Local
O’Malley defends marriage bill at Md. House hearing
Dozens testify for and against Civil Marriage Protection Act

Gov. Martin O'Malley testifies before the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee in favor of the Civil Marriage Protection Act. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley remained firm in his support for a bill to legalize same-sex marriage Friday during a contentious joint hearing on the bill before two committees of the state’s House of Delegates.
After O’Malley and two prominent black ministers testified in support of the bill, the three were grilled with questions by two of the bill’s strongest opponents, Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) and Del. Neil Parrott (R-Washington County).
The two delegates disputed O’Malley’s claim that the bill would protect the religious rights of those who say same-sex marriage conflicts with their faith and asked the governor to support new language in the bill that would clear it for an immediate voter referendum.
“I think the people have already spoken in a real sense by sending each of you here to make the decision on this issue,” O’Malley said in response to the delegates’ calls for a referendum.
“It is not right or just that the children of gay couples should have lesser protections than the children of other families in our state,” he said in his testimony in support of the bill. “Nor would it be right to force religious institutions to conduct marriages that conflict with their own religious beliefs and teachings.”
He added, “This bill balances equal protection of individual civil marriage rights with the important protection of religious freedom for all.”
O’Malley and the two ministers who sat beside him at the witness table, Rev. Delman Coates, pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, Md., and Rev. Donte Hickman Sr., pastor of Southern Baptist Church in Baltimore, were the first three of dozens of witnesses expected to testify at the hearing.
The hearing, which was conducted jointly by the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee and Health and Government Operations Committee, began at 1:15 p.m. and lasted until close to 11 p.m.
Some witnesses opposing the bill expressed concern that House Speaker Michael Busch broke tradition by adding the Health and Government Operations panel to join the Judiciary Committee in overseeing the bill after determining that support for the bill in the Judiciary panel was waning and supporters may not have the votes in the committee to send it to the House floor.
Under House rules, the bill would be sent to the full House for a vote if one of the two committees votes to approve it.
Dwyer and Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County), one of the strongest opponents of same-sex marriage in the legislature, came to the witness table to testify as the first opposing witnesses at the hearing.
While speaking as a witness, Dwyer presented a documentary style video to the committee that alleged that legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts forced school children to undergo “indoctrination” in public schools on homosexuality.
The video included an interview of the father of an elementary school student who said he was arrested and jailed for staging a one-person protest against the school policy.
Same-sex marriage supporters in Massachusetts and Maryland have characterized as untrue claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to school curriculum changes. They say curricular changes to address issues of sexual orientation in Massachusetts were under consideration before same-sex marriage became legal in the state and would likely have been adopted even if Massachusetts didn’t legalize same-sex marriage.
Del. Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County), one of seven out gay members of the Maryland Legislature, disputed Dwyer and Parrott on the school curriculum question during the hearing, saying “not a syllable” could be found in the Civil Marriage Protection Act that would change school curricula.
Burns, in referring to O’Malley’s contention that the marriage bill protects religious freedom, called such a claim irrelevant, saying legal recognition of same-sex marriage would be a disaster for children, families and all people of faith in the state.
“I don’t want your protections,” he said. “I don’t need your protections. I don’t want the bill.”
Similar to a hearing held on the marriage bill on Jan. 31 by the State Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee, many of the same witnesses, including ministers and other clergy, testified on Friday and appeared to be evenly divided, with more than a dozen clergy members testifying on both sides of the issue.
“Regarding the rite of marriage, the practice of our local church is rooted in our understanding of the history and etymology of the term matrimony,” said Rev. Coats, who testified in favor of the bill at O’Malley’s side. “Therefore, wedding ceremonies witnessed and presided over at our church acknowledge the union of a man and a woman in a sacred ceremony,” he said.
“With that said, I am here today to express my full support of the proposed Civil Marriage Protection Act as proposed by the governor,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, I believe it is the obligation of the state to insure that all of her citizens are protected equally under the law.”
