.Res. 308, and H.Res. 433

Rep. Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts supports just 3 out of 12 pro-LGBT bills. Bills that Rep. Tsongas has not lent support to: H.R. 1616, H.R. 1913, H.R. 2262, H.R. 2517, H.R. 2625, H.R. 2709, H.Con.Res. 92, H.Res. 308 and H.Res. 433

Rep. Edolphus “Ed” Towns of New York supports just 3 out of 12 pro-LGBT bills. Bills to which Rep. Towns has failed to lend his support: H.R. 1913, H.R. 2262, H.R. 2517, H.R. 2625, H.R. 2709, H.R. 3017, H.Con.Res. 92, H.Res. 308, and H.Res. 433

Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania supports just 3 out of 12 pro-LGBT bills. Bills that Rep. Murphy has not lent support to: H.R. 1024, H.R. 1616, H.R. 2262, H.R. 2517, H.R. 2625, H.R. 2709, H.Con.Res. 92, H.Res. 308, and H.Res. 433

Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California supports just 2 out of 12 pro-LGBT bills. Bills to which Rep. Tauscher has failed to lend support: H.R. 1616, H.R. 1913, H.R. 2262, H.R. 2517, H.R. 2625, H.R. 2709, H.R. 3017, H.Con.Res. 92, H.Res. 308, and H.Res. 433

Ellen Tauscher has some excuse for her meager legislative performance; knowing that she was to be appointed as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (a post she’ll be taking up next week), perhaps she has focused more on her future job than the one she was actually elected to. But what are these other four members of Congress thinking? Why did they even bother to sign up as members of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the first place? Did they think that nobody would notice their actual performance?

If you find that your representative is on this list of underperforming members of the LGBT Equality Caucus, then review the caucus’ slate of legislation for yourself. Find the bills you think are especially important (this is essential; we’ve found we don’t agree with all of the bills ourselves). Then click on your representative’s name to get his or her contact information and make a call to advocate for a little more consistency in Washington, DC.

On Friday, I wrote about the introduction of H.R. 3017, a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 117 members of the House of Representatives had supported the bill with their cosponsorships. Later that day, the following representatives added their support to the bill:

John Adler
Gabrielle Giffords
Rick Larsen
Michael McMahon
Brad Miller
Bill Pascrell
Robert Scott
Lynn Woolsey

In these days of frequent, positive depictions of homosexuality in popular media, it might seem that the USA is moving beyond discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals. Yet, it’s still legal for people to be fired from their jobs for no other reason than that they aren’t heterosexual. Media depictions don’t create equality. Legislation does.

Two days ago, legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives that would end job discrimination based upon sexual orientation. It’s H.R. 3017, and it has 117 cosponsors, in addition to its author, Barney Frank.

In these days of economic recession, with unemployment figures at new highs, it’s outrageous that capable American workers can be thrown out of their jobs just because of the way that they prefer to get sexual pleasure in their private time. Make sure that your U.S. Representative is on the list of cosponsors. I’ve uploaded a quick page of cosponsors - because the bill is so new that there is not yet a permanent link to the list of cosponsors at the Library of Congress. Check the list, and if your representative is not there, make a telephone call asking why - (202) 224-3121.

In spite of all the talk from President Obama and Democrats in Congress about how they are “committed” to overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which legalizes inequality in order to discriminate against same-sex couples, there isn’t actually one single piece of legislation that would overturn the law. The President hasn’t sent legislation to Congress. Congress hasn’t written legislation.

So, how can the President and congressional Democrats say that they’re “committed” to overturning the Defense of Marriage Act? Maybe it’s in the same sense that same-sex couples are allowed to say that they’re committed to each other in private, but can’t make an official, public act of commitment in the same way that heterosexual couples can.

It doesn’t really take that much commitment for the President, or someone in Congress, to write legislation. All they have to do is assign an aide to sit down and write it for them, and do the required paperwork. Politicians in Washington D.C. write legislation all the time, for small matters as well as grand ideas.

