• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Anderson Cooper and his guest Rev. Welton Gaddy, President of Interfaith Alliance, take to task North Carolina Pastor Charles L. Worley, whose sermon suggested lesbians and “queers and homosexuals” be caged in electrified pens, and left to die.

Find it here: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2012/05/21/ac-gaddy-rebukes-pastor-gay-rant.cnn

According to several sources, the sermon has been removed from the church’s website, and the pastor’s own personal website has been shut down by the hosting company, after a rash of complaints.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Happy Harvey Milk Day! (Via JoeMyGod)

Jenna Talackova, the trans woman competing for Canada’s Miss Universe title, finished in the top 12 of the competition this weekend, and tied for Miss Congeniality! Congrats, Jenna! Now here’s five stories we can’t stop talking about:

• Queerty has the video: openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D – Mass) isn’t inviting the Obamas to his wedding because the Secret Service will ruin the fun
• Argentina invites foreigners to obtain same-sex marriages, says Think Progress
• Towleroad tells us “Lambda Legal scored a nice win in Waynesville, Ohio, where high school student Maverick Couch” can now wear his “Jesus is not a homophobe” shirt without risking suspension.
• HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls on the World Health Assembly to assure worldwide LGBT healthcare access, says Think Progress
• Queerty asks: did Queen Latifah come out at Long Beach Pride? Well, not really.

Finally, Sam & Dave are TOTALLY straight, but they want to show their appreciation to the President for coming out for same-sex marriage. Just one little teeny tiny complaint.

(h/t GoodAsYou)

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

A New Jersey judge today handed down a sentence of 30 days in jail for the former Rutgers University student convicted of committing a bias crime for using a webcam to spy on a dorm room tryst between his gay roommate Tyler Clementi and Clementi’s boyfriend.

Clementi took his own life days later by jumping off the George Washington Bridge in September 2010, creating an uproar among gay activists and attracting international media attention over the issue of anti-gay bullying and harassment.

Some claimed the action by defendant Dharun Ravi, 20, was responsible for Clementi’s suicide. But Ravi’s attorney argued during the trial in March and Middlesex County, N.J., Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman said in court on Monday that Ravi should not be held responsible for Clementi’s death.

“I do not believe he hated Tyler Clementi,” Berman said in explaining his sentence. “He had no reason to, but I do believe he acted out of colossal insensitivity.”

Berman said the bias crime to which Ravi was convicted is not the same as a hate crime. He called the sentence he imposed “measured” and “balanced.”

He said he will recommend to U.S. immigration authorities that Ravi not be deported upon the completion of his jail sentence, but said immigration officials rather than he would make the final decision on that issue.

Ravi, who was born in India, came to the U.S. as a child. His mother told the court he no longer speaks his native language and was raised as an American. Ravi obtained permanent resident status but is not a U.S. citizen. Under U.S. immigration law, he is subject to deportation for a felony conviction.

A jury convicted Ravi on several felony counts, including invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, witness tampering and hindering efforts by police to investigate the case. He faced a possible sentence of 10 years in prison.

Middlesex County prosecutor Julia McClure told the judge Ravi “has shown no remorse” since his conviction. She said all of Ravi’s actions toward Clementi “were planned, they were purposeful and they were malicious,” disputing claims by the defense that Ravi had merely committed a youthful “prank.”

In addition to 30 days in a county jail, Berman sentenced Ravi to three years of probation, 300 hours of community service, and a total of $11,900 in fines and assessments. He also ordered Ravi to undergo counseling for cyber bullying and education on “alternate lifestyles.”

The sentence came at the end of a two-hour hearing that included emotional statements from Clementi’s mother, father, and brother and both parents of Ravi, all of whom struggled to hold back tears.

Jane Clementi, Tyler’s mother, told the court Ravi appeared uninterested in becoming friends with her son from the time she met him when she and her husband helped Tyler move into his Rutgers dorm room. She said she believed Ravi chose not to be more welcoming to her son in the ensuing weeks because he learned her son was gay.

Ravi’s mother told the judge her son isn’t a hater and “has never hated anyone,” saying he has suffered immensely in the time since his 2010 arrest in connection with the case. As she finished speaking she embraced her son, who was sitting at the defendant’s table as both wept.

