Local
D.C. Appeals Court hears gay marriage case
City defends law halting effort to repeal same-sex marriage law
Same-sex marriage opponents Rev. Anthony Evans, left, and Bishop Harry Jackson talk Tuesday outside the D.C. Court of Appeals. A case before the court could force the city to put its same-sex marriage law before voters in a ballot initiative. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
In what legal observers called an unusual development, the full nine-judge D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Monday for a lawsuit seeking to force the city to put its same-sex marriage law before voters in a ballot initiative.
At issue is whether a 1970s amendment to the D.C. City Charter that allows voters to pass or repeal laws through an initiative or referendum can legally include a provision banning such ballot measures if they would take away rights from minorities.
The City Council added the provision to the charter amendment at the request of gay activists. The effort by same-sex marriage opponents to challenge the provision represents the first time it has been seriously questioned in more than 30 years.
All but two of the judges asked pointed questions that appeared to challenge the legal arguments presented by the lawyers on both sides of the case, taking on the role of devil’s advocate.
“The court asked a variety of probing questions, as they should have,” said Thomas Williamson, an attorney with Covington & Burling, which filed a friend of the court brief on the side of the D.C. government in defense of the law restricting ballot measures.
“But it seemed that a consistent theme in their questions was a sensitivity to the importance of protecting civil rights of a vulnerable minority, which is really what this case is about here — the right of same-sex couples to enjoy marriage and have the same status for their marriage as all other citizens of the District,” Williamson said.
Five of the nine judges, including Chief Judge Eric Washington, were appointed by President George W. Bush. President Bill Clinton appointed the remaining four.
Williamson and local gay rights attorney Mark Levine said it’s unusual for the Court of Appeals to hear a case for the first time en banc, or with all of its judges, instead of its usual practice of assigning a three-judge panel to hear a case.
One significant outcome of an en banc case is that the full court has the authority to overturn previous decisions it handed down either en banc or through a three-judge panel if the previous rulings would interfere with its intentions in a current case. Williamson said one possible ruling the court might overturn in the current case over the D.C. same-sex marriage law is the 1990s case known as Dean v. the District of Columbia.
In that case, the appeals court rejected a claim by a gay male couple that the city’s existing marriage law allowed for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of the Human Rights Act’s ban on discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. At that time, the court ruled that the marriage law restricting marriages to opposite-sex couples took precedence over the Human Rights Law.
In recent years, gay rights attorneys and D.C. government officials have argued that the Dean decision was no longer relevant because the City Council had since made sweeping changes to the marriage law, providing extensive rights, including marriage, for same-sex couples.
Austin Nimocks, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian litigation group, argued the case Tuesday for Bishop Harry Jackson and other local opponents of same-sex marriage who filed the lawsuit seeking a ballot measure to overturn the gay marriage law.
Jackson initially filed his lawsuit before the D.C. Superior Court last fall, after the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics rejected his application for a voter initiative calling for defining marriage in D.C. as the union between one man and one woman. The board ruled that the initiative would violate the provision added to the referendum and initiative law that bans such ballot measures if they would result in discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act.
The effect of the initiative, if approved by voters, would be to repeal the same-sex marriage law that the City Council passed and Mayor Adrian Fenty signed in December. The law took effect March 3 after it cleared a required 30 legislative day review by Congress.
Jackson then filed suit seeking to overturn the election board’s decision. In January, Superior Court Judge Judith Macaluso upheld the election board’s decision, saying the law cited by the city to ban such ballot measures was valid.
Tuesday’s hearing before the D.C. Court of Appeals came about after Jackson and his supporters appealed Macaluso’s ruling.
Nimocks sidestepped reporters’ questions about the appeals court judge’s comments, including those who challenged his arguments. He said after the hearing that his side is correct in claiming the 30-year-old provision in the D.C. Charter barring certain ballot measures violates the full District of Columbia Charter.
The city’s charter is considered to be equivalent to a state constitution, and legal experts say all laws enacted by the City Council and signed by the mayor must be consistent with any restrictions or limits set by the charter.
Nimocks argued before the court Tuesday that the charter amendment that created the city’s voter initiative and referendum system sets just one restriction on such ballet measures: a ban on voters directly deciding on matters related city funding or taxes.
He said the charter amendment, which the City Council passed and Congress approved, doesn’t allow further restrictions that would prevent a ballot measure seeking to curtail minority rights.
“The people have a right to vote that’s guaranteed by the District of Columbia Charter,” he said. “And the City Council cannot amend the charter. They cannot do anything to undermine the people’s right to vote.”
In his written brief, Nimocks also argued that the Dean case was still a factor that the appeals court should consider.