For example, yesterday, Senator David Vitter introduced a resolution to designate March 31, 2010, as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Day. (Can you come up with some ideas for how to celebrate that holiday?) If Vitter can take time to write the National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Day resolution, Democrats in Congress and Barack Obama can take the time to write a bill overturning the Defense of Marriage Act…

…unless they’re not as committed as they say they are.

“The bottom line is that he lied under a different oath -the oath to his wife.” — Republican Congressman Marshall Clement “Mark” Sanford on politics and the sanctity of marriage, 1998

Question: “Should South Carolina restrict marriage to a union only between a man and a woman?” Answer: “Yes” — Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Mark Sanford, 2002 Vote Smart Political Courage Test

Question: “Should South Carolina recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?” Answer: “No” — Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Mark Sanford, 2002 Vote Smart Political Courage Test

Question: “Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding education… Support age-appropriate sexual education programs that teach about abstinence, contraceptives and HIV/STD prevention methods?” Answer: “No” — Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Mark Sanford, 2002 Vote Smart Political Courage Test

“Yes” — 1996 Vote on H.R. 3396, the “Defense of Marriage Act”, “to define and protect the institution of marriage” and to mandate that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

“Yes” — 1999 Vote on H.R. 2587, a bill banning adoptions by same-sex couples.

“As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we’ve always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman. As governor, I am supportive of legislation that furthers that definition here in South Carolina.” — Republican Governor Mark Sanford to the Post and Courier, February 2004

“He’s always felt marriage is between a man and a woman.” — Spokesman for Republican Governor Mark Sanford, April 2005

Question: “Do you think the Republican party should become more libertarian on the issue of gay marriage?” Answer: “No, I don’t.” — Republican Governor Mark Sanford, June 12 2009

“I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details…” — Republican Governor Mark Sanford, July 2008, in an e-mail to his mistress

Today I intended to scoot down the block to Columbus Pride 2009 in order to interview the folks down at the Skreened booth. Skreened, a national print-on-demand outlet for ethically-made t-shirts, centers its production here in Columbus, Ohio and not only features t-shirts for local LGBT organizer Stonewall Columbus but also is participating in the Columbus Pride 2009 festival with a booth full of gay and lesbian-themed shirts. I thought it would be fun to chat with the folks there, take a few pictures, and feature links to the most clever shirts along with some discussion of Skreened’s relationship to social change.

That was the plan, but in over an hour of walking about under the hot sun looking for that Skreened booth, I didn’t find it. That doesn’t mean Skreened wasn’t there; it is, rather, a testament to the scale of the Columbus Pride event in 2009.

A fair chunk of space of the Columbus Pride 2009 festival was taken for celebration with music, food or merchandise. Everything from mesh shirts to rainbow leashes and doggie shirts proclaiming “I Have 2 Mommies” could be found in the shade of one tent or another. But I was startled by the size of the activist presence at this event. There were organizations that advocated for queer issues particularly, and the predominant issue occupying available literature, petitions and calling lists was that of same-sex marriage. But there were groups with a broader mandate that made a presence at the pride festival, too. The ACLU was there. The Libertarian Party had a presence, too.

And then there was the booth of Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. When I saw her booth, I thought that her office would have been there in some voter registration effort, or as a way of spreading the word about nondiscrimination laws in Ohio. But as I checked her booth out, I noticed that the prevalence of campaign materials; Jennifer Brunner is running for the United States Senate. Brunner’s twitter account (”yes,” she writes, “it is really me”) and campaign blog confirm that this was a campaign event for Jennifer Brunner for Senate.