In the months leading up to Monday’s sentencing hearing, some gay activists and gay bloggers joined Indian-American groups in speaking out for leniency for Ravi, saying a sentence as long as 10 years would be an injustice.

New York gay attorney Bill Dobbs, who has argued that hate crimes laws violate First Amendment rights of free speech, was among those who called for a less severe sentence for Ravi.

Berman’s sentence of 30 days came as a surprise to some court observers, who noted that the judge spoke harshly of Ravi’s action in a statement immediately prior to delivering the sentence. Berman also pointed out that Ravi remained seated as he began issuing the sentence rather than stand, which is the normal practice in sentencing hearings. Ravi’s attorney rose to his feet, saying it was he who failed to remind Ravi to stand and it was he who should be blamed for the defendant remaining seated.

Those calling for a lenient sentence for Ravi have noted that his webcam spying on Clementi, which resulted in his arrest, has been incorrectly reported by many media outlets, including network TV news programs and bloggers.

“It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online,” New Yorker magazine reported earlier this year. “In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet,” the magazine reported in a lengthy piece on the case.

The New Yorker and other media outlets later reported that the webcam, which was viewed only by Ravi and some of his friends, showed Clementi and his boyfriend kissing.

Since the time of the incident, news surfaced that Clementi was out to his parents and his gay brother, James Clementi. Prosecutors at the trial presented evidence that Ravi nevertheless subjected Clementi to an illegal invasion of privacy that was motivated by bias based on Clementi’s sexual orientation.

Evidence presented at trial, including records of Ravi’s computer messages and Twitter postings, showed that he observed on the webcam Clementi “making out with a dude.” He then reported what he saw in Twitter messages. According to prosecutors, Ravi placed his webcam in the room to spy on Clementi two days later and invited others to watch. This time, Clementi, who already had seen Revi’s Twitter postings, turned off the webcam.

Additional evidence showed that Clementi reported the incident to a dormitory official, requested a change of room, and viewed Ravi’s Twitter feeds about the incident a total of 38 times, prosecutors said.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous speaks at his organization's national headquarters in Baltimore on Monday. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

BALTIMORE – The leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People stressed on Monday that his organization’s support of marriage for gays and lesbians is consistent with its broader mission to fight discrimination.

“We make this statement today because it is the legacy and responsibility of the NAACP to speak up on the civil rights issue of our times,” said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous during a press conference at the organization’s national headquarters. “We are both proud of our history and challenged by it—challenged to never allow threats to equality for all people under the law to go uncontested.”

Jealous’ comments came two days after the NAACP Board of Directors endorsed extending marriage rights to same-sex couples during their quarterly meeting in Miami. Jealous became emotional as he discussed his parents who had to get married in the District of Columbia in 1966 because Maryland did not allow interracial marriage—the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this ban in Loving v. Virginia the following year. He noted that Mildred Loving herself spoke out in support of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples before she passed away.

NAACP Board of Directors Chair Roslyn M. Brock defends her organization's support of marriage equality in Baltimore on Monday (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

“We want to be on the record that the NAACP now firmly opposes all efforts to restrict marriage equality,” said Jealous. “We will oppose threats to the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal rights under the law in any state where this issue is raised.

Jealous dismissed reports that several board members voted against the marriage resolution. Roslyn Brock, chair of the NAACP National Board of Directors, said members had an “open, honest and candid conversation” about the issue during executive sessions.

“The conversation was dispassionate, it was respectful and it embraced and respected the views of all the members who sat around the table,” she said. “This is not a religious issue or a moral issue for the NAACP. That is not the role of the NAACP. On the constitutionality of the issue, the NAACP’s National Board of Directors voted overwhelmingly to support this issue.”

In spite of this support, Brock conceded that there are board members and other NAACP members whose positions on marriage continue to evolve.

“This conversation is one, as President Jealous has stated, is taking place or has taken place across the nation,” she said. “We will work together with our units and with our board to have the courageous conversations that are necessary around this issue.”

The NAACP’s endorsement of marriage rights to same-sex couples comes less than two weeks after North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Doctor William Barber II, president of the North Carolina NAACP, was among those who spoke out against the ballot measure before it passed by a 61-39 percent margin.

