Lesbian couple, Nancy Pelosi, 'Jersey Boys': a White House Columbus Day dinner

When President Bush gave a black-tie dinner Monday night for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the guest list included Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, and her longtime partner, Heather Poe.

It raised this question: What is the proper notation of their relationship on the guest list?

The Washington Blade, which reports on the capital's gay and lesbian community, noted today:

The wives or husbands of dozens of U.S. government officials and diplomats attending the dinner, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her husband Paul Pelosi, were identified as a 'spouse.'

But the list identified Poe as the 'guest' of Mary Cheney, just as it identified all other attendees who were accompanied by friends rather than married spouses.

Now that Connecticut has joined Massachusetts and California in legalizing same-sex marriage, the question of how married or partnered gay couples should be described in formal affairs such as White House dinners is likely to resurface.

It's a difficult question for the White House.

As Countdown to Crawford noted last week when the Connecticut decision came down, "for more than four years, the Bush White House has run against any changes in the law that would allow gay Americans -- even his vice president's daughter -- to marry."

Speaking of the speaker, who was seated next to Berlusconi, the Columbus Day dinner proved that politics makes for interesting dinner companions.

Only hours earlier, Pelosi had set the Democrats on an economic path diverging from that favored by the White House. She called for a new stimulus package to the tune of $150 billion, setting up a likely end-of-term clash with Bush and congressional Republicans.

But the dinner itself suggested international accord: Maine lobster fondue, artichoke and reggiano cheese ravioli, lamb with crispy eggplant and Swiss chard, chocolate napoleons and Russian River cuvee.

The entertainment? The cast of "Jersey Boys."

Frankie Valli of the Four Seasons -- the real Jersey Boys from Newark (which, as anyone from Newark knows, is pronounced Nerk)-- yucked it up with the president afterward on stage.

-- James Gerstenzang

Top photo: Heather Poe and Mary Cheney. Credit: Damon Winter / Los Angeles Times.

Bottom photo: Nancy Pelosi and Silvio Berlusconi. Credit: Aude Guerrucci / EPA / Pool

Bush the last president to run against gay rights?

For more than four years, the Bush White House has run against any changes in the law that would allow gay Americans -- even his vice president's daughter -- to marry.

Under the guidance of political maestro Karl Rove, George W. Bush even ran against gay rights in his 2004 reelection bid. The strategy: push a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and thereby stir the base of evangelicals to the polls. It worked.

Four years later, the climate has changed. Both Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, while not embracing the still-politically-radioactive concept of gay marriage, support rights.

Obama and his running mate Joe Biden back civil unions, along with spousal visits in hospitals, insurance benefits as partners, and rights of inheritance and adoption. At some political cost, McCain voted against the Bush administration's proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, arguing that states, not judges or the federal government, should make these decisions. He also has signaled his support for legislation (an earlier version of this post said he supports the bill) to ban workplace discrimination against gays. Both presidential campaigns have reached out to gay Americans, seeking their votes. Even Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, an evangelical, sounds inclusive toward gays. "No one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed," she said during the vice presidential debate. That's one reason the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay Republican organization, which did not endorse Bush four years ago, are backing McCain-Palin this year.

But Bush remains passionately opposed to any movement on the issue.

Friday, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriages was illegal, putting that state in concert with decisions in Vermont, where gay unions are legal, and in California and Massachusetts, which allow gay marriages.

Vermont is the only state Bush has not visited as president, perhaps because several cities have warrants out for his arrest on war crimes. As for Massachusetts and California, well, from a Republican point of view, enough said. Bluer than blue. Template for liberal.

Now comes Connecticut, home to hedge fund operators and home design queen Martha Stewart. Could that state be the tipping point?

The White House rose to object.

"President Bush has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," said Karl Zinsmeister, a domestic policy advisor. "President Bush remains firmly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage."

In a statement issued from South Carolina, where the president was traveling, Zinsmeister also said:

It’s unfortunate that activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order –- without regard for the will of the people. Today’s decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment may be needed if the people are to decide what marriage means.

Asked to respond, Patrick Sammon, president of Log Cabin Republicans, told Countdown to Crawford:

It's unfortunate but not surprising that the Bush administration is once again talking about a federal constitutional amendment. Of course, it has no chance of going anywhere. Times have changed a lot in a short period of time. Never again will a presidential candidate make the assessment that they may be able to benefit politically by using gay and lesbian people as a divisive wedge issue. The Bush administration was wrong on the marriage amendment in 2004. And they're wrong today.

Noting that even among GOP convention delegates in St. Paul, a CBS poll found 49% support for civil unions, Sammon added: "Momentum is on our side."

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Tom Olmscheid/Associated Press captures scene at the state Capitol in St. Paul, Minn., on March 21, 2006, when hundreds of demonstrators rallied against gay marriage.

Social Security benefits for son of lesbian couple? Justice Department says yes.

The Social Security Administration -- not the most controversial of federal agencies unless a monthly check goes missing -- may have stirred up a new round of controversy for the Bush administration in its closing days, in conjunction with the Justice Department.

In a little-noticed move, Social Security lawyers sought a ruling from the Justice Department on this question: Are the offspring of same-sex couples entitled to benefits from a non-biological parent,  or are the benefits prevented by the Defense of Marriage Act? Under the law, which drew protesters to the Supreme Court when the Senate passed it in 1996, same-sex couples may not receive federal benefits.

The Washington Post editorial page noticed the ruling that came down from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel: Elijah, the son of a couple identified as Karen and Monique, did indeed have a right to such benefits.

The Post summarized the ruling this way:

The OLC's deputy, Steven A. Engel, wrote in the opinion that the Defense of Marriage Act has no bearing on Social Security benefits for children. "Although DOMA limits the definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse' for purposes of federal law, the Social Security Act does not condition eligibility for [child insurance benefits] on the existence of a marriage or on the federal rights of a spouse in the circumstances of this case," Mr. Engel wrote. Instead, the Social Security Act looks at whether the law in the state in which the parties reside recognizes the minor as the child of the adult in question. Vermont law deemed Elijah to be Karen's child, thus entitling him to an inheritance if Karen died without a will. That parent-child relationship, Mr. Engel found, also entitles Elijah to Social Security benefits linked to Karen's disability.

What makes the ruling all the more interesting is this: The Justice Department office has developed a reputation for putting ideology ahead of the rule of law, the Post noted.

--James Gerstenzang

Photo: Stephen Jaffe/Reuters