Connect with us

Local

Md. lawmaker says gay marriage ban ‘not discriminatory’

Published

on

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland state Del. Emmett Burns Jr. (D-Baltimore County) railed against comparisons between LGBT and black civil rights last week during a hearing for his bill that would block recognition of same-sex marriage licenses issued out of state.

Burns claimed that he doesn’t support discrimination, but was tired of same-sex marriage supporters raising the Loving v. Virginia ruling that struck down interracial marriage bans. He said the current ban on same-sex marriage is not the same.

“It is not discriminatory,” he said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 31 in Annapolis. “I cannot hide my color. I don’t want to. I’m proud to be who I am. But those who are of a different sexual orientation could.”

His exchange with fellow Democratic committee members grew testy as they quoted NAACP Chair Julian Bond and U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) as saying the LGBT and black civil rights struggles were shared. Burns dismissed the comments, saying he didn’t recognize their leadership.

Burns said the state faces a crisis with the neighboring District of Columbia poised to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses, a development that could put Maryland’s same-sex marriage ban at risk.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler has given no timeframe for when he will release a long-expected opinion on the issue of recognizing same-sex marriage licenses issued in D.C. and elsewhere, but some sources speculated that he will wait until the legislative session ends in April to take that step. Burns said he feared Gansler’s opinion could legislate same-sex marriage “through the back door.”

“Our back door is wide open,” Burns said. “Our law does not speak to marriages performed in other jurisdictions.”

Committee member Michael Smigiel Sr. (R-Caroline, Cecil, Kent and Queen Anne’s counties) added that he believes Gansler has a political agenda and would act only after the current session had ended.

Gansler’s spokesperson denied the claim this week, saying the attorney general was still investigating the issue.

Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, testified in support of Burns’ bill during the hearing, saying the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages would undermine the right of the General Assembly and the people of Maryland to decide the issue.

“The legalization of same-sex marriage in a small number of other states, and the prospect of its legalization in our neighboring jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, provides no legitimate legal cause for granting recognition in Maryland to those marriages,” Russell said. “House Bill 90 provides an added measure of assurance to the people of Maryland that the decisions of out-of-state courts or legislatures cannot, and should not, provide grounds for usurping the legitimate democratic process in our state for deciding this issue.”

She added that the Catholic Church supports the state’s current marriage definition in recognition that “only a man and a woman are capable of bringing children, our society’s next generation, into the world” and that voters have repeatedly agreed, even in liberal states.

Committee Chair Joseph Vallario Jr. (D-Calvert and Prince George’s counties) asked if gay Marylanders could meet, go to D.C., conduct a “drive through” wedding, return to Maryland and expect that marriage to be recognized “without even leaving their car.”

Lawyers for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union testified that Maryland’s 1973 law defining marriage as one man and one woman would not be undermined if the attorney general upheld the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates recognition of other states’ marriage licenses.

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County) testified against the bill, citing her own California-issued marriage certificate to her spouse Deborah.

“This bill is about me, and it’s about my family, and it’s about thousands of families across the state,” Mizeur said. “In Pasadena, Calif. — 3,000 miles from here — we’re treated as a married couple. In Pasadena, Md. — less than 30 minutes from here — we’re not. In Cambridge, Mass., our marriage would protect us were life to deal us a bad hand. In Cambridge, Md., we’re two unrelated women with some very expensive legal documents and a lot of uncertainty.”

Mizeur said Maryland’s current legal recognition of same-sex couples grants her 12 statutory rights of the 425 rights bestowed upon married couples.

Mizeur said she didn’t know how Gansler would decide the issue, but said that Maryland has a long tradition of upholding the full faith and credit clause and Maryland would eventually change its law, anyway.

“But either way, this bill is wrong,” she said. “It’s a step backwards for a state that presses forward.”

The hearing drew a standing-room-only crowd of mostly same-sex marriage supporters, including high school students, who frequently reacted to Burns’ colorful explanations of why LGBT bans were not discrimination.

Burns’ bill is not believed to have the necessary votes to make it out of the House Judiciary Committee. However, the as-yet-unscheduled vote will not be an indicator of support for legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland.

Mizeur told DC Agenda that she doubts a marriage equality bill would be introduced in the state House this year. While confident there are enough votes in the House Judiciary Committee to pass such a bill, Mizeur said same-sex marriage supporters are still shy of their goal in the companion Senate committee.

“We have supporters [in the House] who we don’t want to put at risk when there isn’t the support in the Senate,” she told DC Agenda, alluding to possible electoral fallout.

Equality Maryland is holding its annual lobby day Feb. 8.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Judge rescinds stay-away order in Capital Pride anti-stalking case

Evidence hearing to determine if order should be reinstated against Darren Pasha

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A D.C. Superior Court judge on April 17 rescinded an anti-stalking order he approved in February at the request of Capital Pride Alliance against local LGBTQ activist Darren Pasha. 

In a ruling at a court status hearing, Judge Robert D. Okun agreed with defendant Darren Pasha’s stated concern that the initial order was too broad and did not specify who specifically he must stay at least 100 feet away from, as called for in the order.

Okun ruled on April 17 that the initial order, which he noted was oral rather than written, would be suspended until an evidentiary hearing takes place in which Capital Pride will need to present evidence justifying the need for such an order.   