President Barack Obama on May 9 publicly backed the issue for the first time during a White House interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts.

“The president of the United States, to black people you know he’s on many levels as close to Martin Luther King and our own moral leadership as you can imagine,” said Sharon Littman-Hicks, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, in response to a question about whether Obama’s support of marriage rights for same-sex couples prompted the NAACP’s position. “It’s just not a part of history to have a black man elected president of the United States, it’s a sense of what more of exceptional leadership on a position that we could never obtain. From a space of cultural connection more than anything else, the president stood up beyond popularity, beyond the norm, beyond status quo and took the courageous step on behalf of the LGBT community that many would have seen as a political risk. I see it as nothing less than courageous leadership.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley in March signed a bill that will allow same-sex couples to marry, but state voters will likely face a November ballot referendum that would overturn the law that is slated to take effect on Jan. 1.

Fifty-two percent of respondents who participated in a Marylanders for Marriage Equality poll in March said they would vote for the same-sex marriage bill in the likely ballot measure.

Jealous stressed during the press conference that civil rights organizations remain united against the Maryland referendum and other similar measures across the country.

“Ballot measures like that on the ballot here in Maryland are intended to encode discrimination, codify discrimination into law and therefore stand apart from our nation’s recent decades and decades and decades and decades of using its constitution… to expand rights to people,” he said. “This is a cynical attempt to use a state constitution to restrict rights and we will oppose it as we have said in our statement.”

Gerald Stansbury, president of the Maryland State Conference NAACP, told the Blade after the press conference that his affiliate has not “had much discussion” yet on the likely referendum. He suggested, however, that the civil rights organization’s endorsement of marriage rights for same-sex couples will help black voters better understand ballot measure and its potential impact on LGBT Marylanders.

“We’re hoping that Maryland will understand that any person has a right to be protected under the law,” said Stansbury. “This is basically where we’re coming from. We’re supporting the national office and the national NAACP and taking the position that they have this weekend.”

Maryland Del. Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City) also welcomed the NAACP’s position.

“As a life long member, I am encouraged by this historic decision of national NAACP to transform their position which opposed efforts to ban civil recognition of same-sex unions to one which honors and is inclusive of our black LGBT community by supporting the struggle for full marriage equality for same gender loving couples,” she told the Blade. “For those African American people who were on the fence about the issue, the support of the NAACP and our president will help move the conversation forward.

Washington categorized the endorsement as an “important step” that bolsters the efforts of those fighting against the likely referendum. Other observers note that the NAACP could play a crucial role in organizing opposition to the ballot measure among black Marylanders because the organization is headquartered in Baltimore.

“The same energy that we saw in North Carolina would be monumental to the state of Maryland,” said Littman-Hicks. “I just hope that their leadership that they’ve already shown at the national level and knowing that their home is in the state of Maryland in terms of their headquarters’ office so we can hope that all of the ability of the NAACP as we’ve seen it over and over again in state battles comes full center in the state of Maryland.”

Washington conceded these efforts would not have much of an impact among white protestants and Roman Catholics who oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“Our work in those communities should continue more vigorously now than ever before,” she said.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Straight ally and rugby legend Ben Cohen poses with fan and supporter Prince Harry at an event promoting his anti-homophobia organization. (Photo courtesy Ben Cohen's twitter)

Stay tuned to the Washington Blade for more on the big announcement endorsing marriage equality from the NAACP later today. In the mean time, here is your news:

• The leader of Ukraine’s gay rights organization was viciously ambushed and beaten upon arriving at a press event meant to announce the cancellation of the nation’s pride march, Sunday.
• Three retired priests in Minnesota publish an open letter calling on Catholics to support marriage equality.
• Think Progress reports the Pan American Health Organization condemns ex-gay therapy.
• Malawi to overturn homosexual ban, Joyce Banda says, according to the BBC.
• Conservative Catholic Pepperdine University recognizes LGBT legal society, according to Think Progress.

Finally, Watch Anderson Cooper play Jeopardy for the Trevor Project and win $50,000 for the gay suicide prevention organization.

Not just handsome and smart, but generous too!