Consider who we Ohioans had for a Secretary of State just a few years ago — the Bible-thumping Ken Blackwell — and this is an astonishing shift. Just two years ago, it seemed that same-sex marriage was a no-touch issue for Democrats and a winner for Republicans. Now we have a candidate for the United States Senate in the supposedly culturally conservative state of Ohio campaigning with an explicit platform plank of marriage equality:

I support Marriage Equality as a matter of civil rights. Civil rights, including marriage, for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals are human rights. LGBT people must be ensured their basic equal rights, so that they can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

But Jennifer Brunner hasn’t stopped there. She very clearly isn’t just giving a ritual nod to same-sex marriage (and how interesting that support for same-sex marriage could even be considered a “ritual nod” now). She’s written a paragraphs-long essay that goes beyond a tepid position to declare boldly, “What’s there to ‘Get’ about Marriage Equality?”. Brunner writes:

I have trouble getting past the fact that it has to be so complicated for people in same-sex couples. Questions such as “Can we file our taxes as married?” and “Should we register as domestic partners in multiple jurisdictions?” and “How do survivor benefits for domestic partnership benefits work?” to “Marriage for Same-sex Couples: Considerations for Employers,” leave my head spinning. And this is all about who you decide to love and commit yourself to. Why is it different for some people when civil rights and the protection of individual freedoms are the bedrock of the most special democracy in the history of the world?

…The founding document of the American Revolution leading to the birth of the United States contains the basic tenet that each person is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For LGBT couples, the right to marry is elemental. It is time to make that right available to all American couples, whether they are heterosexual or same-sex. This is a family values issue.

For those LGBT couples who have children, the problems become even greater without the right of marriage. As the number of LGBT-headed families continues to increase, so does the necessity for marriage equality for them and their children.

Marriage equality is critical for stable families and the welfare of children in changing social environments. When the commitment and rights of marriage are not available to a couple facing difficult times, an unexpected breakup or death can shatter an LGBT family, leaving not just the partners, but also the children, vulnerable and at risk of even greater emotional, social and financial loss.

Custody issues for LGBT couples with children but without marriage are fraught with uncertainty. Jurisdictional differences, the respective starting points of the parties (was one member of the couple coming out of a heterosexual relationship?), attitudes of some judges toward LGBT individuals and whether the parent is biological or adoptive often affect the outcome.

…I continue to simmer when I think of the recent legislative and constitutional amendments specifically denying equal rights to LGBT citizens that were initiated by political operatives to stoke the fires of hatred and division among ordinary citizens who would otherwise be living without this heightened and unnecessary rancor and dissension. I continue to simmer as I recognize that these actions were initiated primarily for the purpose of retaining power by a small group of people who have hurt many innocents, LGBT and straight alike, for their selfish and greedy purposes. We have not benefited from this, and it is time for marriage equality to be available to all, straight or LGBT. We are a community, and in these times, we must support and depend on each other as people do in a real community.

In a state said to be an electoral barometer, this not only forthright but clearly impassioned advocacy for same-sex marriage is both notable and commendable. If Brunner succeeds at winning a seat in the U.S. Senate from Ohio with such a clear statement on the subject of same-sex marriage, she’ll have a mandate to push for change as one of 100; her victory will be a clear signal for similarly-minded, perhaps meeker candidates that it really is all right to advocate for equality in America.to

November 2003: Massachusetts Supreme Court declares the validity of same-sex marriage. Without noticing, Senator John Ensign stops telling his wife she looks pretty in the morning.

February 2004: San Francisco begins to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Senator Ensign asks a staffer on a date. She demurs. After declaring his opposition to same-sex marriage, Ensign loses interest in other women and begins sending his wife flowers every week.

May 2004: Same-sex marriages begin in Massachusetts. The flowers stop.

August 2004: California Supreme Court rules same-sex marriages in San Francisco are invalid. More flowers for Mrs. Ensign, plus a weekend trip together to Majorca.

2005: Smooches.

June 2006: John Ensign votes for Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Regular smooching escalates to heavy petting and a renewal of vows with Mrs. Ensign.

June 2007: Massachusetts legislature prevents a gay marriage ban from being placed on the ballot. Senator and Mrs. Ensign begin to squabble over finances and the kids.

