Obama, Boehner -- Deal? No deal?

Obama administration has informed Democratic Congressional leaders that President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner were starting to close in on a major budget deal that would enact substantial spending cuts and seek future revenues through a tax overhaul, Congressional officials said Thursday.

With the government staring at a potential default in less than two weeks, the officials said the administration on Wednesday night notified top members of Congress that an agreement between the president and Mr. Boehner could be imminent. The Congressional leaders, whose help Mr. Obama would need to bring a compromise forward, were told that the new revenue tied to the looming agreement to increase the debt limit by Aug. 2 would be produced in 2012 through a tax code rewrite that would lower individual and corporate rates, close loopholes, end tax breaks and make other adjustments to produce revenue gains.

Officials knowledgeable about the conversations between the administration and Congressional leaders said the details of the potential package remained unknown but they presumed it would include cuts and adjustments in most federal programs, including Medicare.

However, officials on all sides of the tense negotiations warned that no firm deal was in hand yet, and tried to play down the progress — if only to stave off attempts to block it or influence its shape by hardliners on both sides of the debate on taxes and spending.

“While we are keeping the lines of communication open, there is no ‘deal’ and no progress to report,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner.

The White House denied that any deal is imminent. Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said that "there is no deal. We are not close to a deal.

Carney also said there are no meetings scheduled between Obama and any other congressional leaders, but that could change.

"As you know,"' Carney said, "this is a fluid situation."

The Times is reporting that "the Obama administration has informed Democratic Congressional leaders that President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner were starting to close in on a major budget deal that would enact substantial spending cuts and seek future revenues through a tax overhaul, Congressional officials said Thursday."

In his tweet, Boehner urged the Senate to sign off on the House Republican plan known as "Cut, Cap, and Balance."

That is not expected to happen, as the Democrats who control the Senate say the House plan cuts too much from middle class programs and does not include new tax revenues. They also oppose the bill's proposed balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Obama met late Wednesday with Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; none of the parties commented afterward.

All sides said they are continuing to talk.

"While we are keeping the lines of communication open, there is no 'deal' and no progress to report," said Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck. "We are still focused on the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' bill that passed the House with bipartisan support, and hope the Senate will take it up as soon as possible.

Wildflower Inn Sued Over Refusal to Host Gay Wedding

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Two New York women say a Vermont inn refused to host their wedding reception because of the owners' anti-gay bias. The couple is now suing, alleging discrimination under the state's public accommodations law.

Kate Baker and Ming Linsley say they were turned away by the Wildflower Inn, a 24-room inn in Lyndonville, when they told the inn the wedding would have two brides but no groom.

A woman who answered the telephone at the Wildflower Inn said the owners weren't taking calls on the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union's Vermont chapter filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Caledonia Superior Court. It says the inn violated the state Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which bars public accommodations from denying services to people based on sexual orientation.

Mother-of-the-bride Channie Peters set about trying to find a place to hold a wedding reception. With help from the Vermont Convention Bureau, Peters received an email from the meetings and events director of the Wildflower Inn that read in part "the Wildflower Inn would be the perfect location ..." and continued "You could not offer a better "destination wedding" location for your guests." But when Peters mentioned there would be a "bride and bride" instead of a "bride and groom," she received an email with the subject line: "I have bad news," and that's when the O'Reilly's alleged policy against holding gay receptions at their inn came to light.

Linsley and Baker, who both live and work in New York City, said they wanted to proceed with the lawsuit because up until last October, they said they hadn't experienced much discrimination as a same-sex couple. "People before us have stood up and spoken out" to fight for their rights, said Linsley. And Linsley and Baker wanted to do the same. "It is hurtful to see that we are less welcome than the family dog," said Linsley.

Calls to the O'Reilly's home in Vermont were not returned. And a woman who answered the phone at the Wildflower Inn said she could not comment on the lawsuit. The inn updated its website today to say it is "no longer hosting weddings or special events."

The lawsuit's allegations are particularly jarring, given that Vermont is known as one of the most liberal states in the country. The Green Mountain State has allowed civil unions between same sex couples since 2000, and gay marriage has been legal since 2009. Tourism is one of Vermont's main industries, and gay-marriage related business has been brisk.

The O'Reillys have 20 days to file a response to the allegations. The ACLU's Barrett believes he has a solid case. "We understand this to be a policy of the owners. We understand that this has happened to other potential customers," he said, adding that his clients are asking for a declaratory judgment, which means they want the court to declare that what happened to them was illegal.

Despite their experience at the Wildflower Inn, the couple did find a place to host their wedding reception, and the ceremony will take place this fall.

Obama supports effort to repeal gay marriage ban

President Obama has endorsed a new bill by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, another step in what the president has termed his "evolving" views on same-sex marriage.

The president has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people — our families, friends and neighbors," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday. "He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act."

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they were disappointed, but not surprised. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.

"There is zero chance that Congress is going to repeal [the law] anytime soon, so this is primarily political theatrics on President Obama's part," said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, an advocacy group that opposes gay marriage.

The announcement is one of the president's bolder moves regarding gay marriage. In the past, he has voiced support for civil unions for gay couples, but stopped short of supporting same-sex marriage.

Last year, Obama supported the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Earlier this year, the administration announced it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, though the administration said it would continue to enforce the law unless it was repealed. But Obama subsequently supported the use of discretion by immigration officials in cases of married same-sex couples in which one spouse is undocumented.

We thank the President for his support of the Respect for Marriage Act. He has repeatedly expressed his desire to see the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act repealed and his Justice Department has taken the historic step of ending its defense of that odious law in court. By supporting this legislation, the president continues to demonstrate his commitment to ending federal discrimination against tens of thousands of lawfully married same-sex couples," Solmonese said in a statement.

Tomorrow's hearing will be held just days before a gay marriage law in New York takes effect on Sunday. Those marriages will not be recognized by the federal government because of DOMA.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said the exclusions need to end: "The federal government should not be picking and choosing which marriages it will honor and which it will disregard when it comes to the important federal protections that come with marriage, such as Social Security, health coverage, fair tax treatment, and immigration rights. Congress should follow the president's lead and return the federal government to its traditional practice of honoring all lawful marriages equally – without the 'gay exception' of DOMA.