Connect with us

Local

Md. may recognize out-of-state gay marriages

Attorney general issues opinion as D.C. couples prepare to wed

Published

on

Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler (Photo courtesy of Maryland state government)

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler issued a long-awaited opinion Wednesday saying same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries most likely would have full legal standing in the state.

But in his 53-page legal opinion, Gansler said the Maryland Court of Appeals would have the final say in the matter should opponents of same-sex marriage choose to contest the legal standing of married same-sex couples living in or visiting the state.

Gansler’s opinion comes one week before a law allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in D.C. is expected to take effect March 3. Same-sex couples in Maryland have said they would likely make wedding plans in the District in response to a favorable opinion from Gansler.

The attorney general’s opinion comes nine months after state Sen. Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), who is gay, asked Gansler to issue an official opinion on the question of whether the state could legally recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

“You have asked whether those marriages may be recognized under state law,” Gansler said in his opinion, which is addressed to Madaleno. “The answer to that question is clearly ‘yes.’”

Madaleno could not immediately be reached for comment, but he told the Washington Post in a brief interview that changes in state policy could now result from a court ruling, legislation or administrative action, though none of those is imminent.

Gansler says in the opinion that while he believes the legal concept of state “public policy” favors recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, others might raise legal grounds to contest that view.

In particular, he points to the 2007 ruling by the Maryland Court of Appeals upholding the state’s marriage law banning same-sex marriages from being performed in the state. In that 4-3 ruling denounced by LGBT activists, the court ruled that restricting marriage to a man and a woman doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples or deny them rights under the state constitution. The court held that the ban on same-sex marriage instead promotes the state’s “interest” in traditional heterosexual marriage as a means of fostering procreation and protecting children.

But Gansler says in his opinion that the appeals court decision should not be a key factor in determining whether Maryland could recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

“The Court of Appeals would start from the general principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration remains valid in Maryland,” he said in his opinion. “There are exceptions to that rule if the particular marriage is contrary to a strong state public policy. A statute that limits marriage in Maryland to opposite-sex couples could be said to embody a policy against same-sex marriage.”

However, Gansler noted that the Court of Appeals has not prevented the state from recognizing various types of marriages performed in other states that are not allowed to be performed in Maryland under the state’s marriage law. Among them are common law marriages, which are recognized in many other states. The Court of Appeals also upheld a Rhode Island marriage between an uncle and a niece, even though the Maryland marriage law prohibits such a marriage, Gansler says in his opinion.

“While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction,” he says. “In light of Maryland’s developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.”

In response to a second question raised by Madaleno, Gansler says in his opinion that Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley does not have authority to issue an executive order recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

In his May 19, 2009, letter to Gansler requesting the same-sex marriage recognition opinion, Madaleno pointed out that New York Gov. David Paterson issued such an order, clearing the way for New York to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, even though the legislature had not approved a same-sex marriage bill.

“An executive order of the governor must be consistent with existing Maryland law, as enacted by the General Assembly and construed by the courts,” Gansler says.

LGBT rights groups hailed Gansler’s opinion as an important breakthrough for the marriage equality movement.

“Today is a day to celebrate,” said Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, a state LGBT advocacy group.

“Equality Maryland applauds a favorable opinion released by the Office of Attorney General Doug Gansler that states that the marriages of same-gender couples legalized in other jurisdictions have standing to be honored here at home.”

But Rick Bowers, director of Christian Impact Alliance, a Maryland group opposed to same-sex marriage, said Gansler acted without legal authority to issue such a ruling.

“The governing body over a decision like this should be the General Assembly or the people of the state of Maryland through a vote by referendum,” Bowers said.

Gay rights groups, however, disputed Bowers assessment, saying Gansler has authority to issue such an opinion.

Lambda Legal, a national LGBT group, praised Gansler’s opinion for “saying that recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples is consistent with Maryland law.”

Susan Sommer, director of the group’s Constitutional Litigation program, said the Gansler opinion “should bring some peace of mind to married same-sex couples and their families in Maryland as this state aligns itself with New York, making clear that there is no gay exception to long-standing marriage recognition law.”

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said he was confident that the Maryland Court of Appeals would uphold Gansler’s assessment that valid same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions have full legal standing in Maryland.

“Maryland’s typical practice, like all states historically, is to honor marriages rather than destabilize them,” Wolfson said. “The Maryland Attorney General is concluding, looking at Maryland law, that there is no reason for a gay exception to that tradition and common sense practice.”

While praising Gansler’s opinion as an important development for same-sex marriage equality, some LGBT organizations said it focuses attention on the need for all states to adopt same-sex marriage laws.