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

From left: Kim Catullo and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn exchange vows in Manhattan on Saturday. (Photo by William Alatriste)

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn married her long-time partner in Manhattan on Saturday night.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, U.S. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Nydia Velázquez were among the 300 people who gathered at Highland Stages in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District to witness the presumptive 2013 mayoral candidate and Kim Catullo exchange vows. Retired New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye officiated the wedding.

The women’s fathers escorted them down the aisle.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn's father, Lawrence Quinn, escorts her down the aisle as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other dignitaries watch. (Photo by William Alatriste)

Guests applaud Kim Catullo and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn immediately after they tied the knot. (Photo by William Alatriste)

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

(image courtesy NAACP)

The NAACP announced on Saturday its board has voted in a favor of resolution endorsing same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage rights for gay couples is consistent with equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded 103 years ago to advocate for the civil rights of black Americans, made the resolution public after the board voted in favor of the measure. The vote tally wasn’t immediately available.

The resolution affirms the NAACP’s commitment to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment while at the same time states a commitment to religious freedom under the First Amendment.

“The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the ‘political, education, social and economic equality’ of all people,” the resolution states. “Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.”

The endorsement from the Baltimore-based organization comes on the heels of President’s Obama’s announcement in support of same-sex marriage. Within the span of a couple weeks, the nation’s first black president and the country’s premier organization for civil rights of black Americans have come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Other prominent black Americans — actor Will Smith, rapper Jay-Z and House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) — have also followed Obama’s lead.

Leaders within the NAACP said support marriage equality is consistent with the organization’s advocacy for civil rights.

Roslyn Brock, board chair of the NAACP, said, “The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure political, social and economic equality of all people. We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.”

NAACP’s Benjamin Jealous (Photo courtesy NAACP)

“The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people,” Jealous said. “The well-funded right wing organizations who are attempting to split our communities are no friend to civil rights, and they will not succeed.”

Previously, the NAACP had no position on marriage equality. Julian Bond, chairman emeritus of the organization, has personally advocated for LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, saying the goals of the LGBT rights movement were consistent with the goals of the black civil rights movement.

Even though the NAACP had no official position in favor of marriage equality, the organization had advocated against legislative ban on same-sex marriage. Among these actions included stated opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in North Carolina and California.

LGBT rights groups hailed the NAACP’s announcement in support of marriage equality as a milestone in the pursuit of marriage rights for gay couples.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, was among the LGBT advocates who had high praise for the organization.

“The NAACP has long been the nation’s conscience and champion for an America where all share equally in the promise of liberty and justice for all,” Wolfson said. “Today the NAACP resoundingly affirmed that the freedom to marry is a civil right and family value that belongs to all of us, and that discriminatory barriers to marriage must fall.”

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the vote is “another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community.”

“It’s time the shameful myth that the African-American community is somehow out of lockstep with the rest of the country on marriage equality is retired — once and for all,” Solmonese said. “The facts and clear momentum toward marriage speak for themselves.”

Black Americans have been seen as among the minorities within the country that are least supportive of marriage rights for gay couples. In November, a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 58 percent of black Americans believe same-sex marriage was“unacceptable,” while 35 percent deemed it “acceptable.”

But views may be changing. Following the Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, a Washington Post-ABC News poll published Tuesday found that 54 percent of black Americans had a favorable view of the president’s announcement, while 37 viewed it unfavorably.

Anti-gay groups have accused of trying to exploit racial tensions as part of efforts to oppose same-sex marriage. Internal documents from the National Organization for Marriage, obtained by the Human Rights Campaign and made public in March, reveal the organization tried to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks” as part of its strategy.

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies,” one documents reads. “Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.”

Solmonese said the NAACP’s endorsement of same-sex marriage demonstrates that NOM’s strategy to exploit the black community has failed.

“NOM has pursued ugly racial politics seeking to divide people, but what is becoming crystal clear is that its strategy is not working,” Solmonese said. “Americans from all walks of life are uniting to support love, commitment, and stronger families.”

NOM didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment on the NAACP’s endorsement.

One state with a significant black population could soon be deciding the issue of same-sex marriage. In Maryland, where opponents of same-sex marriage are seeking to place a referendum of the law on the ballot, an estimated 29 percent of the population is black.

Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, praised the NAACP for the endorsing marriage equality and said it demonstrates growing black support for same-sex marriage.

