Local
Uncertainty remains after Md. marriage opinion
Even the experts are uncertain how Maryland courts will now treat legally married same-sex couples.
Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) promised state agencies would comply with Attorney General Doug Gansler’s finding two weeks ago that Maryland may legally recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
But circuit courts that handle family violence protection orders and divorce cases are not bound by O’Malley’s directive and must consider the opinion on its own merits, according to several legal experts who spoke with DC Agenda.
“It’s certainly their prerogative whether to follow that. I would like to think the courts would accept the opinion, but we don’t know,” said Barbara Babb, director of the University of Baltimore’s Center for Families, Children and the Courts.
“Legislative direction would certainly be a help to the courts, but I don’t think it’s necessary for them to do the right thing.”
Family law contains several rights and administrative advantages reserved for married couples and designed to protect families in the event of divorce. If the courts choose to recognize Gansler’s opinion, same-sex married couples would have access to family breakdown services, child support, alimony and division of marital property.
Other safety-net statutes that are currently available to same-sex families but made easier with legal marriage recognition include child-in-need and civil protection orders in the event of neglect or domestic violence.
But it gets more complex during the creation of a family. Stepchild adoption would be significantly streamlined for married same-sex couples, Babb said, but not all marriage certificates are equal.
“Although Maryland currently authorizes second-parent adoption, it would be very clear — assuming the judges follow the attorney general’s opinion,” she said.
But children who have not been formally adopted by their non-biological parent could be left in legal limbo, Babb said, because presumptive parenting rights have not traditionally been recognized in Maryland courts.
“That would be one of the really interesting questions,” she said. “If the second parent hasn’t adopted the child, [would] the court give legal guardianship or legal authority to the non-biological parent? That’s a remaining question that isn’t as clear under the family law statute.
“I would suspect that in the law in the state where the couple was married, both parents would be seen as the child’s parent. If that’s the case, then Maryland would honor that. But the courts have chosen not to follow the de facto parent doctrine, so there are certainly areas of law that the court has taken pretty strident stand on with regard to same-sex couples raising children already.”
Other areas of law where courts extend benefits to married couples, such as the establishment of trusts, wrongful death suits, presumptive claims on estates, mutual debt responsibility and spousal legal immunities, also are dependent on whether courts accept Gansler’s opinion.
A further set of rights for married couples required of third parties are automatic in theory, but may ultimately have to be decided by courts, such as extending health insurance benefits to a spouse, the right to hospital visitation and making funeral decisions.
Jana Singer, a University of Maryland law school professor, said the attorney general’s opinion was legally sound and would be treated with greater weight than an ordinary “friend of the court” brief.
She said that one case could be all that is required to clarify the issue, or it could take many cases in different areas of law.
“If they decide to be narrower, they could say within this particular statute, Maryland law extends recognition in this context,” Singer said. “It’s more likely that we’ll get a broader opinion where they say recognition applies widely to Maryland law statutes.”
Equality Maryland’s study of state law found 425 statutes that utilize marital status of familial relationship as a basis for granting a right, privilege or restriction. Such restrictions, where a spouse has fewer rights than an individual, include conflict of interest prohibitions on areas like awarding of contracts to family members, corporate directorship limitations and exemptions from first right of purchase.
Dan Friedman, Gansler’s counsel and a former University of Maryland professor of constitutional law, was unable to speak publicly on how the courts should rule, but said that Gansler’s opinion was constitutionally valid and the attorney general could not be removed from office for issuing it.
Friedman wrote to House Speaker Michael Busch this week regarding the powers of attorney general after state Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) threatened impeachment proceedings against Gansler.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland is standing in support of Gansler’s opinion saying the state should recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages due to the doctrine of comity, in which contracts are valid anywhere in the United States if they are valid in the state they were created.
“Unless and until something contrary is said, same-sex families should consider themselves married in the state of Maryland and expect to be treated as such,” said David Rocah, staff attorney for ACLU of Maryland. “But it will take some time for it to be clear what rights are extended to them. All of the things couples did to protect their families, they should continue to do, in addition to expecting to be treated like the married couples they are.”
ACLU, Lambda Legal and Equality Maryland have created an informational sheet on the issue and are publishing it online at www.aclu-md.org.
District of Columbia
Judge rescinds stay-away order in Capital Pride anti-stalking case
Evidence hearing to determine if order should be reinstated against Darren Pasha
A D.C. Superior Court judge on April 17 rescinded an anti-stalking order he approved in February at the request of Capital Pride Alliance against local LGBTQ activist Darren Pasha.
In a ruling at a court status hearing, Judge Robert D. Okum agreed with defendant Darren Pasha’s stated concern that the initial order was too broad and did not specify who specifically he must stay at least 100 feet away from, as called for in the order.
Okum ruled on April 17 that the initial order, which he noted was oral rather than written, would be suspended until an evidentiary hearing takes place in which Capital Pride will need to present evidence justifying the need for such an order.
“I’m fine with scheduling a hearing at which the plaintiff can present evidence, and the defendant can present evidence,” Okum said. “But I’m not fine with just continuing this oral TRO [Temporary Restraining Order] that Mr. Pasha really doesn’t even have notice of. That seems unfair,” he said.
