Local
Ugly testimony at Md. marriage hearing
Opponents invoke pedophilia, incest while denouncing bill
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — As many as 300 supporters and opponents of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland packed the halls of a State Senate office building in Annapolis Tuesday while several dozen witnesses testified on both sides of the issue.
The Democratic-controlled Judicial Proceedings Committee, which conducted a hearing on the bill, was expected to approve the measure and send it to the full Senate within the next week or two.
A majority of the members of the 11-person committee are co-sponsors or supporters of the bill, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act.
Most political observers believe supporters have the votes to pass the bill in the Senate and the House of Delegates. Gov. Martin O’Malley has said he would sign the bill.
But opponents, led by Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage, said they remain hopeful that supporters would fall short of obtaining the 24 votes needed to pass the bill in the Senate or the 29 votes needed to stop a Senate filibuster.
“Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason,” Gallagher said in her testimony. “These are the only unions that can make new life and connect children in love to their mom and dad … If Maryland adopts this radical new view of marriage, it will have consequences,” she said.
Many of the witnesses testifying against the bill — including ministers, an orthodox rabbi, and two Roman Catholic priests — picked up on Gallagher’s view that procreation is the cornerstone of marriage. They said changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would have a detrimental impact on families and society.
An equal number of witnesses, including a Catholic nun and Catholic lay leaders, two reform rabbis and at least a half-dozen Protestant ministers, both black and white, disputed those assertions, saying they believe same-sex unions strengthen rather than harm the family. Many of the witnesses backing the bill identified themselves as people of faith.
“My God loves everyone,” said Elbridge James, a lobbyist for the NAACP and director the Maryland Black Family Alliance.
“My God did not make a mistake,” he said. “And so if you were gay, my God did not make a mistake. If you were lesbian my God did not make a mistake. If you were transgender, my God did not make a mistake. And tonight, when I go home to my wife, nothing will deter me from loving my wife — certainly not if there’s a bill that protects gays, protects lesbians or protects the transgender community.”
Several of Maryland’s gay elected officials testified in favor of the bill. Among them was Sen. Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), a co-sponsor of the bill who has been a longtime advocate for marriage equality in the state. Others included Chevy Chase, Md., Mayor David Loveland and Howard County Register of Wills Byron Macfarlane.
Among Republicans testifying in support of the bill was Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Howard & Carroll Counties). Kittleman, the former Senate minority leader, initially planned to introduce a civil unions bill as a possible alternate measure to the marriage bill. Two weeks ago, he dropped those plans and announced his enthusiastic support for the marriage measure.
“I stand here as a strong Republican,” he told the committee, adding that he believes marriage equality is in full keeping with Republican principals of individual freedom.
Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County), chair of the committee, said at the start of the hearing that more than 140 people signed up to testify.
Their names, organizational affiliation and information on whether they were for or against the bill weren’t immediately available because the committee did not release a witness list on the day of the hearing.
In a procedure unlike the equally packed hearing for a same-sex marriage bill approved by the D.C. City Council last year, the Judicial Proceedings Committee in Maryland required witnesses to sign up in person to testify on the morning of the hearing, preventing the committee from compiling an advance witness list and releasing it to the media.
Based on the testimony delivered during the day, it appeared that the witnesses were about equally divided between supporters and opponents of the bill. As Frosh and Sen. Lisa Gladen (D-Baltimore City), the committee’s vice chair, called witnesses to testify, many were not present, indicating that a significant number chose not to wait their turn to speak at a hearing that lasted more than six hours.
Lisa Polyak, a board member and spokesperson for Equality Maryland, the statewide LGBT organization that coordinated testimony in support of the bill, said the group lined up about 48 supporting witnesses. She said others supporting the bill, including a number of same-sex couples, came on their own.
“We were extremely gratified for all of the families that came out, all of our community partners, and all of the clergy that came out to speak their truth and support us,” she said. “I don’t think we could have had a better diversity of representation.”
Among those testifying was Polyak’s and her partner, Gita Deane’s daughter, 14-year-old Maya Deane-Polyak, a freshman at Baltimore’s Bryan Mawr High School.
