Several congressmembers who attended last Saturday’s dinner in honor of the The San Diego LGBT Community Center expressed to me their support for issues affecting our community:

Congressmember Bob Filner, who chairs the U.S. House Committee on Veterans, confirmed that he supports extending VA benefits to GLBT veterans who served their country, but lost everything when discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Filner listened as a veteran explained the plight of gay and lesbian soldiers who lost VA benefits as a result of DADT and said he is committed to seeing that those who served their country receive their rightful benefits. He pledged to work with the Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs to seek a change to this injustice.

Congressmember Susan Davis, who received accolades for her comments on the House floor in support of amending federal law to prohibit anti-gay hate crimes and who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, expressed her commitment to repealing DADT.

Assemblymember Laurie Saldana said she will introduce legislation in January that will make it easier for bullied students to seek redress in California courts. After reading my columns about the plight of a bullied teen who had attended Harvard-Westlake Academy, Saldana promised to author law to make legal devices such as mandatory arbitration unavailable in bullying cases. This will prevent schools from keeping bullying cases out of the courts, as Harvard-Westlake attempted to do.

City Councilmember Sherry Lightner reiterated her view that groups seeking to do business with the city should account for how they recruit GLBT individuals. Lightner had raised the issue of diversity in city contracting at a recent council meeting after the city hired a firm specializing in labor law that does not meet the either the city’s Employment Opportunity policy or its Human Dignity Ordinance.

Schwarzenegger chips away at Prop. 8

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Sunday signing of a law to give legal effect to out-of-state same-sex marriages brings us one step closer to chipping away at Proposition 8.

The new law is consistent with the federal Constitution, which requires states to give full faith and credit to sister state actions. The only exception is when doing so would violate a compelling governmental interest. The California Supreme Court held the state simply has no compelling interest in preventing same-sex marriage.

Other states that have approved same-sex marriage laws may now reconsider “residency requirements.” Some states require couples to reside in a state for a period of time before allowing them to marry. So it may be possible for California couples to marry in another state and return to California.

In the meantime, we wait for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down Proposition 8.

The Legislature could still go one step further and allow same-sex couples the right to a “confidential marriage” – a little-known device that allows an unmarried couple to marry without public notoriety. The Legislature designed it so that unmarried heterosexual couples – typically with children – could marry without causing shame to the family.

The “confidential marriage” procedure may be available now to same-sex couples, but I am not aware of any who have tried it. The Legislature should make it available to same-sex couples, especially those who have a child in the family.

No child should be deprived of the right to say that his or her parents are married under California law. Children of same-sex couples deserve equality. .