“Today’s opinion by the Maryland Attorney General only continues to further highlight the burdensome patchwork of unequal laws same-sex couples face across the country,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “With every step that is taken in the progress toward full equality, it becomes more and more obvious that separate is not equal and marriage by any other name is not marriage.”

The action by Gansler on Wednesday also comes less than a month after the Maryland House Judiciary Committee voted 12-8 to defeat a bill that would have banned same-sex marriage in the state. The measure was introduced by Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County), who said he anticipated Gansler’s opinion would back same-sex marriage recognition.

Maryland Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County), meanwhile, is “definitely” moving ahead with plans to file impeachment papers against Gansler for his same-sex marriage recognition opinion, according to spokesperson Louisa Baucom.

“His position about the opinion is that Attorney General Gansler had no right to issue the opinion, regardless of what the opinion is — that his constitutional limitations prohibit that,” Baucom said.

“He will be drawing up letters of impeachment against Attorney General Gansler,” she said, adding that the charges would be based on “violation of his oath of office.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Baltimore

Baltimore’s oldest gay bar to reopen this week

Leon’s owner Ron Singer died in July

Published

on

Leon’s, the oldest gay bar in Mount Vernon, will reopen Wednesday. (Photo by Kaitlin Newman for the Baltimore Banner)

By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | Those legendary heavy-handed pours, spirited karaoke and trivia nights, and groan-worthy wall-to-wall patrons on packed nights are back!

Leon’s will live to see another day.

Baltimore’s oldest gay bar, which opened in the 1950s, closed in July following the death of its owner, Ron Singer.

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

Continue Reading

Local

Comings & Goings

Whitman-Walker announces leadership appointments

Published

on

From left, Leigh Miles Jackson, PhD., and Angel Earle, PhD.

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected]. 

Congratulations to Leigh Miles Jackson, Ph.D., named executive director of The Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker, and Angel Earle, Ph.D. named as chief operating officer, Whitman-Walker Health System. 

Upon her appointment Dr. Jackson said, “Under my leadership, I would love for The Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker to be known as a trusted, forward-looking research organization that shapes policies, strengthens practices and creates measurable change for the community.” Dr. Jackson spent 12 years with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, leading national initiatives on minority-serving institutions and economic evidence for investments in children, youth and families. Dr. Jackson holds an extensive educational background, including postdoctoral fellowships in developmental Psychology and Neurogenomics from Vanderbilt University, a Ph.D. in molecular and systems pharmacology from Emory University and a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Wake Forest University. 

Upon her appointment Dr. Earle said, “When we talk about parity and inequities and research, it’s never just about the dollars that are out there. It’s about making sure that we’re cultivating a change that embraces equity at the heart of everything that it does. As the COO for Whitman-Walker Health System I will be working closely to support The Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker and the Whitman-Walker Foundation to drive advancement in research and support the strategic goals of all of the Whitman-Walker Heath System entities.” 

Dr. Earle is a genetic epidemiologist and senior executive. She brings a background from the London School of Economics and the University of South Carolina, with expertise in global health, corporate strategy and socioeconomic policy. She has co-authored peer-reviewed research on cancer genetics, nephrology biomarkers and reproductive genomes.   

Dr. Heather Aaron, CEO of Whitman-Walker Health System said, “both leaders bring research-driven expertise and operational strength to the organization as it continues expanding research, health care access, and health outcomes for residents across the Washington, D.C., region, including the LGBTQ+ community, people living with and at risk for HIV, and communities experiencing persistent health disparities.” 

The Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker is also expanding its research agenda beyond HIV to address the complex health conditions affecting people living with and at risk for HIV, as well as the broader communities The Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker serves.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Former Capital Pride board member reiterates sexual harassment allegation

Trans activist says resignation of board chair won’t change org’s culture

Published

on

Taylor Lianne Chandler resigned earlier this year from the Capital Pride Alliance board. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Taylor Lianne Chandler, who earlier this year resigned from the Capital Pride Alliance Board of Directors after expressing concern that the board failed to address instances of “sexual misconduct” within the Capital Pride organization, said this week she doesn’t believe her concerns will be addressed following the resignation of the board’s current chairperson.

Capital Pride Alliance serves as the lead organizer of D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events. 

Anna Jinkerson, who has served as chair of the Capital Pride board for only 10 months and has served on the board for the past four years, confirmed she is resigning from the board effective Sept. 30.

In a statement to the Washington Blade commenting on the possible impact of Jinkerson’s resignation, Chandler said Capital Pride board member Natalie Thompson would be replacing Jinkerson as board chair, and she didn’t expect that change to impact what she called Capital Pride’s problematic “culture.” 

But Ryan Bos, the Capital Pride president and CEO, told the Blade that Thompson had not been selected as the new board chair and that a new chair would not be selected until the board holds an election scheduled for October.