“My moms’ first concern has always been my sister and I,” said Maya. “They make sure our every need is met, whether it is helping us with homework, driving us to a friend’s house or merely just being there to cheer us up when we are sad — they do it all and even more.”
Noting that she has witnessed first-hand examples of how her two moms encounter discrimination because they can’t marry in Maryland, she urged the committee to promptly approve the marriage bill.
“So I ask you to please consider, consider the fact that you have the power to change my family’s life when you make your decision,” she said. “I want our moms to be married. You have the power to make that happen.”
Many of the witnesses opposing the bill said broadening marriage to include same-sex couples would weaken the family structure and harm children. Several said children of same-sex parents don’t do as well in school and show greater signs of emotional problems compared to kids of opposite-sex, married parents. LGBT activists have said those assertions are not supported by impartial studies.
Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative litigation group that challenges same-sex marriage laws throughout the country, testified that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples insures that children are raised by a “stable family.”
He said “responsible procreation” is a key reason why Maryland and other states should not legalize marriage for same-sex couples. By pushing to “redefine” marriage to include gay and lesbian couples “you are telling people that mothers and fathers don’t matter,” he told the committee.
In response to questions by committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County), a co-sponsor of the marriage bill, Nimocks acknowledged that some same-sex couples may make good parents, saying “you can find individual circumstances that go against a general rule.”
But other witnesses opposing the bill said there could be no exceptions to their religious-based belief that child rearing by same-sex parents is always harmful to children, both psychologically and spiritually.
“That union of our parents was a sacred right granted to them by almighty God,” said Timonium, Md., resident Gerard Selby. “God’s design for the human race was that it be procreated by the union of a man and a woman.”
He added, “Where do we draw the lines? What comes next? If a man loses his wife to a premature death, shouldn’t he be allowed to marry his daughter, or son, or both?
Leroy Swales, an Oxon Hill, Md., resident who testified last year against the D.C. same-sex marriage bill, told the committee Tuesday that approval of the bill, among other things, would result in Maryland’s elementary schools using the book “Heather Has Two Mommies,” which he called a “pedophile book,” as a teaching aid for students.
Saying that homosexuality is related to an “electrical imbalance of the brain,” he called on the committee to use “science” and biblical scriptures as justification for defeating the bill.
District of Columbia
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Longtime LGBTQ rights supporter introduced, backed LGBTQ-supportive legislation
The reelection campaign for D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ rights since first taking office in 1991, filed a termination report on Jan. 25 with the Federal Elections Commission, indicating she will not run for a 19th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Norton’s decision not to run again, which was first reported by the online news publication NOTUS, comes at a time when many of her longtime supporters questioned her ability to continue in office at the age of 88.
NOTUS cited local political observers who pointed out that Norton has in the past year or two curtailed public appearances and, according to critics, has not taken sufficient action to oppose efforts by the Trump-Vance administration and Republican members of Congress to curtail D.C.’s limited home rule government.
Those same critics, however, have praised Norton for her 35-year tenure as the city’s non-voting delegate in the House and as a champion for a wide range of issues of interest to D.C. LGBTQ rights advocates have also praised her longstanding support for LGBTQ rights issues both locally and nationally.
D.C. gay Democratic Party activist Cartwright Moore, who has worked on Norton’s congressional staff from the time she first took office in 1991 until his retirement in 2021, points out that Norton’s role as a staunch LGBTQ ally dates back to the 1970s when she served as head of the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
“The congresswoman is a great person,” Moore told the Washington Blade in recounting his 30 years working on her staff, most recently as senior case worker dealing with local constituent issues.
Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
She has introduced multiple LGBTQ supportive bills, including her most recent bill introduced in June 2025, the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban D.C. residents from being disqualified from jury service in D.C. Superior Court based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
For many years, Norton has marched in the city’s annual Pride parade.

Her decision not to run for another term in office also comes at a time when, for the first time in many years, several prominent candidates emerged to run against her in the June 2026 D.C. Democratic primary. Among them are D.C. Council members Robert White (D-At-Large) and Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2).