Hickman said, he too, believes the bill adequately distinguishes civil marriages from religious marriages.
“I believe that marriage is a God-ordained, spiritual and mystical union between a Christian man and a Christian woman,” he said. But he added, “I support the Civil Marriage Protection Act because it is civil and not religious. And as a matter of public policy and human rights it doesn’t threaten my religious convictions nor does it obligate me or my church to officiate or promulgate same-sex marriages.”
O’Malley appeared to respond with caution to Parrott’s repeated questions about whether a same-sex marriage bill in Maryland would lead to the teaching of homosexuality to elementary school students in the state’s public schools.
“In Massachusetts this same bill forced teachers to teach same-sex marriage to their students even when it violated their own religious beliefs,” Parrott told the governor. “Are you OK with that in this bill?”
“No, and I don’t believe that’s what this bill does,” O’Malley said.
“Historically, parents do not have the right to pull their kids out of classes when it violates their religious teachings regarding marriage and family,” Parrott said. “Actually some of them have gone to jail in Massachusetts. Are you OK with that consequence to this bill?”
“No, I’m not aware of that and that is not in this bill,” O’Malley replied. “There are specific, clear prohibitions against forcing any religion to change or teach things that are contrary to its religious beliefs.”
Parrott ended the exchange by asking O’Malley if he would be inclined to amend the bill to “specifically protect students, teachers and parents so that [homosexuality] is not taught in the school system.”
O’Malley replied, “I think that anything that reinforces the inalienable and indispensible right of the free exercise of religions and individual conscience is a good thing.”
The governor’s press spokesperson couldn’t be immediately reached to clarify whether O’Malley was suggesting he might support new language in the bill to ban the teaching of gay-related subjects in the state’s school system.
Rehoboth Beach
Rehoboth mayor calls for commissioner’s resignation after investigation into improper behavior
Suzanne Goode ‘has violated her oath of office, disgraced position of commissioner’
Rehoboth Mayor Stan Mills called for the resignation of Commissioner Suzanne Goode, following release of an independent investigation into Goode’s behavior that led Mills to conclude she has violated her oath of office.
Over the past few months, city staff have complained about Commissioner Goode’s extensive and inappropriate communications with them.
In June, Goode went to the house of a fellow commissioner in an attempt to settle a dispute she was having with his neighbor on the online platform NextDoor. Goode also has a history of using anti-LGBTQ language in various emails.
“I believe we’ve come to the point where we can take the most severe action we can take at this time to end Commissioner Goode’s intentional lies and harassment,” said Mills. “This has never been about differences of opinions on issues, but rather about uncivil behavior.”
“Commissioner Goode has violated her oath of office and has disgraced the position of commissioner, and she should resign,” said Mills.
In late June, the city of Rehoboth hired Margaret DiBianca, an attorney who specializes in business and employment conflict resolution, to investigate allegations of harassment and inappropriate behavior by Goode toward city employees and fellow commissioners.
DiBianca submitted the 17-page report on Aug. 12. On Aug. 21, a majority of the commissioners voted to release a redacted version of the report to the public.
Before the vote, Commissioner Susan Stewart, who is set to be sworn in as mayor next month, said that releasing the report is necessary.
“In most workplaces, the documented conduct would warrant her termination,” said Stewart.
“Our laws provide no such path for an elected official. To simply move on would mean keeping this conduct secret, leaving the victims to shoulder the burden themselves without institutional support,” said Stewart.
The investigation reported that Goode had sent nearly 2,000 emails to city employees since 2024 with more emails being sent almost daily. Only 90 emails from June and July were used in the scope of the investigation.
The report found that the emails contained “intentionally degrading and derogatory language, references to individuals’ family members, religion, and disabilities, as well as language hostile to the LGBTQIA+ community.”
