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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. Bill

    February 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Another black bigoted “leader.” Typical

  2. Sebastian

    February 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Sorry but the stament Mr. Burns made – “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.”- is little vague. Because I can hide my sexual orientation. I don’t want to be a person that I am not. I am proud to be the kind of person that I am. I married in Spain and we love each other nad we want to be togheter with a civil recognition, that is the point. We LOVE each other, also God talk about LOVE. Don’t be hypocrite. That stament is stupid and without content. Sorry about my english but i’m still learning english.

  3. john

    February 5, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    this bill already died in committee… see the following link: http://www.equalitymaryland.org/

  4. Alan

    February 5, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    Del. Burns thinks “Our back door is wide open.” Seems like he should be in favor of gay marriage. :-/

  5. Doctor Whom

    February 7, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    “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.”

    1. I thought that you real men could spot a queer a mile off. Make up your minds already.

    2. People can hide their religion, so if we pass a law discriminating against your religion, it’s not really discriminatory, right?

  6. john

    February 8, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    why, after three days of informing the dcagenda staff that this bill has died in committee will they NOT verify that and update their article?

  7. Tim

    February 9, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    I really don’t understand what the problem is with so many black men being homophobic. I keep hearing all of this crap about a need to educate the black community, and how the LGBT Community needs to be careful not to offend them with comparisons to the civil rights struggle of African-Americans in the 60’s, and I have to say I’m tired of it. Black bigots like Delegate Emmett Burns Jr. of Baltimore County, need to give it a rest and realize that discrimination against gay & lesbian Americans is just as wrong and unjustified as discrimination against black Americans was in the 60’s. Sorry Delegate Burns, but it is a fair comparison and we aren’t going to stop making it. I really think the people in Maryland need to run some Pro-LGBT candidates against these homophobes in the Democratic Primaries, because ironically, it is the anti-gay Dems in the Democrat domininated Maryland General Assembly that are standing in the way of gay marriage and other Pro-LGBT legislation’s passage.

  8. Frank

    February 19, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Sure you can hide it Preacher Man… ever hear of make-up? It’s kind of like don’t ask don’t tell – ridiculous isn’t it.

    “Jesus loves the little children. All the children of the world, red and yellow black and white…”

    Isn’t that one of their brain-washing songs? I know, I grew up in Pentacostal Church. Talk about flaming!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Local

Heather Mizeur congressional campaign raises more than $1M

Former Md. delegate challenging Andy Harris

Published

on

Heather Mizeur, Delman Coates, Montgomery County, Silver Spring, Maryland, Maryland House of Delegates, Democratic Party, gay news, Washington Blade, momentum
Former Maryland state Del. Heather Mizeur is running for Congress (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Heather Mizeur has raised more than $1 million in her campaign against anti-LGBTQ Republican Congressman Andy Harris in Maryland’s 1st Congressional District.

“No candidate in #MD01 of either party, incumbent or challenger, has ever hit the $1M milestone this early in the election cycle,” Mizeur tweeted on Oct. 6.

The Victory Fund in an Oct. 8 press release said 80 percent of this $1 million came from Maryland-based donors, “a sign the district is ready for new representation.” And Mizeur continues to outpace Harris, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that say she raised $717,445 for the cycle ending June 30, while Harris raised $425,288.

“Andy Harris has taken every opportunity to attack and vilify trans individuals, trying to score political points with his base at the expense of the safety of some of his constituents,” Mizeur told the Washington Blade.

In 2014 Harris made the Human Rights Campaign’s “Hall of Shame” for proactively working “to undermine existing legal protections and promote anti-LGBT discrimination.”

“In contrast, the LGBTQ community knows me for my record,” Mizeur said. “And knows I’ll always lead with compassion and stand up for civil and human rights. I think the 1st District will respond to my message of respect and understanding.”

Mizeur, who now lives on the Eastern Shore with her wife, served on the Takoma Park City Council. Mizeur was a member of the Maryland House of Delegates for eight years.