Todd Kim, the D.C. Solicitor General who argued on behalf of the city, told the court the charter amendment establishing the initiative and referendum system gives the City Council authority to make some changes in the system to carry out its “purpose.”
Kim noted that the Council wrote the charter amendment and that part of the purpose in creating it was to place certain restrictions consistent with longstanding city policy, including policies related to rights of minorities. The D.C. Human Rights Act, which was in place at that time, included a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation, Kim said, indicating the city’s overall policy and purpose was to protect the rights of gays and lesbians along with other minorities.
He also noted that Congress approved the charter amendment through its normal 30 legislative day review, further solidifying its status as a valid law.
In another development that pleased gay activists attending Tuesday’s appeals court hearing, Judge Phyllis Thompson, a Bush appointee, pointed out that D.C. voters approved a statehood constitution in the early 1980s that included a provision banning initiatives and referenda that would take away rights of minorities, including gays.
Thompson appeared to be challenging Nimocks’ arguments that voters should have the right to decide on the gay marriage law by noting that D.C. voters approved the ban on ballot measures seeking to take away rights for gays and others.
Legal experts have said the statehood constitution passed by voters had no legal standing because D.C. statehood — which many D.C. residents favored in the 1980s — could not come about without approval by Congress. Congress never took the proposal seriously.
But Levine and Williamson said Thompson’s decision to raise the issued shows that she, and possibly a number of her colleagues on the appeals court, are sympathetic to the city law banning ballot measure that would take away rights, including the right of same-sex couples to marry in D.C.
“Marriage equality has already brought critical rights and responsibilities to hundreds of same-sex couples, yet outside forces are determined to undo our progress,” said Aisha Mills, president of the Campaign for All D.C. Families, one of the local groups that lobbied for a same-sex marriage law.
“As the courts have uniformly recognized in upholding D.C.’s comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, no one should have to have their marriages — or any of their civil rights — put to a public vote,” she said.
Jackson was among more than a hundred spectators to attend Tuesday’s appeals court hearing. The spectators appeared to be equally divided between same-sex marriage opponents and supporters, with many of the city’s prominent LGBT activists in attendance.
In addition to Washington and Thompson, the appeals court members include Judges Vanessa Ruiz, Inez Smith Reid and Stephen Glickman, who are Clinton appointees, and Judges John Kramer, John Fisher, Anna Blackbourne-Rigsby and Kathryn Oberly, who are Bush appointees.
Court observers say a decision on the marriage case could come anytime between the next several months and more than a year. The losing party could appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but many legal observers believe the high court would be unlikely to take the case.
District of Columbia
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
Lawsuit says information led to conviction in murder, armed robbery cases
Gay D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Tom Donohue on Aug. 11 filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court charging that D.C. police acted improperly and violated a local law by not paying him $30,000 in reward money for his role in helping police identify and arrest — and obtain the subsequent conviction — of one man charged with murder and another man charged with armed robbery in separate cases.
Although the lawsuit alleges improper action by D.C. police in carrying out the city’s Crime Solvers reward program, it names as defendants the District of Columbia and the Office of the Attorney General for D.C., which, among other things, defends the city against lawsuits.
Donohue, who is a member of the city’s ANC Rainbow Caucus consisting of LGBTQ elected ANC members, held a news conference outside the D.C. Superior Court building on Aug. 11 to talk about the lawsuit before entering the courthouse to officially file it.
The lawsuit states that Donohue “provided key video evidence that led to the arrest and conviction” of a man initially charged with first degree murder for allegedly running over a bicyclist with his car after the two got into an argument.
The lawsuit states that police had offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the defendant in that case, but police “arbitrarily slashed the payment to $5,000 without prior notice or policy justification.”
Court records show that D.C. resident Eric Beasley was charged with first degree murder for killing David Farewell, 45, by hitting him with his car on Sept. 4, 2020, on the 2100 block of Young Street, S.E. The records show the evidence for the case was based in large part on video camera footage of the incident obtained by police. Donohoe has said he provided that video camera evidence.
The records show that during Beasley’s October 2023 trial a jury was unable to reach the required unanimous verdict, and the judge declared a mistrial.
According to the records, Beasley later agreed to an offer by prosecutors to plead guilty to a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced in September 2024 to eight years in prison, a development that angered the victim’s family members who called it a “slap on the wrist,” according to a Fox 5 News report.
Donohue’s lawsuit says the second case in which he provided police with pivotal information involved a series of armed robberies known as the Fairlawn Serial Armed Robbery Spree that occurred in the Fairlawn neighborhood in Southeast D.C. in 2023 near where Donohue lives.
The lawsuit says evidence consisting of video surveillance footage provided by Donohue to police enabled police to determine they initially wrongfully arrested an 18-year-old male for the robberies. “Using Plaintiff’s security video, MPD identified, arrested, and convicted the actual robber, David Crocker, who was sentenced to 18 years in federal prison,” the lawsuit states.
It says one of the detectives investigating the case recommended a $10,000 reward for Donohue’s help in the case based on the police Crime Solvers reward program. The detective’s recommendation was approved by then-Assistant D.C. Police Chief Kyle Ramey on Aug. 4, 2025, according to the lawsuit.
But it adds, “Nevertheless, MPD improperly withheld payment.”
When contacted by the Washington Blade for comment on Donohue’s lawsuit allegations, a D.C. police spokesperson said “MPD does not comment on pending or ongoing litigation.”
Gabriel Shoglow-Rubenstein, who serves as press secretary for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, which will be defending the city against the Donohue lawsuit, said he would look into obtaining a possible comment but said the office has a similar longstanding policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
“This action arises from the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department’s arbitrary, bad-faith, and legally unsupportable failure to honor its public reward promises and administrative obligations to Plaintiff,” the lawsuit states.
It says the MPD violated the city’s Freedom of Information Act or FOIA law by not responding to Donohue’s request for information and documents related to the decision not to pay him the full reward money.
“MPD’s reduction of Plaintiff’s homicide reward from $25,000 to $5,000, and its withholding of his approved $10,00 robbery reward, were undertaken completely devoid of written standards, making such decisions inherently arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of administrative discretion,” it says.
It calls for Donohue to be awarded $30,000 in compensatory damages consisting of the $20,000 “unpaid balance” for the homicide case reward and $10,000 for the robbery case reward. It also calls for reimbursement for “reasonable” litigation costs and attorney’s fees. Donohue told the Washington Blade that at this time he is representing himself without an attorney.
Donohue told the Blade that the refusal by D.C. police to pay him the full reward money also limited his plans to donate some of that money to the family of murder victim David Farewell to help pay for a burial stone. He said that due to the family’s limited resources Farewell is buried in an unmarked grave
Delaware
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
The Collective to feature gift shop, queer museum, more
During Pride month this year, the Delaware Sexuality and Gender Collective (DSGC) announced plans for The Collective, which will become Delaware’s first LGBTQIA+ visitor center and Wilmington’s first dedicated LGBTQIA+ space in nearly 40 years.
“We’ve been talking about the concept of a brick-and-mortar space for a long time,” said Noah Duckett, co-founder of DSGC.
A licensed clinical social worker, Duckett co-founded DSGC with his mother, Julissa Coriano, in 2018. DSGC is an independent nonprofit organization that provides vital clinical and educational support, social programming and direct-need support to the LGBTQIA+ community.
Some of the programs DSGC offers include a free clothing closet for the trans community, meal support for people recovering from gender-affirming surgery, connections to pro bono legal services, a biannual Pride Market featuring over 100 LGBTQIA+-owned small businesses, and more.
“Our vision for The Collective is a place where our community can come to learn, create, work and be inspired,” said Coriano.
The Collective will feature a visitor center and gift shop highlighting LGBTQIA+-owned businesses in Delaware.
“I think that this is something that’s going to benefit our community so much,” said Duckett.
Some of the LGBTQIA+-owned businesses that DSGC has already partnered with include Stress Induced Art Attack, Moonbeam Art Collaborative, Voce Coffee, Groovy Gemini Co., Scout Cafe, Macaron Social and Huxley and Hiro.
“Specifically in Wilmington, we haven’t had an LGBTQIA+-dedicated space in almost 40 years,” said Duckett.
The Griffin Community Center, which operated from 1986 to 1990, was Delaware’s first LGBTQ+ community center. The Griffin was founded by Ivo Dominguez Jr. and James C. Welch and provided a range of community services during the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis, including AIDS hotlines, organizational offices and meeting space. The center ultimately closed because of a lack of financial support.
Duckett said DSGC hopes The Collective will carry on The Griffin’s legacy while building a sustainable space for the LGBTQIA+ community.
“I think now more than ever, there’s more and more spaces closing their doors. More and more spaces are losing funding, seeing reduced funding and reduced access, especially LGBTQ+ organizations and communities,” said Duckett.
The Collective will also feature Delaware’s first LGBTQ+ history museum, curated by LGBTQ+ historian Carolanne Deal.
“We don’t have any permanent displays in the state about Delaware’s queer history, and we want people to be able to access that history any day of the year, not just during Pride Month,” said Deal.
With a master’s degree in art history for museum professionals, Deal has more than seven years of experience in curatorial work and hands-on collections care.