Chandler, who identifies as transgender, said it was a Capital Pride board member who told her that Natalie Thompson had been or would be selected as the new Capital Pride board chair. She didn’t identify the board member.

“My concerns about how Capital Pride has handled serious allegations of sexual misconduct have not disappeared with a change in leadership,” she told the Blade in her statement. “When leadership continues to socialize, smile for photographs, and share spaces with someone facing serious allegations, what message does that send to the people who say they were harmed,” she said.

Chandler has told the Blade a Capital Pride investigation identified an individual implicated in a “pattern” of sexual harassment-related behavior but said she was bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement that applied to all board members and she could not provide further details.   

When asked by the Blade to comment on Chandler’s allegations at the time she resigned from the board in February of this year, board chair Jinkerson said Capital Pride acts “quickly and appropriately” to address concerns such as those raised by Chandler. But she and other Capital Pride officials did not at that time or since then specifically acknowledge whether someone associated with the organization engaged in sexual harassment.

“The community deserves transparency, accountability, and leadership willing to make difficult decisions,” Chandler said in her statement to the Blade this week. “Changing the chair doesn’t change the culture,” she added. “Actions do.”

In response to a request from the Blade for an update on its response to Chandler’s allegations about alleged sexual misconduct within the Capital Pride organization, Bos sent the Blade a statement on behalf of Capital Pride.

“The Capital Pride Alliance takes allegations of harassment, misconduct, and unsafe behavior seriously,” the statement says. “The organization follows standard procedures and engages appropriate resources to support a thorough, confidential, and impartial review, when information is reported.” 

The statement adds, ”Because these matters require maintaining confidentiality and protecting the privacy of personnel, volunteers, and governance processes, we will not comment on specific individuals, allegations, investigative findings or communications involving law enforcement.” 

It concludes by stating, “We remain committed to fostering a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment, appropriately addressing concerns raised, and continuing to strengthen our policies, governance practices, and organizational culture.”

Although the statement refers to “communications involving law enforcement,” Capital Pride has not disclosed whether instances of alleged sexual harassment or, as stated by Chandler, a possible instance of sexual assault, have been reported to D.C. police.  

A D.C. police spokesperson, in response to a Blade inquiry, said they have no record of a sexual harassment or sexual assault complaint surfacing from the Capital Pride office, which is located in the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center building at 1827 Wiltberger Street, N.W. 

But the Blade has obtained a D.C. police incident report that appears to confirm Capital Pride COO June Crenshaw’s claim in a recent Facebook post that she reported at least one incident of sexual harassment related to Capital Pride to D.C. police.

The report, which was filed on Oct. 11, 2025, states that Crenshaw told a police officer who prepared the report that another person told her “that a board member of Capital Pride Alliance groped his genitals at a Capital Pride event.” The report says Crenshaw told the officer the person who reported being groped “did not want to speak to the police at this time.”

The incident report, which is a public document, says the groping reportedly happened on Oct. 8, 2025. It concludes by saying Crenshaw was given “resource information” to provide to the person who said he was groped. It does not identify that person or the board member who allegedly committed the groping.  

Officials at Capital Pride recently exchanged testy public Facebook posts with Chandler. Crenshaw criticized Chandler for her social media posts on the matter.

“It is remarkable to watch people publicly accuse others of failing to create safe spaces when, during the time they themselves held positions of leadership and significant volunteer responsibility, they claim to have witnessed deeply troubling behavior, yet never reported what they allegedly witnessed to fellow leaders, law enforcement, the Office of the Attorney General, legal counsel, or staff responsible for addressing such concerns,” Crenshaw wrote. “When I became aware of allegations or personally witnessed conduct that required intervention, I reported what I knew through the appropriate channels, including to law enforcement and other relevant authorities. Investigations were conducted. Those processes created records, documentation, correspondence, timelines, and conclusions.”

Chandler responded, “I was NOT in organizational leadership or fully informed about the scope of these allegations when much of what you reference occurred. I was read into the situation after becoming an executive officer. By that point, the investigation had already concluded, and we were awaiting the final report. … Once that report became available to me, and once I understood the seriousness and scope of what was being alleged, my position was anything but ambiguous: I did not believe this individual should be welcomed at, participate in, or have access to official Pride events.”

Capital Pride’s attorney Nick Harrison then joined the exchange, accusing Chandler of violating confidentiality rules.

“You served on the Board for years. You cannot now present yourself as an outsider with no  responsibility for what occurred during your tenure,” Harrison wrote. “When the situation became difficult, you resigned, provided your resignation letter to the media, disclosed confidential organizational matters, and recast yourself as the victim.”

Again, no one has publicly identified the person Chandler references as being welcome at Pride events and photographed with Capital Pride leadership. 

Continue Reading

Popular