The following emails were noted in the report as examples of ‘hostile’ language toward the LGBTQIA+ community:
“On November 7, 2025, Cmr. Goode wrote to a constituent, “PS just curious – how does this alienate the ‘Queens’ in [the City] more than the non-queens in the sense how is it a LGBTQ issue? (Not everything in [the City] revolves around gays, right?).”
“On November 15, 2025, Cmr. Goode said to the Targeted Employees “conservatives now have to remain in the closet (conservatives now have to do what gays had to do in the 20th century – ah, the irony) who object to the woke, drag queen bent of [Clear Space Theatre] at times.”
“On December 29, 2025, Cmr. Goode wrote to a constituent, “straight white males like yourself and my husband might as well just shoot themselves. Pale, stale and male doesn’t cut it in this town, eh?”
The report stated: “The volume of emails and the short intervals between communications sent by Goode reveal a pattern of conduct designed to intimidate, demean and harass rather than to advance legitimate city business.”
The report demonstrated multiple instances of Goode circumventing directives from Mayor Mills requiring her to cease inappropriate communications with city staff.
The conclusion of the report found that Goode’s behavior “falls substantially and demonstrably outside the bounds of acceptable professional behavior expected of an elected official and public servant in violation of the City’s Civility Code and, in turn, constitutes a violation of the Ethics Code.”
“Cmr. Goode’s communications do not foster a “respectful, courteous, and professional work environment” and do not reflect the “dignity and respect” required by the Civility Code.”
The report outlined six recommendations for the city to follow to address Goode’s behavior.
The recommendations included prohibiting Goode from contacting city employees and accessing administrative offices, and requiring Goode to undergo city-approved training on subjects such as respectful workplace behavior.
At the Aug. 21 meeting, the Commissioners voted to adopt all six recommendations.
During the meeting, Goode was given time to respond before the official release of the report.
“When an investigation is an attorney up in Wilmington looking at emails, who never contacts me, obviously it is a one-sided investigation,” said Goode. “The investigative reporter never got my side of anything. I was never given the opportunity to defend myself.”
“In June, Commissioner Goode’s communication became even worse,” City Manager Taylour Tedder told the Blade this week.
Tedder said that the volume of messages jumped to nearly 100 emails just in the month of June.
Tedder identified himself and City Solicitor Lisa Borin Ogden. He said that each of them filed multiple complaints, with one of them being to the Human Resources director.
“With an elected official, there is no way to reprimand or punish them because they’re not an employee,” said Tedder.
Brooke Thaler, communications director for the city of Rehoboth, expressed her frustration with the city’s inability to take serious action against Goode.
“That’s just a bit mind-boggling that something like this can go on, and there’s nothing that can be done about it,” said Thaler.
“The public put their trust in her when they elected her, and I don’t think that their intention was for her to so badly mistreat city staff,” Thaler told the Blade.
“It’s highly doubtful that she will stop, but I think the fact that these protections are in place to at least insulate the employees from receiving it when she’s not in person is a good step,” said Tedder.
Goode responded to the Blade’s request for comment by saying:
“Friday’s session was a kangaroo court and a blatant weaponization of FOIA. The entire report relies on systematic misrepresentation. Time and again, comments I shared from social media or resident outreach were falsely attributed directly to me.
“Without context, these claims are meaningless. As just one example, the city manager accuses me of using a vulgar word on a phone call—a word I do not use (p. 6, line 22). The investigating attorney never even contacted me, proving this process was never meant to be fair,” said Goode.
“I will not validate or accept an investigation built on inaccurate claims.”
Goode has not announced plans to resign.
Maryland
Girlfriends charged with Silver Spring murder to go on trial in 2027
Prosecutors charged both women with killing mother of one of them
Two women identified as a couple who are charged with the May 22, 2026, murder of the mother one of them in her Silver Spring home and who were arrested three weeks later in Ohio are scheduled to go on trial for murder April 19, 2027.
According to online records filed with Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville, Vanessa Tjongarero-Henderson, 29, of Clarksburg, Md., and Samantha Raebel, 36, of Phoenix are being held without bond in the Montgomery County Correctional Facility until the time of their trial.
