Connect with us

Local

D.C. court rejects ballot measure on gay marriage

Judges divided on city charter issue

Published

on

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled 5-4 Thursday that the city acted within the law when it refused to allow a minister to place a voter initiative on the ballot seeking to overturn the city’s same-sex marriage law.

The court’s nine judges unanimously agreed with the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics that a ballot measure to overturn the D.C. Marriage Equality Act, if approved by voters, would constitute discrimination prohibited by the city’s Human Rights Act.

But four of the judges, including Chief Judge Eric Washington, dissented from the majority, saying the law banning ballot measures that would result in discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act is invalid because the City Council passed it in violation of the congressionally approved D.C. Home Rule Charter. Associate Judge John Fisher wrote the dissenting opinion.

The majority decision, written by Associate Judge Phyllis Thompson, says the Council acted within the scope of the Home Rule Charter and a subsequent charter amendment, which it says gave the Council sufficient discretion to restrict ballot measures from taking away rights protected under the Human Rights Act.

In issuing its decision, the appeals court upheld an earlier ruling by a D.C. Superior Court judge, who also held that the election board acted within the law in denying Bishop Harry Jackson’s petition to file papers to place the Marriage Equality Act on the ballot as a voter initiative.

Jackson, pastor of a church in Beltsville, Md., recruited several D.C. same-sex marriage opponents to join him as plaintiffs in the case, Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics.

Jackson has said he would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if his side lost at the appeals court level.

Legal experts have said it’s possible — but unlikely — that the Supreme Court would agree to take the case because it is based on a local issue of whether the D.C. Home Rule Charter and a subsequent amendment to the charter allows ballot measures to be held that would result in discrimination. The case would not be on the issue of same-sex marriage itself or whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to accept same-sex marriage, as other pending lawsuits in state courts have asserted.

“The court’s ruling today is a significant victory for justice, the rule of law and the protection of all D.C. residents against discrimination,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “It’s time for the National Organization for Marriage to realize equality is here to stay no matter how much money they want to throw at turning back the clock.”

Solmonese was referring to efforts by the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay group, to use its sizable financial resources to support Jackson’s campaign to overturn the D.C. Marriage Equality Act.

Solmonese added, “The D.C. Council made a wise decision decades ago that no initiative should be permitted to strip away any individual’s civil rights. The court unanimously found that the proposed anti-marriage initiative would have the effect of causing discrimination, and in doing so, stood up for the entire D.C. community.”

Rev. Anthony Evans, president of the D.C.-based National Black Church Initiative and one of the plaintiffs who joined Jackson in seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage law through an initiative, said opponents of the law will continue their fight.

“Today the court has told the 500,000 residents of the District of Columbia that we have no right to vote on their own laws,” Evans said in a statement. “This is wrong. We should have a right to vote on issues challenging the fabric of our lives here in D.C. Like I’ve said in the past, we will continue to fight — taking this all the way to the Supreme Court. We will not give up easily.”

In the majority decision, Thompson said the claim by Jackson and those who joined him in challenging the city’s decision to ban a marriage ballot measure rested on the technical question of whether the City Council had the authority to pass implementing legislation to restrict voter initiatives or referenda.

“Appellants’ challenge focuses on the validity of Council legislation that requires the [election] board to refuse to accept any proposed initiative that would authorize, or have the effect of authorizing, discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act,” Thompson said in the decision.

“Specifically, appellants contend that, in establishing that requirement, the Council overstepped its authority and acted in contravention of the District of Columbia Charter. Alternatively, appellants contend that the proposed initiative would not authorize or have the effect of authorizing prohibited discrimination.

“We disagree with both contentions, and we therefore affirm the Superior Court’s rulings that the Council acted lawfully in imposing the Human Rights Act safeguard and that the [election] board correctly determined that the safeguard required it to reject the proposed initiative.”

D.C. City Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who chairs the committee that guided the same-sex marriage law through the Council, called the appeals court decision a major victory for the city and the law’s supporters.

“It’s significant that all of the judges agree that Bishop Jackson’s initiative would be discriminatory,” Mendelson said.

Jackson could not be immediately reached for comment.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth mayor calls for commissioner’s resignation after investigation into improper behavior 

Suzanne Goode ‘has violated her oath of office, disgraced position of commissioner’

Published

on

Rehoboth’s mayor has called on Commissioner Suzanne Goode to resign. (Photo courtesy of Goode)

Rehoboth Mayor Stan Mills called for the resignation of Commissioner Suzanne Goode, following release of an independent investigation into Goode’s behavior that led Mills to conclude she has violated her oath of office.

Over the past few months, city staff have complained about Commissioner Goode’s extensive and inappropriate communications with them. 

In June, Goode went to the house of a fellow commissioner in an attempt to settle a dispute she was having with his neighbor on the online platform NextDoor. Goode also has a history of using anti-LGBTQ language in various emails. 