“I’m fine with scheduling a hearing at which the plaintiff can present evidence, and the defendant can present evidence,” Okun said. “But I’m not fine with just continuing this oral TRO [Temporary Restraining Order] that Mr. Pasha really doesn’t even have notice of. That seems unfair,” he said.

After asking both Pasha and Capital Pride Alliance Attorney Nick Harrison when they would be available for the evidence hearing, Okun set the date for April 29 at 11 a.m. in Superior Court. 

The case began when Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a Civil Complaint on Oct. 27, 2025, against Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers.

The complaint was accompanied by a separate motion seeking a restraining order, preliminary injunction, and anti-stalking order prohibiting Pasha from “any further contact, harassment, intimidation, or interference with the Plaintiff, its staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates.”

In his initial ruling in February, Okun issued an order requiring Pasha to stay at least 100 feet away from Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers until the April 17 status hearing. He reduced the stay-away distance from the 200 yards requested by Capital Pride.

Pasha, who has so far represented himself in court without an attorney, has argued in multiple court filings and motions that the Capital Pride stalking allegations are untrue. In his initial 16-page response to the complaint, Pasha said it appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith, who has since resigned from the board.

“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” Pasha’s court response states. 

At the April 17 hearing, Okun also ruled that, as standard procedure for civil complaints such as this one, he has ordered both parties to enter into court-supervised mediation to attempt to reach a settlement rather than go to trial.  

In an earlier ruling Okun denied Pasha’s request for a jury trial, stating that civil cases such as this must undergo a trial with the judge determining the verdict under existing civil court statutes.

The April 17 court hearing was held in a courtroom at the courthouse, but as allowed under current court rules, Capital Pride attorney Harrison and Capital Pride official June Crenshaw participated virtually through a video connection. Pasha attended the hearing in the courtroom. 

“This matter is proceeding through the court in the normal course,” Capital Pride released in a statement. “We look forward to presenting the relevant evidence at the scheduled hearing. Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to maintaining a safe and respectful environment for our staff, volunteers, and community, and to addressing concerns through appropriate channels.”

“This is clearly a case of retaliation,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing. “Today the judge removed the stay-away order and asked Capital Pride Alliance to present enough evidence and examples to see if a stay-away order should be granted,” he said. “Because Pride is coming up in June, we need to see where this is going.”

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Gay D.C. police lieutenant arrested on child porn charges

Matthew Mahl once served as head of LGBT Liaison Unit

Published

on

Matthew Mahl (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

D.C. police announced on April 14 that they have placed one of their lieutenants, Matthew Mahl, on administrative leave and revoked his police powers after receiving information that he was arrested in Maryland one day earlier.  

Although the initial D.C. police announcement doesn’t disclose the reason for the arrest it refers to a statement by the Harford County, Md. Sheriff’s Office that discloses Mahl has been charged with sexual solicitation of a minor and child porn solicitation.

“On Tuesday, the Harford County Sheriff’s Office contacted MPD’s Internal Affairs Division shortly after arresting Lieutenant Matthew Mahl,” the D.C. police statement says.

“The allegations in this case are extremely disturbing, and in direct contrast to the values of the Metropolitan Police Department,” the statement continues. “MPD’s Internal Affairs Division will investigate violations of MPD policy once the criminal investigation concludes,” it says.

“MPD is not involved in the criminal investigation and was not aware of the investigation until yesterday,” the statement adds.

Mahl served as acting supervisor of the MPD’s then Gay & Lesbian Liaison Unit in 2013 when he held the rank of sergeant. D.C. police officials placed him on administrative leave and suspended his police powers that same year while investigating an undisclosed allegation.

A source familiar with the investigation said Mahl was cleared of any wrongdoing a short time later and resumed his police duties. Around the time he was promoted to lieutenant several years later Mahl took on the role as chairman of the D.C. Police Union, becoming the first known openly gay officer to hold that position.

NBC 4 reports that Mahl, 47, has served on the police force for 23 years and most recently was assigned to the department’s Special Operations Division.

Records related to Mahl’s arrest filed in Harford County District Court, show Sheriff’s Department investigators state in charging documents that he allegedly committed the offenses of Sexual Solicitation of a Minor and Child Porn Solicitation on Monday, April 13, one day before he was arrested on April 14.   

The court records show he was held without bond during his first appearance in court on April 14. A decision on whether he would be released while awaiting trial or continue to be held without bond was scheduled to be determined during an April 15 bond hearing. The outcome of that hearing could not be immediately determined.  

Continue Reading

Maryland

Evan Glass is leaning on his record. Is that enough for Montgomery County’s top job?

Gay county executive candidate pushing for equitable pay, safer streets, and cleaner environment

Published

on

Montgomery County Council member Evan Glass, center, speaks to attendees of a meet and greet event at Poolesville Memorial United Methodist Church. (Photo by Meredith Rizzo for the Baltimore Banner)

By TALIA RICHMAN | During a meet-and-greet at Poolesville Memorial United Methodist Church, Evan Glass got his loudest applause of the night with a plan he acknowledged was decidedly unsexy.

“Day one, I’ll hire a director of permitting services,” the county executive candidate said.

Doing so, he added, is a step toward easing the regulatory burdens that can stifle small businesses in Montgomery County.

The only problem? At least one of his fiercest competitors is making a similar pledge.

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Popular