“We could not be more pleased with the NAACP board decision to support marriage equality,” Levin said. “It is yet again reflective of the growing momentum within the African-American community — like all communities — to support stronger families and protect children.”

Among the groups that have been working to preserve the Maryland same-sex marriage law, Levin said, is the Baltimore branch of the NAACP.

“The signs are clear: a majority of all Marylanders — people of all backgrounds — support making families stronger and protecting all children equally under the law,” Levin said.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The U.S. House on Friday passed major defense budget legislation aimed at authorizing funds for the Pentagon that was inclusive of language restricting LGBT rights.

By a vote of 299-120, the Republican-controlled House approved its version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill. The $642 billion package aims to provide funding for military programs and pay for service members, but includes anti-gay provisions that were adopted by the House Armed Services Committee during its markup of the legislation.

One provision in the bill, the “conscience protections,” is for military personnel and chaplains who object to homosexuality. Under the language, service members could harass gay colleagues and chaplains could discriminate against service members by religion, gender, sexual orientation or race.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s “disappointed” the language was included in the legislation passed by the House.

“The fact of the matter is, there are already in place adequate protections for chaplains and service members in this area,” Sarvis said. “This language weakens implementation of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, which Americans support and which our nation’s military leaders have said is being implementing smoothly.”

Another provision in the bill would prohibit same-sex couples from holding marriage ceremonies on Defense Department property. The Pentagon has previously issued guidance saying such facilities should be available on a sexual orientation neutral basis.

Sarvis also objected to this language in the legislation.

“This is yet another attempt by a few opponents of military equality who are looking to turn the clock back on progress and relegate gay and lesbian service members to second-class status,” Sarvis said.

The White House Office of Management & Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy earlier this week objecting to the anti-gay provisions, calling language barring same-sex couples from marrying on military bases “potentially unconstitutional.” The White House issued a veto threat on the legislation based on certain provision in the bill, included provisions related to the detention of detainees, but stopped short of explicitly stating the anti-gay language merited a veto.

The Senate has yet to take action on its version of defense authorization legislation for the upcoming fiscal year. Next week, the Senate Armed Forces Committee will begin its markup. Differences between the House and Senate versions will be addressed in conference committee later this year.

Similar anti-gay language was included last year in the previous House version of the defense authorization bill. The language was ultimately removed in conference committee before each chamber voted again to approve the final version of the legislation.

CORRECTION: An initial version of this article incorrectly stated service members could opt out working gay colleagues under the “conscience protections” in the legislation. The Blade regrets the error.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The Maryland Court of Appeals on Friday unanimously ruled that same-sex couples who were legally married in other jurisdictions can get divorced in the state.

The 7-0 decision comes after Maryland resident Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan of the District of Columbia appealed a Prince George’s County trial judge’s 2010 denial of their divorce petition. The women married in California in Oct. 2008, less than a month before the state’s voters approved Proposition 8 that banned nuptials for gays and lesbians. Port and Cowan separated eight months later and filed for divorce while they both lived in Maryland.

Attorney General Douglas Gansler opined in Feb. 2010 that the state could recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in the District of Columbia and other jurisdictions. Governor Martin O’Malley subsequently ordered state agencies to recognize such unions.

“A valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce, according to applicable statutes, reported cases and court rules of this state,” read the decision.

O’Malley welcomed the 21-page ruling.

“Today’s unanimous decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals confirms that the policy of recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages that we have implemented in the Executive Branch is valid and consistent with the law,” he said in a statement. “To treat families differently under the law because they happen to be led by gay or lesbian couples is not right or just.  Today’s decision is another step forward in our efforts to ensure that every child is protected equally under the law.  As a free and diverse people, the way forward is always to be found through greater respect for the equal rights of all; for the human dignity of all.”

Michele Zavos, a lawyer with Zavos Juncker Law Group who represented Port, applauded the decision.

“We’re all enormously excited because this decision establishes marriages between same-sex couples that are valid in another jurisdiction are valid in Maryland,” she said.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal served as co-counsel on the case.

“The decision could not be better for our community,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “The court accepted all of the arguments we presented. Although the holding is specifically about divorce, the analysis would apply to any marital benefit or protection.”