August 2007: Iowa judge rules that Polk County must allow same-sex marriage licenses to be issued. John Ensign begins sleeping on the couch and spends more evenings at the office.

September 2007: Maryland Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry. Senator Ensign tells his wife that he is the new Chairman of the nonexistent Select Committee on Philately; supposedly attending “markup meetings,” Ensign begins to date campaign staffer.

April 2008: Concerned Women of America mounts a rally against gay marriage in Oklahoma City. Senator Ensign tells his mistress he can’t keep living a lie. She runs from his arms with tears in her eyes. John Ensign tells his wife the Philately Committee has been disbanded.

May 2008: California Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage to be legal and valid. Senator Ensign and his mistress passionately reunite after he tells Mrs. Ensign he’s going on an extended Delta-region fact-finding mission.

June 2008: Same-sex marriages in California begin. Senator Ensign and his mistress welcome a dog and a flock of ducks to their bachannals.

August 2008: A hiatus in extramarital sex. (No sex after Labor Day in Nevada)

May 2009: Blackmail

June 2009: Contrition

Newt Gingrich for President and John Ensign for Vice President in 2012: it’s the choice ticket, a perfect representation of Republican moral values in statement and in practice.

There’s synergy in the pairing: I mean, they could cheat on each other’s wives with each other’s wives! It would save them time that they could otherwise spend explaining to us how the rest of America’s marriages should be arranged. How handy for them.

“I wouldn’t put myself hopefully in that kind of position, but if I was in a position like that, that’s what I would do.” — Senator John Ensign, August 30 2007, considering whether Senator Larry Craig should resign for having extramarital sex.

“I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it’s because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through.” — Senator John Ensign, September 27 2007, calling on President Bill Clinton to resign for having had extramarital sex.

“I am committed to my service in the United States Senate, and my work on behalf of the people of Nevada. I will not be taking any questions.” — Senator John Ensign, June 16 2009, explaining why he will not resign after admitting an extended affair of extramarital sex from December 2007 to August 2008.

Tonight, the Washington Post reports the good news that a significant hurdle to the legalization of same-sex marriage has been cleared in Washington, D.C. The district’s Board of Elections and Ethics has ruled that it would be illegal for a ballot proposition to be held that could result in the homosexual residents being deprived of legal rights. It’s clear law in Washington D.C. that ballot initiatives cannot be used to establish discrimination against a minority by the majority of voters.

Anti-equality groups had been rallying behind the idea of a ballot proposition as a way to block a district council vote later this year on legalizing same-sex marriage. It is anticipated that the vote will be in favor of legalization. Even before then, a court ruling will go into effect, requiring district government to honor the legitimacy of same-sex marriages performed in the growing parts of the United States where such marriages are legal.

Sadly, such cases are not set to go into effect in other states any time soon. The result is a patchwork of free marriage states and restricted marriage states, which makes it possible for a married couple to set out from their home, cross a state border and suddenly not be married any more, continue across the country and become married again, only to lose their married status again before reaching the opposite coast. Some people say this approach protects the integrity of marriage. I say that’s hogwash. It’s an irrational, unconstitutional and just plain unworkable system that ought to remind literate Americans of the crazy states’ rights arrangement that created a patchwork United States before the Civil War.

The Constitution of the United States is clear on issues like this. No inequality under the law is permitted. The Constitution applies everywhere within US borders, not just within states that choose to pay attention to the Constitution’s requirements.

Yet, Barack Obama continues to insist, like Dick Cheney, that states should retain the power to deny citizens’ rights. That’s why Obama sent his lawyers to court last week to demand that lawsuits against the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act be stopped. Obama’s team engaged in ridiculous arguments, such as the claim that gays and lesbians don’t suffer discrimination, because they have equal rights to marry people of the opposite sex. That’s like saying that slaves weren’t discriminated against, because they were given the same right to work as everyone else.