In 2014, she launched a long-shot, grassroots campaign for governor where she finished a strong third in the Democratic primary, despite being outraised by better-known opponents.

But Mizeur also said she is aware of the challenges her team faces in taking on a well-entrenched Republican in a solidly conservative district.

The Cook Partisan Voter Index in 2017 rated the district as R +14, meaning the previous two presidential election results in the district skewed 14 percentage points more Republican than the national average.

“We have over $760,000 in the bank, and we’ve outraised him during our time in the race,” Mizeur said. “We’re raising the money we need to go toe-to-toe with Andy Harris next year.”

The Baltimore Sun in February reported Harris was “flush with campaign cash” mostly due to a 2010 redistricting that “packed” the area with Republican voters to increase Democrats’ chances in other district races.

“Yes, Andy Harris has over $1 million in the bank, stockpiled over a decade in office,” Mizeur said. “But in the short time I’ve been in the race, we’ve cut significantly into his cash on hand advantage.”

Harris has represented the 1st Congressional District—which includes Maryland’s Eastern Shore and parts of Baltimore, Carroll and Harford Counties—since 2011 and easily fended off most challenges with at least 60 percent of the vote. These challengers include Mia Mason, a transgender military veteran, who ran against him in 2020.

The 2010 redistricting made Harris’ seat safe enough not only to donate nearly a third of his war chest to conservative groups and candidates, such as U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), but to openly court controversy himself.

Harris last year openly defended then-President Trump’s discredited efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And in December he signed onto an amicus brief supporting a failed lawsuit contesting the presidential election results.

This year he downplayed the violence of the Jan. 6 insurrection in which numerous police officers were attacked, members of Congress were threatened, and the U.S. Capitol was vandalized.

Mizeur told the Blade that while Harris’ actions regarding the Jan. 6 insurrection were the catalyst for her challenging his seat, she feels the district is changing and he no longer represents their interests.

“Our supporters know he’s been embarrassing Maryland in Congress for far too long, and that some of his actions have shown he’s completely unfit to serve in public office, regardless of ideological views,” Mizeur said. “They want someone who will bring compassionate leadership and innovative thinking back to the first district. And that’s appealing to people across party lines.”

Maryland’s primary election is June 28, 2022, and its general election follows on Nov. 8.

Continue Reading

Local

AU student expelled over arrest in attack on gay Asian man, parents

Patrick Trebat no longer affiliated with university

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

An American University graduate student who was arrested by D.C. police on Aug. 7 on charges that he assaulted a gay Asian man and the man’s parents while shouting homophobic and anti-Asian slurs “is no longer affiliated with the university and will not be allowed on campus,” according to a report by WTOP News.

In an Oct. 9 broadcast that it updated this week, WTOP said Patrick Trebat, 38, who had been taking a night class at the university’s Kogod School of Business, was banned from returning to the campus.

Charging documents filed in D.C. Superior Court show that Trebat was charged by D.C. police with one count of felony assault, two counts of simple assault and one count of destruction of property for allegedly assaulting and injuring Sean Lai, 30, an out gay man of Chinese ancestry, and his parents on the 3700 block of Fulton Street, N.W., on Aug. 7.

The charging documents say Trebat allegedly began to follow Lai and his parents as they were walking along the street in the city’s Observatory Circle neighborhood near the National Cathedral. According to a statement by a police official from the police district whose officers made the arrest, Trebat punched and kicked the three victims as he stated, “Get out of my country.” The police statement says the family was taken to a hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.

A separate police report says Trebat shouted the word “faggots” at the family and shouted, “You are not Americans!”

Based on these allegations, prosecutors classified the assault charges as an anti-Asian bias related crime, but they did not add an anti-gay classification to the charges.

Court records show that Trebat was released two days after his arrest while awaiting trial under the court’s High Intensity Supervision Program, which, among other things, imposed a curfew requiring him to return home by 10 p.m.