After asking both Pasha and Capital Pride Alliance Attorney Nick Harrison when they would be available for the evidence hearing, Okum set the date for April 27 at 11 a.m. in Superior Court.
The case began when Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a Civil Complaint on Oct. 27, 2025, against Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers.
The complaint was accompanied by a separate motion seeking a restraining order, preliminary injunction, and anti-stalking order prohibiting Pasha from “any further contact, harassment, intimidation, or interference with the Plaintiff, its staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates.”
In his initial ruling in February, Okum issued an order requiring Pasha to stay at least 100 feet away from Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers until the April 17 status hearing. He reduced the stay-away distance from the 200 yards requested by Capital Pride.
Pasha, who has so far represented himself in court without an attorney, has argued in multiple court filings and motions that the Capital Pride stalking allegations are untrue. In his initial 16-page response to the complaint, Pasha said it appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith, who has since resigned from the board.
“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” Pasha’s court response states.
At the April 17 hearing, Okum also ruled that, as standard procedure for civil complaints such as this one, he has ordered both parties to enter into court-supervised mediation to attempt to reach a settlement rather than go to trial.
In an earlier ruling Okum denied Pasha’s request for a jury trial, stating that civil cases such as this must undergo a trial with the judge determining the verdict under existing civil court statutes.
The April 17 court hearing was held in a courtroom at the courthouse, but as allowed under current court rules, Capital Pride attorney Harrison and Capital Pride official June Crenshaw participated virtually through a video connection. Pasha attended the hearing in the courtroom.
“This matter is proceeding through the court in the normal course,” Capital Pride released in a statement. “We look forward to presenting the relevant evidence at the scheduled hearing. Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to maintaining a safe and respectful environment for our staff, volunteers, and community, and to addressing concerns through appropriate channels.”
“This is clearly a case of retaliation,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing. “Today the judge removed the stay-away order and asked Capital Pride Alliance to present enough evidence and examples to see if a stay-away order should be granted,” he said. “Because Pride is coming up in June, we need to see where this is going.”
District of Columbia
Gay D.C. police lieutenant arrested on child porn charges
Matthew Mahl once served as head of LGBT Liaison Unit
D.C. police announced on April 14 that they have placed one of their lieutenants, Matthew Mahl, on administrative leave and revoked his police powers after receiving information that he was arrested in Maryland one day earlier.
Although the initial D.C. police announcement doesn’t disclose the reason for the arrest it refers to a statement by the Harford County, Md. Sheriff’s Office that discloses Mahl has been charged with sexual solicitation of a minor and child porn solicitation.
“On Tuesday, the Harford County Sheriff’s Office contacted MPD’s Internal Affairs Division shortly after arresting Lieutenant Matthew Mahl,” the D.C. police statement says.
“The allegations in this case are extremely disturbing, and in direct contrast to the values of the Metropolitan Police Department,” the statement continues. “MPD’s Internal Affairs Division will investigate violations of MPD policy once the criminal investigation concludes,” it says.
“MPD is not involved in the criminal investigation and was not aware of the investigation until yesterday,” the statement adds.
Mahl served as acting supervisor of the MPD’s then Gay & Lesbian Liaison Unit in 2013 when he held the rank of sergeant. D.C. police officials placed him on administrative leave and suspended his police powers that same year while investigating an undisclosed allegation.
A source familiar with the investigation said Mahl was cleared of any wrongdoing a short time later and resumed his police duties. Around the time he was promoted to lieutenant several years later Mahl took on the role as chairman of the D.C. Police Union, becoming the first known openly gay officer to hold that position.
NBC 4 reports that Mahl, 47, has served on the police force for 23 years and most recently was assigned to the department’s Special Operations Division.
Records related to Mahl’s arrest filed in Harford County District Court, show Sheriff’s Department investigators state in charging documents that he allegedly committed the offenses of Sexual Solicitation of a Minor and Child Porn Solicitation on Monday, April 13, one day before he was arrested on April 14.
The court records show he was held without bond during his first appearance in court on April 14. A decision on whether he would be released while awaiting trial or continue to be held without bond was scheduled to be determined during an April 15 bond hearing. The outcome of that hearing could not be immediately determined.
Maryland
Evan Glass is leaning on his record. Is that enough for Montgomery County’s top job?
Gay county executive candidate pushing for equitable pay, safer streets, and cleaner environment
By TALIA RICHMAN | During a meet-and-greet at Poolesville Memorial United Methodist Church, Evan Glass got his loudest applause of the night with a plan he acknowledged was decidedly unsexy.
“Day one, I’ll hire a director of permitting services,” the county executive candidate said.
Doing so, he added, is a step toward easing the regulatory burdens that can stifle small businesses in Montgomery County.
The only problem? At least one of his fiercest competitors is making a similar pledge.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Judge rescinds stay-away order in Capital Pride anti-stalking case
The latest Supreme Court case erasing LGBTQ identity
Calendar: April 17-23
Team DC’s annual gala set for this weekend
LGBTQ Catholic groups slam Trump over pope criticism
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
La X vuelve al tribunal
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
