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

Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale but owners aim to keep it in gay-friendly hands

$4.5 million listing includes real estate; business sold separately

Published

on

The real estate at Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale for $4.5 million. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay gasps could be heard around the DMV earlier this week when a real estate listing for Rehoboth Beach’s iconic Blue Moon bar and restaurant hit social media.

Take a breath. The Moon is for sale but the longtime owners are not in a hurry and are committed to preserving its legacy as a gay-friendly space.

“We had no idea the interest this would create,” Tim Ragan, one of the owners, told the Blade this week. “I guess I was a little naive about that.”

Ragan explained that he and longtime partner Randy Haney are separating the real estate from the business. The two buildings associated with the sale are listed by Carrie Lingo at 35 Baltimore Ave., and include an apartment, the front restaurant (6,600 square feet with three floors and a basement), and a secondary building (roughly 1,800 square feet on two floors). They are listed for $4.5 million. 

The bar and restaurant business is being sold separately; the price has not been publicly disclosed. 

But Ragan, who has owned the Moon for 20 years, told the Blade nothing is imminent and that the Moon remains open through the holidays and is scheduled to reopen for the 2026 season on Feb. 10. He has already scheduled some 2026 entertainment. 

“It’s time to look for the next people who can continue the history of the Moon and cultivate the next chapter,” Ragan said, noting that he turns 70 next year. “We’re not panicked; we separated the building from the business. Some buyers can’t afford both.” 

He said there have been many inquiries and they’ve considered some offers but nothing is firm yet. 

Given the Moon’s pioneering role in queering Rehoboth Beach since its debut 44 years ago in 1981, many LGBTQ visitors and residents are concerned about losing such an iconic queer space to redevelopment or chain ownership.

“That’s the No. 1 consideration,” Ragan said, “preserving a commitment to the gay community and honoring its history. The legacy needs to continue.” He added that they are not inclined to sell to one of the local restaurant chains.

You can view the real estate listing here.

Continue Reading

Local

Comings & Goings

Tristan Fitzpatrick joins TerraPower

Published

on

Tristan Fitzpatrick

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 Tristan Fitzpatrick on his new position as Digital Communications Manager with TerraPower. TerraPower creates technologies to provide safe, affordable, and abundant carbon-free energy. They devise ways to use heat and electricity to drive economic growth while decarbonizing industry.

Fitzpatrick’s most recent position was as Senior Communications Consultant with APCO in Washington, D.C. He led integrated communications campaigns at the fourth-largest public relations firm in the United States, increasing share of voice by 10 percent on average for clients in the climate, energy, health, manufacturing, and the technology. Prior to that he was a journalist and social media coordinator with Science Node in Bloomington, Ind. 

Fitzpatrick earned his bachelor’s degree in journalism with a concentration in public relations, from Indiana University.

Congratulations also to the newly elected board of Q Street. Rob Curis, Abigail Harris, Yesenia Henninger, Stu Malec, and David Reid. Four of them reelected, and the new member is Harris. 

Q Street is the nonprofit, nonpartisan, professional association of LGBTQ+ policy and political professionals, including lobbyists and public policy advocates. Founded in 2003 on the heels of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Lawrence v. Texas, when there was renewed hope for advancing the rights of the LGBTQ community in Washington. Q Street was formed to be the bridge between LGBTQ advocacy organizations, LGBTQ lobbyists on K Street, and colleagues and allies on Capitol Hill.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

New queer bar Rush beset by troubles; liquor license suspended

Staff claim they haven’t been paid, turn to GoFundMe as holidays approach

Published

on

A scene from the dance floor of Rush at a preview night on Friday, Nov. 28. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The D.C. Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 issued an order suspending the liquor license for the recently opened LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush on grounds that it failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.

Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 2001 14 Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker. 

It describes itself on its website as offering “art-pop aesthetics, high-energy nights” in a space that “celebrates queer culture without holding back.” It includes a large dance floor and a lounge area with sofas and chairs.

Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, did not immediately respond to a phone message from the Washington Blade seeking his comment on the license suspension.  

The ABC Board’s order states, “The basis for this Order is that a review of the Board’s official records by the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) has determined that the Respondent’s renewal payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”

The three-page order adds, “Notwithstanding ABCA’s efforts to notify the Respondent of the renewal payment check return, the Respondent failed to pay the license fee for the period of 2025 to 2026 for its Retailer’s Class CT license. Therefore, the Respondent’s license has been SUSPENDED  until the Respondent pays the license fees and the $50.00 per day fine imposed by the Board for late payment.”

ABCA spokesperson Mary McNamara told the Blade that the check from Rush that was returned without payment was for  $12,687, which she said was based on Rush’s decision to pay the license fee for four years. She said that for Rush to get its liquor license reinstated it must now pay $3,819 for a one-year license fee plus a $100 bounced check fee, a $750 late fee, and $230 transfer fee, at a total of $4,919 due.

Under D.C. law, bars, restaurants and other businesses that normally serve alcoholic beverages can remain open without a city liquor license as long as they do not sell or serve alcohol. 

But D.C. drag performer John Marsh, who performs under the name Cake Pop and who is among the Rush employees, said Rush did not open on Wednesday, Dec. 17, the day the liquor board order was issued. He said that when it first opened, Rush limited its operating days from Wednesday through Sunday and was not open Mondays and Tuesdays. 

Marsh also said none of the Rush employees received what was to be their first monthly salary payment on Dec. 15. He said approximately 20 employees set up a GoFundMe fundraising site to raise money to help sustain them during the holiday period after assuming they will not be paid.

He said he doubted that any of the employees would return to work in the unlikely case that Mosley would attempt to reopen Rush without serving liquor or if he were to pay the licensing fee to allow him to resume serving alcohol without having received their salary payment. 

As if all that were not enough, Mosley would be facing yet another less serious problem related to the Rush policy of not accepting cash payments from customers and only accepting credit card payments. A D.C. law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2025, prohibits retail businesses such as restaurants and bars from not accepting cash payments. 

A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, which is in charge of enforcing that law, couldn’t immediately be reached to determine what the penalty is for a violation of the law requiring that type of business to accept cash payments.

The employee GoFundMe site, which includes messages from several of the employees, can be accessed here.

Mosley on Thursday responded to the reports about his business with a statement on the Rush website. 

He claims that employees were not paid because of a “tax-related mismatch between federal and District records” and that some performers were later paid. He offers a convoluted explanation as to why payroll wasn’t processed after the tax issue was resolved, claiming the bank issued paper checks.

“After contacting our payroll provider and bank, it was determined that electronic funds had been halted overnight,” according to the statement. “The only parties capable of doing so were the managers of the outside investment syndicate that agreed to handle our stabilization over the course of the initial three months in business.”  

Mosley further said he has not left the D.C. area and denounced “rumors” spread by a former employee. He disputes the ABCA assertion that the Rush liquor license was suspended due to a “bounced check.” Mosley ends his post by insisting that Rush will reopen, though he did not provide a reopening date.  

Continue Reading

Popular