The court’s ruling comes less than three months after O’Malley signed the state’s marriage equality bill into law.

Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee on Monday signed an executive order recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages. Then-New York Gov. David Paterson in 2008 directed state agencies to recognize the nuptials of gays and lesbians who legally wed in other jurisdictions.

Maryland voters will likely vote on a referendum in November that would bar marriage for same-sex couples. Both the plaintiffs’ lawyers and legal observers noted that the ban on nuptials for gays and lesbians would not impact the court’s decision.

“One reason this decision is so important is that the court’s ruling will not be changed even if, in the worst case scenario, the new marriage equality law were to be repeated in a referendum vote,” said Minter. “Valid marriages from other state would still be recognized in Maryland.  Because same-sex couples can marry right next door in D.C., this provides powerful protection.”

“Same-sex couples in Maryland can be married and can have their marriages recognized,” added Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal. “Marriage has come to stay in Maryland.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Marine Barracks on Capitol Hill (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Liebman told a D.C. Superior Court hearing on May 16 that the government considers the incident a hate crime. But a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office said later that the government has not charged the case as a hate crime and that the case remains under investigation.

Liebman said defendant Pfc. Michael Poth, 20, shouted an anti-gay slur at Lance Cpl. Philip Bushong, 23, and Bushong’s gay friend, whom authorities have not identified.

Liebman told Judge Ronna L. Beck, who presided over a preliminary hearing, that the anti-gay slur came minutes before Poth and Bushong got into a verbal and physical altercation during which Poth allegedly plunged a pocket knife into Bushong’s upper chest, piercing his heart.

Bushong was pronounced dead a short time later at a hospital. D.C. police charged Poth with second-degree murder while armed. Police didn’t initially list the incident as a hate crime.

Liebman did not identify Bushong’s gay male friend, saying only that Poth saw Bushong and the friend hugging on the sidewalk outside Molly Malone’s bar and restaurant on the 700 block of 8th Street, S.E. The bar is located across the street from the Marine barracks at 8th and I Streets, S.E., where Poth had been stationed.

“This was a hate crime,” the Washington Post quoted Liebman as saying at the hearing. “The victim and his friend were embracing outside.”

Friends of Bushong have said he was straight. He had been stationed at the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and was visiting Washington, where he planned to move, friends and family members said. At the time of his death, Bushong was days away from being discharged honorably after having completed his term of enlistment.

Poth’s attorney, David Benowitz, argued at the hearing that Poth acted in self-defense. He pointed to one of several video surveillance tapes played at the hearing which showed Poth on the ground before getting back on his feet. Benowitz said Poth was on the ground because Bushong hit or pushed him.

Benowitz also noted at the hearing that a witness told police that Bushong was the first to initiate contact with Poth. At the time of his arrest, Poth told D.C. police homicide detectives that Bushong punched him in the face and head and he stabbed Bushong in self-defense.

According to accounts in the Post and the Washington Times, Benowitz argued that the facts in the case didn’t support a second-degree murder charge and that the charged should be reduced to manslaughter.

Court records show that Judge Beck denied the request to lower the charge and ruled that prosecutors established probable cause that Poth committed second-degree murder while armed. She scheduled a felony status hearing for the case on July 13.

Beck’s ruling came after D.C. Police homicide Det. Dwayne Partman testified at the hearing that a witness told police Poth shouted he was “going to stab somebody and cut their lungs out” just after he walked past Molly Malone’s bar. Partman testified that the witness said Poth made that remark while Bushong and his gay male friend along with other people were standing in front of Molly Malone’s, the Post reported.

The Post also reported that two members of the Marines dressed in civilian clothes entered the courtroom before the hearing began and informed the attorneys that the Marines had given Poth an other than honorable discharge based on poor conduct that occurred prior to Bushong’s murder.

Liebman stated at the hearing that Marine Corps officials informed prosecutors that Poth tested positive for using synthetic marijuana and he had “verbally assaulted other soldiers and had to be restrained,” the Post reported.

William Miller, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, said he could not provide further details on the case because it is pending in court and remains under investigation. However, Miller said that at the present time, the U.S. Attorney’s office has not charged the case in court as a hate crime.

Benowitz didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.