Statements from Montgomery County police show the two women were arrested June 10 in Genoa, Ohio, after fleeing from the scene of the murder in Silver Spring. Police statements and court records show they were extradited back to Maryland in July, where prosecutors with the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office obtained indictments against them for murder.
Earlier statements from Montgomery County police say their investigation into the murder led to their decision to initially charge the two women with first-degree murder for the death of Hilde Henderson, 67, who was Tjongarero-Henderson’s mother.
“Through the course of the investigation, detectives identified Henderson’s daughter, Vanessa Tjongarero-Henderson, and Vanessa’s girlfriend, Raebel, as the suspects,” one of the police statements says. It says police obtained arrest warrants for both women and launched a nationwide search seeking help from the public in in locating them.
One of the police statements says an autopsy determined the cause of Hilde Henderson’s death was blunt-force trauma injuries brought about by a murder. Police and the State’s Attorney’s Office, which is prosecuting the case, have yet to disclose whether they have determined a motive for the murder.
Court records show that prior to the start of the April 19, 2027, trial a “motion” hearing was scheduled for Oct. 30, 2026, a pre-trail conference was scheduled for Feb. 12, 2027, and another motion hearing and a status hearing were scheduled for March 12, 2027.
Court records also show that Tjongarero-Henderson is being represented by attorneys with the Montgomery County court system’s public defender service. The records show that Raebel initially had been represented by a public defender service attorney, but updated records show Aug. 14 is listed as the “removal date” for that attorney.
The docket shows that on Aug. 20, two new attorneys with the prominent D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling made their official appearance as her attorneys in the murder case. One of them, Daniel Solomon, told the Washington Blade in response to an inquiry that the defense has no comment at this time on the case.
He confirmed that Covington & Burling is representing Raebel on a no-cost, pro bono bass.
The office of the Montgomery County public defender service didn’t immediately respond to a phone message from the Blade asking for a comment on the Tjongarero-Henderson case.
Delaware
Delaware fines Rehoboth bar $15,000 for discriminating against trans woman
Hideout told patron she had to use men’s room due to gender marker on driver’s license
The Delaware Human and Civil Rights Commission voted to fine Hideout Arcade Bar & Grille $15,000 last month due to a discrimination complaint filed by a trans woman over her use of the bathroom.
Katie Sorber, a transgender woman, said that on April 5, 2023, she was stopped by employees and told she could only use the men’s bathroom due to the “male” gender marker on her driver’s license. This occurred after Sorber presented her ID upon entering the bar and ordering a drink.
Sorber took to Facebook to complain about her experience at the bar after she was told to use the men’s bathroom.
On April 12, 2023, Sorber returned to the Hideout but was barred from entering due to her post on social media.
Following Sorber’s post, Bryan Derrickson, the owner of Hideout Arcade Bar & Grille, allegedly began enforcing a policy in which patrons had to use the bathroom that corresponded to the gender marker on their ID.
Derrickson was ordered to pay $10,000 to Sorber, $5,000 to the Special Administration Fund, as well as conduct anti-discrimination training with employees, remove the ban on Sorber from the establishment, and revise the bar’s bathroom policy.
The commission ruled that the bar and Derrickson had wrongfully discriminated against Sorber on the basis of her gender.
Derrickson’s explanations for the denial included safety concerns, a third-party patron complaint, and a reference to the health code. The panel found this to be inconsistent and lacking factual support upon cross-examination.
The case was evaluated under the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law, which explicitly prohibits discrimination and retaliation in places of public accommodation based on gender identity.
This was the second time that the bar has been fined for discriminating against a transgender woman. The bar received a $2,000 penalty in September of last year for denying a transgender woman entry in 2023.
Half of the fine went to Kathy Carpenter Brown, the trans woman who experienced the discrimination. Brown is the founder of TransLiance, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group in Delaware.