“I believe we’ve come to the point where we can take the most severe action we can take at this time to end Commissioner Goode’s intentional lies and harassment,” said Mills. “This has never been about differences of opinions on issues, but rather about uncivil behavior.”

“Commissioner Goode has violated her oath of office and has disgraced the position of commissioner, and she should resign,” said Mills.

In late June, the city of Rehoboth hired Margaret DiBianca, an attorney who specializes in business and employment conflict resolution, to investigate allegations of harassment and inappropriate behavior by Goode toward city employees and fellow commissioners. 

DiBianca submitted the 17-page report on Aug. 12. On Aug. 21, a majority of the commissioners voted to release a redacted version of the report to the public. 

Before the vote, Commissioner Susan Stewart, who is set to be sworn in as mayor next month, said that releasing the report is necessary. 

“In most workplaces, the documented conduct would warrant her termination,” said Stewart. 

“Our laws provide no such path for an elected official. To simply move on would mean keeping this conduct secret, leaving the victims to shoulder the burden themselves without institutional support,” said Stewart. 

The investigation reported that Goode had sent nearly 2,000 emails to city employees since 2024 with more emails being sent almost daily. Only 90 emails from June and July were used in the scope of the investigation.

The report found that the emails contained “intentionally degrading and derogatory language, references to individuals’ family members, religion, and disabilities, as well as language hostile to the LGBTQIA+ community.”

The following emails were noted in the report as examples of ‘hostile’ language toward the LGBTQIA+ community: 

“On November 7, 2025, Cmr. Goode wrote to a constituent, “PS just curious – how does this alienate the ‘Queens’ in [the City] more than the non-queens in the sense how is it a LGBTQ issue? (Not everything in [the City] revolves around gays, right?).”

“On November 15, 2025, Cmr. Goode said to the Targeted Employees “conservatives now have to remain in the closet (conservatives now have to do what gays had to do in the 20th century – ah, the irony) who object to the woke, drag queen bent of [Clear Space Theatre] at times.”

“On December 29, 2025, Cmr. Goode wrote to a constituent, “straight white males like yourself and my husband might as well just shoot themselves. Pale, stale and male doesn’t cut it in this town, eh?”   

The report stated: “The volume of emails and the short intervals between communications sent by Goode reveal a pattern of conduct designed to intimidate, demean and harass rather than to advance legitimate city business.”

The report demonstrated multiple instances of Goode circumventing directives from Mayor Mills requiring her to cease inappropriate communications with city staff.  

The conclusion of the report found that Goode’s behavior “falls substantially and demonstrably outside the bounds of acceptable professional behavior expected of an elected official and public servant in violation of the City’s Civility Code and, in turn, constitutes a violation of the Ethics Code.”

“Cmr. Goode’s communications do not foster a “respectful, courteous, and professional work environment” and do not reflect the “dignity and respect” required by the Civility Code.”

The report outlined six recommendations for the city to follow to address Goode’s behavior. 

The recommendations included prohibiting Goode from contacting city employees and accessing administrative offices, and requiring Goode to undergo city-approved training on subjects such as respectful workplace behavior. 

At the Aug. 21 meeting, the Commissioners voted to adopt all six recommendations. 

During the meeting, Goode was given time to respond before the official release of the report. 

“When an investigation is an attorney up in Wilmington looking at emails, who never contacts me, obviously it is a one-sided investigation,” said Goode. “The investigative reporter never got my side of anything. I was never given the opportunity to defend myself.”

“In June, Commissioner Goode’s communication became even worse,” City Manager Taylour Tedder told the Blade this week. 

Tedder said that the volume of messages jumped to nearly 100 emails just in the month of June.

Tedder identified himself and City Solicitor Lisa Borin Ogden. He said that each of them filed multiple complaints, with one of them being to the Human Resources director.

“With an elected official, there is no way to reprimand or punish them because they’re not an employee,” said Tedder.

Brooke Thaler, communications director for the city of Rehoboth, expressed her frustration with the city’s inability to take serious action against Goode.

“That’s just a bit mind-boggling that something like this can go on, and there’s nothing that can be done about it,” said Thaler. 

“The public put their trust in her when they elected her, and I don’t think that their intention was for her to so badly mistreat city staff,” Thaler told the Blade. 

“It’s highly doubtful that she will stop, but I think the fact that these protections are in place to at least insulate the employees from receiving it when she’s not in person is a good step,” said Tedder. 

Goode responded to the Blade’s request for comment by saying:

“Friday’s session was a kangaroo court and a blatant weaponization of FOIA. The entire report relies on systematic misrepresentation. Time and again, comments I shared from social media or resident outreach were falsely attributed directly to me.

“Without context, these claims are meaningless. As just one example, the city manager accuses me of using a vulgar word on a phone call—a word I do not use (p. 6, line 22). The investigating attorney never even contacted me, proving this process was never meant to be fair,” said Goode. 