It’s telling that arguments against legal recognition of same-sex marriage have devolved into such absurd, desperate contortions. It’s delusional for anyone to claim anymore that marriage is a state that can only exist between a man and a woman. Several states now have laws providing for same-sex marriage. Secular and religious traditions of same-sex marriage have been in place for at least a generation. Even Joseph Bruno, the Republican former majority leader of the New York State Senate, has changed his mind on this issue. Yesterday, Bruno declared,

“This is America and we have unalienable rights. Let everyone decide how to pursue their own happiness. I understand that this issue stirs great passion in many people … However, my instincts tell me that homosexuals who wish to enter into the union of marriage are just like the rest of us and they ought to be free to enter into it.”

Instead of continuing to stand with extremist elements to the right of reasonable Republicans like Bruno, Barack Obama ought to listen to the wisdom of the Washington D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. Legislation that seeks to deny American citizens of equal protection under the law, whether it’s a state-level ballot proposition or a federal law like the Defense of Marriage Act, is illegitimate.

The consensus in favor of recognizing same-sex marriages is rapidly expanding. President Obama is on the wrong side of a significant historical shift, and the time is running out for him to make a plausible self-correction, and show respect for the mandate of equality and the authority of the Constitution.

I wrote with hope yesterday morning about the possibility that New York State Senator David Valesky might change his position on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage from opposition to support. This morning, that hope has turned to tatters.

Two Democratic Party senators, Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada (who has been accused of not even living in his senate district), supported a Republican effort yesterday to oust the senate’s Democratic leadership and replace it with a Republican one. Monserrate and Espada are still Democrats, but they’re voting with the Republicans to help the Republicans run the show.

Why did they make this switch, betraying their own political party? Monserrate and Espada are opponents of marriage equality, and it’s become increasingly clear that the majority of New York state senators would vote to legalize same-sex marriage. Monserrate and Espada think that the integrity of the Democratic Party matters less than denying homosexual residents of New York State equal rights. So, a new majority has been achieved in the senate, not of Democrats, not of Republicans, but of bigots.

With angry state Democratic politicians making acting like this, just in order to deny people their rights, what does it mean to be a New York State Democrat any more? It would be great to see a third party in New York State organize as a progressive alternative to the disintegrating Democrats.

In New York State, the drive to pass marriage equality legislation is bearing good fruit. It isn’t just moving toward legislative success, with passage in the state Assembly, and a vote to come this month in the state Senate. The movement is also breaking open public discussions of the status of non-heterosexuals in New York. People are talking about ideas in a new way, and hearing voices they hadn’t paid attention to before.

Those people include politicians. Last week, I referred to a group of five Democrats in the New York State Senate who were planning to vote against equal marriage rights. This week, it appears that one of those Democrats may be peeling away from that group of resistance. David Valesky has stated that he’s changed from opposition to open consideration of marriage equality.

The reason for this change? He’s met with constituents who are being discriminated against by New York’s current, outdated marriage restrictions. Valesky is seeing these people in person, as they are, not the freaks he might otherwise imagine them to be. One can see by his statements that Senator Valesky is also learning to understand the debate not as about granting rights to same-sex couples, but as a matter of equality, in which the rights people already have need to be respected in the law.

Activism in favor of same sex marriage seems to be working. Keep it up, New York.

John Stracke makes an excellent point in the Diaries: Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas makes a big deal about restricting women’s right to end a pregnancy; even well before an embryo has any cognition or heart beat, Sessions has voted for “equal protection” legislation that would make aborting such an embryo legally tantamount to murder. And yet Rep. Sessions has been unwilling to vote for legislation that would give federal employees a mere four weeks to spend with their newly born babies.

Stracke writes:

Yesterday the House voted to grant federal employees four weeks of paid parental leave. If it becomes law, that means a baby born to one or more federal employees will have four weeks of extra attention, four weeks when their parent(s) will be able to get up in the night without worrying about being a wreck at work in the morning, four weeks of bonding, maybe four weeks of breastfeeding…. he favors creating unwanted babies, but he’s unwilling to spend a few dollars to help them grow up sane and healthy.

