Connect with us

Local

Supreme Court rejects D.C. marriage challenge

Action ends effort to force ballot measure

Published

on

(Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order today denying a request by a local minister to consider a case seeking to force the District of Columbia to allow voters to decide whether to repeal the city’s same-sex marriage law.

The order, which did not include any statement or opinion, ends the effort by Bishop Harry Jackson and other local opponents of same-sex marriage to go through the courts to impose a ballot measure calling for overturning the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which legalized same-sex marriage in the District.

None of the Supreme Court’s nine justices issued a dissent in their unanimous determination not to take the case.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court turned down Bishop Jackson’s request for review of the Court of Appeals decision on marriage equality,” said Peter Rosenstein, president of the Campaign for All D.C. Families, the local group that campaigned for passage of the marriage equality law.

“This confirms our belief that what the D.C. Council did is both legal and just,” he said. “Equality will not be denied.”

Rosenstein was referring to a decision last October by the D.C. Court of Appeals that upheld an earlier ruling by the city’s Board of Elections and Ethics to reject a voter initiative proposed by Jackson and other same-sex marriage opponents calling for repealing the marriage equality law.

In the case known as Jackson v. the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, Jackson sought to force the city to hold a voter initiative that, if approved, would repeal the same-sex marriage law and replace it with a new law defining marriage in the District as a union only between a man and a woman.

The Court of Appeals decision stated that D.C. City Council acted within its authority under the city’s congressionally mandated Home Rule Charter when it imposed certain restrictions more than 30 years ago on the types of initiatives and referenda that could be placed on the ballot.

Among the restrictions adopted then was a ban on ballot measures that, if approved by voters, violate the non-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human Rights Act. The act, among other things, bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Jackson and a team of lawyers representing him argued that Council violated the Home Rule Charter by adopting the ballot measure restrictions.

The Supreme Court today rejected Jackson’s request for a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which asked the court to hear the case to enable Jackson to appeal the ruling of the D.C. Court of Appeals. By denying that request, the Supreme Court allowed the Court of Appeals decision to permanently remain in effect.

“Today’s action by the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that D.C.’s human rights protections are strong enough to withstand the hateful efforts by outside anti-LGBT groups to put people’s basic civil rights on the ballot,” said Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign.

“For almost two years, the National Organization for Marriage and the Alliance Defense Fund, along with Bishop Harry Jackson, have fought a losing battle to shamelessly harm gay and lesbian couples in D.C. who seek nothing more than to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage,” Solmonese said.

According to the Supreme Court’s public docket, the nine justices deliberated over whether to hear the Jackson case in a private conference held last Friday. Under longstanding court rules, the justices usually announce a decision on whether to accept or reject a case on the next business day following such a conference.

With the Supreme Court denying Jackson’s court challenge to the same-sex marriage law, marriage equality opponents are expected to take their fight back to Congress by resuming earlier requests for Congress to either overturn the D.C. marriage law or to impose a new law forcing the city hold a ballot measure to allow voters to decide the issue.

D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large), who chairs the committee that shepherded the same-sex marriage law through the Council in 2009, said city voters have demonstrated through the city’s 2010 primary and general election that the marriage law was not a pressing issue for them.

He noted that despite promises by same-sex marriage opponents to work for the defeat of all Council members who voted for the marriage law, just a few candidates opposing the law surfaced in the elections and all of them lost by lopsided margins.

“They’ve lost in the courts, they lost overwhelmingly in the Council 12 to 1 [when the marriage bill came up for a vote in December 2009], and they lost at the ballot box,” he said. “Now they’ve lost their last chance, their last gasp in the judicial system.”

Jackson couldn’t be immediately reach for comment.

Rev. Anthony Evans, a D.C. minister who is working with Jackson to overturn the D.C. same-sex marriage law, called the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Jackson case “a travesty of justice.”

“This law was forced down the church’s throat and what the Supreme Court has set up is the greatest civil war between the church and the gay community,” Evans said. “And let me just state for the record, we don’t want that fight. We love our gay brothers and sisters. But if the Supreme Court is not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society, then we reject the Supreme Court on this issue.”

Supporters of the same-sex marriage law have noted that large numbers of local religious leaders from all denominations, including black churches, came out in support of the law. Many have begun peforming same-sex marriages.

Evans, an official with the D.C.-based National Black Church Initiative, said local same-sex marriage opponents have began discussions with “our Republican friends” in Congress to take steps to challenge the D.C. marriage law. He declined to disclose further details but said he and others opposed to the marriage law lobbied GOP leaders on the Hill to strip congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) of her voting privileges on the House floor.

Since Republicans took control of the House earlier this month, GOP leaders revoked Norton’s limited floor voting privileges that Democrats gave her when they took control of the House in 2007. House GOP leaders also revoked the limited voting privileges for delegates representing U.S. territories and Puerto Rico.

“[O]ur first action was to make sure that Eleanor didn’t get a vote as punishment for her wholehearted support for same-sex marriage in this city and also for her to ignore the black religious community,” Evans said. “There is a consequence to her actions. That was one of them.”

Norton, reached at her office late Wednesday, disputed Evans’ claim that same-sex marriage opponents played any role in her loss of House voting privileges.

“He can’t take credit for that. He had nothing to do with it,” she said. “I can tell you without fear of contradiction that our vote was taken this time in the same way it was taken last time — because the Republicans oppose voting rights for the District of Columbia, not because anybody in the District had any power to persuade them to do anything except what they want to do.”

Norton was referring to House Republican leaders’ decision to strip her of voting privileges when they gained control of the House in 1995. Democrats restored her voting privileges when they regained control of the House in 2007.

“But in any case, shame on any resident who wants the District of Columbia not to have a vote,” she said.

Norton said she expected some members of Congress to attempt to overturn the city’s same-sex marriage law through legislation, although she was hopeful that Democrats and moderate Republicans would join forces to defeat such legislation.

“I can tell you that I’ve had a good conversation with an important Republican who’s not interested,” she said, referring to efforts to overturn the D.C. marriage law. “That doesn’t mean that won’t happen. But there are Republicans here who would not like to get all mixed up with social issues.”

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