An Oct. 8 story in The Eagle, the American University student newspaper, says it learned that Trebat’s attorney filed a motion in court, which the Washington Blade also discovered from court records, asking a judge to extend the curfew deadline from 10 p.m. to 11:45 p.m. so that Trebat could attend at night class at American University.

The motion, which prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not oppose and the judge approved, identified Trebat in the public court records as an AU graduate student.

According to the Eagle, representatives of the university’s Asian American and LGBTQ student groups criticized university officials for not alerting students that an AU student charged with an anti-Asian hate crime while hurling homophobic slurs had access to the campus and could pose a danger to students.

“Patrick Trebant is not affiliated with American University and is not allowed on campus,” AU told the Blade on Wednesday in a statement. “While we cannot discuss details of an individual matter, when a student has been arrested, charged, convicted of, or sentenced for a felony crime, the university’s student conduct code provides for an administrative adjudication process. The safety of our students and our community is our priority.”

The Eagle reports that the code of conduct states that the dean of students or their designee can administratively adjudicate a case when a student has been accused of a non-academic offense “where the student has been arrested, charged, convicted of, or sentenced for a felony crime” for certain misconduct. The code of conduct applies in a situation in which a student is arrested for an off-campus allegation.

Court records show Trebat is scheduled to return to court at 9:30 a.m. on Nov. 15 for a felony status hearing before Superior Court Judge Judith Pipe.

Neither Trebat nor his attorney, Brandi Harden, could immediately be reached for comment.

Continue Reading

Local

Two remaining defendants in D.C. trans murder case accept plea bargain

Dee Dee Dodds murdered in Northeast Washington in 2016

Published

on

Deeniquia Dodds, gay news, Washington Blade
Deeniquia ‘Dee Dee’ Dodds was killed in 2016. (Photo via Facebook)

Two of the four D.C. men who were charged with first-degree murder while armed for the July 4, 2016, shooting death of transgender woman Deeniquia “Dee Dee” Dodds on a Northeast Washington street pleaded guilty on Sept. 30 to a charge of voluntary manslaughter as part of a plea bargain deal offered by prosecutors.

A four-page letter providing details of the plea bargain offer made by prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, which was filed in D.C. Superior Court, states that the agreement accepted by defendants Jolonta Little, 30, and Monte T. Johnson, 25, includes the decision to drop the murder charge in exchange for a guilty plea to a single count of voluntary manslaughter.

It says that in exchange for the guilty plea prosecutors will also drop additional charges originally brought against Little and Johnson, including robbery while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm.

The agreement also includes a promise by prosecutors to ask Superior Court Judge Milton C. Lee, who is presiding over the case, to issue a sentence of eight years in prison for both men.

The letter spelling out the details of the plea deal makes it clear that it will be up to Lee to decide whether to accept the eight-year jail term proposed by prosecutors, and there is no guarantee that Lee will not hand down a sentence with a longer prison term.

It states that under the D.C. criminal code, a conviction on a voluntary manslaughter charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. Attorneys and observers of the D.C. courts have said judges usually agree to a recommended sentence by prosecutors in cases involving a plea bargain agreement.   

The letter describing the terms of the plea agreement in the Johnson and Little cases does not say whether prosecutors will ask Lee to deduct from the proposed eight-year jail sentence the time that the two men have already spent in jail since the time of their arrest. But in most criminal cases, judges agree to provide full credit for time served in jail prior to a conviction and sentencing.

Johnson has been held without bond for just over five years since his September 2016 arrest. Little has been held without bond for four years and eight months since his arrest in February 2017.

The plea bargain deal came two and a half years after a D.C. Superior Court jury became deadlocked and could not reach a verdict on the first-degree murder charges brought against Johnson and Little following a month-long trial, prompting Lee to declare a mistrial on March 6, 2019.

The two other men charged in Dodd’s murder, Shareem Hall, 27, and his brother, Cyheme Hall, 25, accepted a separate plea bargain deal offered by prosecutors shortly before the start of the 2019 trial in which they pled guilty to second-degree murder. Both testified at the trial as government witnesses.