Since its re-registration as an official Congressional Member Organization of the 111th Congress, the LGBT Equality Caucus has expanded, welcoming additional members Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Steve Israel of New York and Chellie Pingree of Maine. The caucus boasts 79 members now, nearly one out of five members of the House of Representatives. By the numbers this should be an imposing legislative bloc, but not all 79 members of the LGBT Equality Caucus are fully on board with the program of actual LGBT Equality, muting the caucus’ effect.

Let’s take a look at support within the caucus for four bills currently before the 111th Congress:

1. H.R. 1024, a bill to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in immigration law. Foreigners heterosexually married to citizens have a special priority in gaining immigration, one legally unavailable to same-sex couples. The Uniting American Families Act would end this status discrimination by amending various the immigration laws that discriminate against same-sex couples when one member of a couple is a citizen or permanent resident and the other is seeking citizenship or residency status.

2. H.R. 1283, a bill to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of official discrimination against gays and lesbian in the military, the one that supposes American soldiers can stand up to enemy bullets and bombs but faint at the idea of fairies in the flight corps.

3. H.R. 2517, a bill to provide federal spousal benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.

4. H.Res. 433, a symbolic bill to recognize and commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall social movement.

Complete Cosponsors: The following members of the LGBT Equality Caucus have sponsored or cosponsored each one of the four gay-friendly index bills before the 111th Congress. If one of these members is your representative, call with sincere, hearty thanks for his or her diligence:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin. Contact Phone: 608-258-9800
Rep. Shelley Berkley. Contact Phone: 702-220-9823
Rep. Susan Davis. Contact Phone: 619-280-5353
Rep. William Delahunt. Contact Phone: 800-870-2626
Rep. Keith Ellison. Contact Phone: 612-522-1212
Rep. Barney Frank. Contact Phone: 508-999-6462
Rep. Raul Grijalva. Contact Phone: 520-622-6788
Rep. Luis Gutierrez. Contact Phone: 773-342-0774
Rep. Alcee Hastings. Contact Phone: 561-684-0565
Rep. Rush Holt. Contact Phone: 609-750-9365
Rep. Steve Israel. Contact Phone: 631-951-2210
Rep. Doris Matsui. Contact Phone: 916-498-5600
Rep. James Moran. Contact Phone: 703-971-4700
Rep. Jerrold Nadler. Contact Phone: 718-373-3198.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. Contact Phone: 202-783-5065
Rep. Jared Polis. Contact Phone: 303-484-9596
Rep. Linda Sanchez. Contact Phone: 562-860-5050
Rep. Janice Schakowsky. Contact Phone: 847-328-3409
Rep. Nydia Velazquez. Contact Phone: 212-673-3997
Rep. Henry Waxman. Contact Phone: 323-651-1040
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Contact Phone: 954-437-3936

One Bill Unsupported: The following members of the LGBT Equality Caucus are on record supporting most of the gay-friendly slate of bills, but there’s one piece of the agenda on which they’re silent. Is your representative on this list? Make a call today and ask for that one more sign of support.

Rep. Howard Berman. Contact Phone: 818-994-7200. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Lois Capps. Contact Phone: 805-546-8348. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Michael Capuano. Contact Phone: 617-621-6208. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Andre Carson. Contact Phone: 317-283-6516. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Yvette Clarke. Contact Phone: 718-287-1142. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Joseph Crowley. Contact Phone: 718-320-2314. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Peter DeFazio. Contact Phone: 541-440-3523. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Diana DeGette. Contact Phone: 303-844-4988. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Eliot Engel. Contact Phone: 718-796-9700. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Anna Eshoo. Contact Phone: 650-323-2984. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Bob Filner. Contact Phone: 619-422-5963. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Jane Harman. Contact Phone: 310-549-8282. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Contact Phone: 216-228-8850. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Nita Lowey. Contact Phone: 914-428-1707. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Contact Phone: 718-932-1804. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Jim McDermott. Contact Phone: 206-553-7170. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. James McGovern. Contact Phone: 508-460-9292. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Mike Quigley. Contact Phone: 773-267-5926. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024
Rep. Steven Rothman. Contact Phone: 201-646-0808. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Jose Serrano. Contact Phone: 718-620-0084. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Brad Sherman. Contact Phone: 818-501-9200. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Pete Stark. Contact Phone: 510-494-1388. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Betty Sutton. Contact Phone: 330-865-8450. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Anthony Weiner. Contact Phone: 718-743-0441. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Peter Welch. Contact Phone: 888-605-7270. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Robert Wexler. Contact Phone: 561-988-6302. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. Lynn Woolsey. Contact Phone: 707-542-7182. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433
Rep. David Wu. Contact Phone: 800-422-4003. Uncosponsored: H.Res. 433

Two Bills Unsupported: These members of the LGBT Equality Caucus are only half there when it comes to LGBT rights, supporting just two out of the four bills that mark friendship to the cause of same-sex equality. Get on the horn and ask these folks to step up:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie. Contact Phone: 808-541-2570. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Timothy Bishop. Contact Phone: 631-696-6500. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Earl Blumenauer. Contact Phone: 503-231-2300. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Rosa DeLauro. Contact Phone: 203-562-3718. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Phil Hare. Contact Phone: 309-793-5760. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Mazie Hirono. Contact Phone: 808-541-1986. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Michael Honda. Contact Phone: 408-558-8085. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee. Contact Phone: 713-227-7740. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. Contact Phone: 214-922-8885. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Contact Phone: 401-729-5600. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.Res. 433
Rep. Barbara Lee. Contact Phone: 510-763-0370. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. John Lewis. Contact Phone: 404-659-0116. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Zoe Lofgren. Contact Phone: 408-271-8700. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.Res. 433
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. Contact Phone: 516-739-3008. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Bill Pascrell. Contact Phone: 973-523-5152. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Chellie Pingree. Contact Phone: 207-774-5019. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Contact Phone: 305-668-2285. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.Res. 433
Rep. Joe Sestak. Contact Phone: 610-892-8623. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.Res. 433
Rep. Jackie Speier. Contact Phone: 650-342-0300. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Ellen Tauscher. Contact Phone: 707-428-7792. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Edolphus Towns. Contact Phone: 718-272-1175. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Niki Tsongas. Contact Phone: 978-681-6200. Uncosponsored: H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433

Three Bills Unsupported: Oh, really now. These members of Congress may call themselves members of the LGBT Equality Caucus. They may say they support equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. But they’re all talk. When it comes to action, they might as well sign up for the Moral Majority Caucus, because they’re pretty darned inactive. If the following Representatives wish to keep some semblance of standing with the queer community, they’d better do better than this. Pick up your phone today and ask what gives. Then let them know, with specificity, which bills they ought to be supporting.:

Rep. Robert Andrews. Contact Phone: 856-546-5100. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Xavier Becerra. Contact Phone: 213-483-1425. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1283, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Robert Brady. Contact Phone: 610-874-7094. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Kathy Castor. Contact Phone: 813-871-2817. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Charles Gonzalez. Contact Phone: 210-472-6195. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy. Contact Phone: 614-294-2196. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Patrick Murphy. Contact Phone: 215-826-1963. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433
Rep. Frank Pallone. Contact Phone: 732-249-8892. Uncosponsored: H.R. 1024, H.R. 2517, H.Res. 433

Newness to the Congress is no excuse. Mike Quigley was just elected to Congress in a special election in the middle of last month, and he’s on board with the LGBT Equality agenda to an impressive extent. On the other hand, my representative for the 15th District of Ohio, Mary Jo Kilroy, is in that last list. What a disappointment.