“It’s mainly going to be a graphic display with photographs, articles and accessible text that draws people in and creates a story for the community,” said Deal.
Although the museum will not initially have an object collection, Deal said she hopes to add physical archival pieces in the future.
“Delaware has been at the forefront of a lot of queer civil rights, and it’ll be really amazing to have that enshrined in a permanent display that’s not only up for Pride Month,” said Deal.
Duckett said DSGC is currently raising funds with the goal of beginning construction this summer and opening by the end of the year.
Duckett told the Blade that fundraising efforts have reached just under $29,000 and that the organization is awaiting several major donations from community partner organizations.
However, he said DSGC continues to be denied many grants tied to federal or state funding because of restrictions on those funds being used for LGBTQ+-serving organizations.
“Private and corporate donations are absolutely vital,” said Duckett.
Anyone interested in supporting the construction and renovation of The Collective can donate online or contact [email protected] for more information.ose funds being used for LGBTQ-serving organizations.
“Private and corporate donations are absolutely vital,” said Duckett.
Anyone interested in supporting the construction of The Collective can donate online or contact [email protected] for more information.
Rehoboth Beach
HISTORIC: Susan Stewart elected Rehoboth’s first out mayor
Thanks LGBTQ supporters and vows to protect city’s small town charm
Residents of Rehoboth Beach elected City Commissioner Susan Stewart with 61% of the vote on Aug. 8, making her the city’s first openly gay mayor.
Stewart beat fellow commissioners Craig Their and Suzanne Goode in the race, as well as newcomer Jake Raak.
The final mayoral vote results were:
- Susan Stewart: 632
- Craig Their: 203
- Suzanne Goode: 177
- William “Jake” Raak: 23
“I’m very grateful because the LGBTQ+ community not only voted for me, but also supported me,” said Stewart.
Stewart said that she is particularly grateful for the support she received on social media from members of the LGBTQ+ community.
“I’ve had incredible support,” said Stewart.
Stewart said that her campaign showed her just how much residents of Rehoboth are engaged and care about the city.
“They really want to see what’s best for the community,” said Stewart.
Stewart spoke about the master planning initiative she has been working on as a commissioner, which she plans to continue as mayor.
“We’ve undertaken rewriting the commercial zoning code, and that’s foundational to the next step of the initiative,” said Stewart.
She said that she was proud of the results of charette week that was held last month where residents and business owners had the opportunity to speak with hired urban planners to give feedback for a zoning code update.
Stewart said that Rehoboth is at a tipping point as the city must find a way to balance the growth of the commercial district while improving the quality of life for residents.
“I don’t believe there needs to be tension between the business community and the residential experience,” said Stewart.
“I’m excited about a new master plan because we have a couple hotels coming, and we also have Clear Space Theatre looking for a new home, and we’re working with them,” said Stewart. “We want businesses to stay here.”
Stewart also said that she aims to embrace the concept of a ‘15-minute city,’ making the city much more accessible in terms of transportation in the downtown area for residents.
“The goal is to protect the small town charm and natural beauty of Rehoboth,” said Stewart. “I want to keep the momentum going.”
The Blade asked Stewart about any concerns she might have working with Commissioner Goode, whom she has criticized for sending inappropriate and offensive emails to city staff. Goode finished a distant third in the mayoral race and her husband fell short in his bid for a Commissioner’s seat. In that race, Jeffrey Goode received 239 votes; Patrick Gossett, who’s gay, received 813 votes and Mark Saunders 852. Saunders and Gossett will be sworn in next month.
“I’m really eager to move past this issue with Commissioner Goode,” said Stewart.
She said that she’s heard ‘loud and clear’ from the city that they want to move past this situation as best as they can while Goode remains in her seat as commissioner.
“There are no mechanisms for us to remove a sitting commissioner. Our laws don’t allow it,” said Stewart.
Stewart clarified that she has always focused on Goode’s behavior toward city staff.
“One thing I feel really passionate about is that the city employees have to know that they are heard. They are real people with real jobs, real professional reputations, and they’ve been harmed,” said Stewart.
The Blade also asked if Stewart had made a final decision on whom she plans to nominate to fill her Commissioner seat.
“I’m considering who to appoint and I have not made any final decisions,” said Stewart.
She noted that, as mayor, she only has the power to nominate a candidate and that the board of commissioners will have the final vote on whom to appoint to the board.
Stewart shared that she has received interest from a number of people and finds that to be a good sign.
“I think that’s a great sign because people want to serve. I’m eager to have someone in that seat who’s smart and has the best interests of the city,” said Stewart.
Stewart will be sworn in during the Board of Commissioners meeting on Sept. 18.
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
Jason DePuy on coping with homophobia in ‘Big Brother’ house