“I will not validate or accept an investigation built on inaccurate claims.”

Goode has not announced plans to resign. 

Continue Reading

Maryland

Girlfriends charged with Silver Spring murder to go on trial in 2027

Prosecutors charged both women with killing mother of one of them

Published

on

From left, Vanessa Tjongarero-Henderson and Samantha Raebel (Photos courtesy of Montgomery County, Md.)

Two women identified as a couple who are charged with the May 22, 2026, murder of the mother one of them in her Silver Spring home and who were arrested three weeks later in Ohio are scheduled to go on trial for murder April 19, 2027.

According to online records filed with Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville, Vanessa Tjongarero-Henderson, 29, of Clarksburg, Md., and Samantha Raebel, 36, of Phoenix are being held without bond in the Montgomery County Correctional Facility until the time of their trial.

Statements from Montgomery County police show the two women were arrested June 10 in Genoa, Ohio, after fleeing from the scene of the murder in Silver Spring. Police statements and court records show they were extradited back to Maryland in July, where prosecutors with the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office obtained indictments against them for murder.

Earlier statements from Montgomery County police say their investigation into the murder led to their decision to initially charge the two women with first-degree murder for the death of Hilde Henderson, 67, who was Tjongarero-Henderson’s mother.

“Through the course of the investigation, detectives identified Henderson’s daughter, Vanessa Tjongarero-Henderson, and Vanessa’s girlfriend, Raebel, as the suspects,” one of the police statements says. It says police obtained arrest warrants for both women and launched a nationwide search seeking help from the public in in locating them.

One of the police statements says an autopsy determined the cause of Hilde Henderson’s death was blunt-force trauma injuries brought about by a murder. Police and the State’s Attorney’s Office, which is prosecuting the case, have yet to disclose whether they have determined a motive for the murder.

Court records show that prior to the start of the April 19, 2027, trial a “motion” hearing was scheduled for Oct. 30, 2026, a pre-trail conference was scheduled for Feb. 12, 2027, and another motion hearing and a status hearing were scheduled for March 12, 2027.  

Court records also show that Tjongarero-Henderson is being represented by attorneys with the Montgomery County court system’s public defender service. The records show that Raebel initially had been represented by a public defender service attorney, but updated records show Aug. 14 is listed as the “removal date” for that attorney.    

The docket shows that on Aug. 20, two new attorneys with the prominent D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling made their official appearance as her attorneys in the murder case. One of them, Daniel Solomon, told the Washington Blade in response to an inquiry that the defense has no comment at this time on the case.

He confirmed that Covington & Burling is representing Raebel on a no-cost, pro bono bass.

The office of the Montgomery County public defender service didn’t immediately respond to a phone message from the Blade asking for a comment on the Tjongarero-Henderson case. 

Continue Reading

Delaware

Delaware fines Rehoboth bar $15,000 for discriminating against trans woman

Hideout told patron she had to use men’s room due to gender marker on driver’s license

Published

on

The Hideout bar on Route 1 in Rehoboth was fined $15,000. (Blade file photo)

The Delaware Human and Civil Rights Commission voted to fine Hideout Arcade Bar & Grille $15,000 last month due to a discrimination complaint filed by a trans woman over her use of the bathroom. 

Katie Sorber, a transgender woman, said that on April 5, 2023, she was stopped by employees and told she could only use the men’s bathroom due to the “male” gender marker on her driver’s license. This occurred after Sorber presented her ID upon entering the bar and ordering a drink. 

Sorber took to Facebook to complain about her experience at the bar after she was told to use the men’s bathroom. 

On April 12, 2023, Sorber returned to the Hideout but was barred from entering due to her post on social media. 

Following Sorber’s post, Bryan Derrickson, the owner of Hideout Arcade Bar & Grille, allegedly began enforcing a policy in which patrons had to use the bathroom that corresponded to the gender marker on their ID.

Derrickson was ordered to pay $10,000 to Sorber, $5,000 to the Special Administration Fund, as well as conduct anti-discrimination training with employees, remove the ban on Sorber from the establishment, and revise the bar’s bathroom policy. 

The commission ruled that the bar and Derrickson had wrongfully discriminated against Sorber on the basis of her gender. 

Derrickson’s explanations for the denial included safety concerns, a third-party patron complaint, and a reference to the health code. The panel found this to be inconsistent and lacking factual support upon cross-examination.

The case was evaluated under the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law, which explicitly prohibits discrimination and retaliation in places of public accommodation based on gender identity.

This was the second time that the bar has been fined for discriminating against a transgender woman. The bar received a $2,000 penalty in September of last year for denying a transgender woman entry in 2023

Half of the fine went to Kathy Carpenter Brown, the trans woman who experienced the discrimination. Brown is the founder of TransLiance, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group in Delaware. 

Continue Reading

Popular