In dramatic testimony, Cyheme Hall told the jury that it was Johnson who fatally shot Dodds in the neck at point black range after she grabbed the barrel of his handgun as Johnson and Hall attempted to rob her on Division Avenue, N.E., near where she lived. Hall testified that the plan among the four men to rob Dodds did not include the intent to kill her.

In his testimony, Hall said that in the early morning hours of July 4, 2016, he and the other three men made plans to commit armed robberies for cash in areas of D.C. where trans women, most of whom were sex workers, congregated. He testified that the four men got into a car driven by Little and searched the streets for victims that they didn’t expect to offer resistance.

D.C. police and the U.S. Attorney’s Office initially designated the murder charges against Johnson and Little as a hate crime based on findings by homicide detectives that the men were targeting trans women for armed robberies. However, during Johnson and Little’s trial, Lee dismissed the hate crime designation on grounds that there was insufficient evidence by prosecutors to support a hate crime designation.

At the request of prosecutors, Lee scheduled a second trial for Johnson and Little following the deadlocked jury in the first trial. But court records show that for reasons not disclosed in the public court docket, the start of the second trial was postponed several times. The most recent postponement was due to restrictions placed on the court related to the COVID pandemic.

As of August, of this year, the court records show, the second murder trial for Johnson and Little was scheduled to begin on Feb. 17, 2022. But the records show that as of Sept. 30 of this year the defense attorneys and prosecutors reached an agreement over the plea bargain deal offered by prosecutors. It was on that day, the court records show, that the two men officially agreed to plead guilty to the lower charge of voluntary manslaughter and waived their right to a trial. The following day, on Oct. 1, Lee accepted the guilty pleas and scheduled the sentencing for Dec. 10.

Meanwhile, Cyheme Hall and Shareem Hall have remained in the D.C. jail since the time of their respective arrests. Court records show they were scheduled to be sentenced by Lee on Dec. 20, 10 days after the sentencing for Johnson and Little.

It couldn’t immediately be determined from the court records whether prosecutors allowed the Hall brothers to also plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and have dropped the second- degree murder charge to which the two men pled guilty back in 2019 as part of an earlier plea bargain deal.

At the time Johnson and Little’s trial ended with the deadlocked jury in March 2019, LGBTQ activists expressed alarm that the jury’s action appeared to be a repeat occurrence of several previous D.C. cases in which male attackers charged with assaulting and murdering trans women of color were not convicted for those crimes.

“This is a very dangerous move on the part of the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” said Ruby Corado, founder and former executive director of Casa Ruby, the D.C. LGBTQ community services center, in referring to the plea deal.

“We need to be strengthening laws to ensure that the horrible epidemic of violence against LGBTQ people that we currently face ends, and not giving criminals a slap on the hand for committing murders against us,” Corado told the Washington Blade. “This sends a message that our lives don’t matter that much to those who already see us as easy targets; we are now becoming disposable people in the eyes of the law.”

D.C. trans rights advocate Alexis Blackmon, Casa Ruby’s interim executive director, called the plea bargain deal offered to Little and Johnson “very disturbing.” Added Blackmon, “How it’s being read across to me is if we can’t convict you on murder then we’re going to basically slap your wrist.”

Blackmon said she will consult with other local LGBTQ activists to determine whether a representative of the LGBTQ community should request to testify at Little and Johnson’s Dec. 10 sentencing hearing to ask the judge to hand down a sentence greater than eight years.

D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner and trans advocate Monika Nemeth said she too is troubled over the plea bargain agreement.

“While I am stunned by a plea that reduces the charge from first-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter, I should not be as we are still a society for whom trans people, particularly trans women of color, are not valued and are disposable,” Nemeth said. “I don’t see how you get to voluntary manslaughter when the victims were targeted for being trans. This is not justice.”

William Miller, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said he would make inquires with the office’s prosecutors to obtain a response to a question from the Blade asking for an explanation of why the decision was made to issue the plea bargain offer rather than bring defendants Little and Johnson to trial on the murder charge.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular