Openly gay Vermont state Rep. Jason Lorber, a former Victory Fund endorsee, expressed cautious optimism about the prospect of passing marriage equality legislation in the state, despite Gov. Jim Douglas’ declaration that he would veto such a bill.

“We need to just stay focused on getting this bill passed,” Lorber told GayPolitics.com. “We’re certainly disappointed with the governor, but we need to do the right thing. Anytime you try to override a governor it’s a big [challenge] – but I believe we can do it.”

The marriage bill passed Vermont’s Senate by a vote of 26-4. According to Lorber, Douglas’ veto announcement may affect how legislators vote in the House.

“We’re going to pass it resoundingly, but whether we have the veto-proof margin is a different question,” he said. “Now that the governor has inserted himself into the legislative process, he has politicized this question even more than it has been. Now, when members are voting they have to take into calculation the veto — whereas before it would have been a much more pure vote of ‘this is how I feel about it.’”

“That’s disappointing that we couldn’t have that vote initially, just on the merits of the bill.”

Vermont became the first state to pass civil unions legislation in 2000. If the state’s current marriage bill becomes law, Vermont will become first in the nation to gain marriage without the involvement of the court system.

“[Civil unions] reframed the issue across the nation,” Lorber said. “This very far-forward thinking, bold statement that Vermont made in 2000 has become a conservative fallback position. I believe Vermont is now ready to make the next step.”

Lorber mentioned that his own role as an openly gay state legislator has made this debate very personal.

Lorber and his partner are currently in a civil union and are raising a son together.

“This is a very emotional issue,” he said. “It’s hard talking to my colleagues and my friends in the statehouse, many of whom I know are going to vote against this and in doing so vote against me and my family.”

For more information on the Vermont marriage debate, visit Vermont Freedom to Marry.

Corine Mauch has become the first female and first openly lesbian mayor of Zurich, Switzerland.

According to PinkNews, Mauch won by 11,000 votes in an election that followed the surprise resignation of incumbent Elmar Ledergerbert late last year.

UKGayNews reports:

Forty-eight-year-old Corine Mauch has been living with her partner for many years.  In today’s election, the social democrat won against her liberal opponent.

The organisers of EuroPride 09 said in a statement this afternoon that they were “overjoyed by the result of the election and congratulate Corine Mauch on her victory”.

EuroPride said today that the newly elected mayor will deliver a speech at the opening ceremony of the traditional parade together with European Parliament member Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Moldavian human rights activist Mihaela Copot.

‘This is a real stroke of luck for the EuroPride in Zürich,” commented Michael Rüegg, spokesman of the EuroPride.

“None of us really expected that.  The election was held because Corin Mauch’s predecessor went into early retirement.

“It only became known near the end of 2008 that the office would be up for election.”

With the election of Ms. Mauch, Zürich is now in good company.  Paris, Berlin and Hamburg have had openly living gay mayors for some time.  Zürich has now what is believed to be the first openly lesbian mayor among international top cities.

Openly gay congressman Barney Frank defended his characterization of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a homophobe in an article for The Huffington Post today.

Frank, who had previously made the comments in response to a question about the Defense of Marriage Act, asserted that while he believes a person can be both against marriage for same-sex and not homophobic, Scalia’s history has earned him the label.

Frank writes:

My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity. In those two virulent dissents, Justice Scalia denounced the court majorities not simply for finding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation in cases involving political rights and the right to private consensual sex, but he also made it clear that in his view sex discrimination is not only permitted by the Constitution but is very much in society’s interest because homosexuality deserves to be treated with not only disapproval, but legal disability.

This comes out most clearly in his very vigorous abjection to the court’s decision to block a criminal prosecution against two men who had consensual sex in the privacy of their bedroom. And it is made very vivid in the passage in which he affirms society’s right to treat homosexuals unequally by citing other categories which deserves such treatment — beginning with murder.

It is of course possible for reasonable people to differ over what the Constitution requires in these cases. But the point is that Justice Scalia goes far beyond simply denying that there is a constitutional right here and makes clear his support for the discriminatory policies based on his condemnation of homosexuality. This is best illustrated by the contrast between his writing in the criminal sodomy case and that of Justice Thomas, who in disagreeing with his colleague’s view that the Constitution prohibits criminal prosecution for private consensual sex between adults, notes that he believes that the law in question is “remarkably silly” and notes that he would have voted against it if he was in a legislature. So while both Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia are in the minority upholding the right of criminal prosecution, Justice Thomas makes clear his disapproval of this as a matter of policy while Justice Scalia enthusiastically embraces it.

Read the rest of the article here.

President Barack Obama has appointed openly lesbian attorney Emily C. Hewitt  as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the court that hears monetary claims against the government.

Hewitt, who is also an ordained Episcopal priest,was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1998. According to The Advocate, Hewitt has chaired the court’s Rules and Building and Space Committees and served on its Management Committee. In 2006, she was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Financial Disclosure Committee of the United States Judicial Conference, according to a biography released by the White House.

The court’s Web site lists her as married to attorney Eleanor Dean Acheson. She is a native of Baltimore.

In a special three-day session, members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will tackle the issues of marriage equality and transgender rights, in addition to discussing cultural issues such as medicinal marijuana and the death penalty.

The House Judiciary Committee deadlocked, 10-10, on a bill that would allow same-sex couple to marry in the state. Just two years ago, the committee passed a bill that created civil unions.

The Concord Monitor reports:

Backers of the bill call it a simple equal-rights measure; opponents say it’s a dangerous change to an old social institution.

The Judiciary Committee also deadlocked last week 10-10 on a bill that would add an individuals’ transgender status to the state’s nondiscrimination laws, along with other factors such as age, sex, national origin and race.

Proponents say it would prevent landlords and employers from discriminating against those born as one sex but who identify as the other, some of whom seek sex-change procedures. Opponents dubbed it the “bathroom bill” and claimed it would allow men to prowl women’s restrooms.

Both bills will go to the House floor next week, likely Thursday, for what will likely be difficult floor fights.

Neither party has taken a formal position on either bill. Minority Leader Sherm Packard said he expects that the “vast majority of Republicans will be against” both bills. Majority Floor Leader Dan Eaton said the Democratic Party will likely leave those issues up to the consciences of members.

“I think those are issues that relate to an individual’s personal beliefs, religious beliefs,” he said. “Those are conscience issues.”