Others who have announced their candidacy for Norton’s seat include Jacque Patterson, president of the D.C. State Board of Education; Kinney Zalesne, a local Democratic party activist; and Trent Holbrook, who until recently served as Norton’s senior legislative counsel.
“For more than three decades, Congresswoman Norton has been Washington, D.C.’s steadfast warrior on Capitol Hill, a relentless advocate for our city’s right to self-determination, full democracy, and statehood,” said Oye Owolewa, the city’s elected U.S. shadow representative in a statement. “At every pivotal moment, she has stood firm on behalf of D.C. residents, never wavering in her pursuit of justice, equity, and meaningful representation for a city too often denied its rightful voice,” he said.
A spokesperson for Norton’s soon-to-close re-election campaign couldn’t immediately be reached for a comment by Norton on her decision not to seek another term in office.
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].
The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ+ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success.
Congratulations to R. Warren Gill III, M.Div., M.A. on being appointed as the development manager at HIPS. Upon his appointment, Gill said, “For as long as I’ve lived in Washington, D.C., I’ve followed and admired the life-saving work HIPS does in our communities. I’m proud to join the staff and help strengthen the financial support that sustains this work.”
Gill will lead fundraising strategy, donor engagement, and institutional partnerships. HIPS promotes the health, rights, and dignity of individuals and communities impacted by sexual exchange and/or drug use due to choice, coercion, or circumstance. HIPS provides compassionate harm reduction services, advocacy, and community engagement that is respectful, non-judgmental, and affirms and honors individual power and agency.
Gill has built a career at the intersection of progressive politics, advocacy, and nonprofit leadership. Previously he served as director of communications at AIDS United, supporting national efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Prior to that he had roles including; being press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential primary, and working with the General Board of Church and Society, the United Methodist Church, the denomination’s social justice and advocacy arm.
Gill earned his bachelor’s degree in philosophy and religious studies, Jewish Studies, Stockton University; his master’s degree in political communication from American University, where his graduate research focused on values-based messaging and cognitive linguistics; and his master of Divinity degree from the Pacific School of Religion.
District of Columbia
Judge denies D.C. request to dismiss gay police captain’s anti-bias lawsuit
MPD accused of illegally demoting officer for taking family leave to care for newborn child
A U.S. District Court judge on Jan. 21 denied a request by attorneys representing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a gay captain accusing police officials of illegally demoting him for taking parental leave to join his husband in caring for their newborn son.
The lawsuit filed by Capt. Paul Hrebenak charges that police officials violated the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act, a similar D.C. family leave law, and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by refusing to allow him to return to his position as director of the department’s School Safety Division upon his return from parental leave.
It says police officials transferred Hrebenak to another police division against his wishes, which was a far less desirable job and was the equivalent of a demotion, even though it had the same pay grade as his earlier job.
In response to a motion filed by attorneys with the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents and defends D.C. government agencies against lawsuits, Judge Randolph D. Moss agreed to dismiss seven of the lawsuit’s 14 counts or claims but left in place six counts.
Scott Lempert, the attorney representing Hrebenak, said he and Hrebenak agreed to drop one of the 14 counts prior to the Jan. 21 court hearing.
“He did not dismiss the essential claims in this case,” Lempert told the Washington Blade. “So, we won is the short answer. We defeated the motion to dismiss the case.”
Gabriel Shoglow, a spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, said the office has a policy of not commenting on pending litigation and it would not comment on the judge’s ruling upholding six of the lawsuit’s initial 14 counts.
In issuing his ruling from the bench, Moss gave Lempert the option of filing an amended complaint by March 6 to seek the reinstatement of the counts he dismissed. He gave attorneys for the D.C. attorney general’s office a deadline of March 20 to file a response to an amended complaint.
Lempert told the Blade he and Hrebenak have yet to decide whether to file an amended complaint or whether to ask the judge to move the case ahead to a jury trial, which they initially requested.
In its 26-page motion calling for dismissal of the case, filed on May 30, 2025, D.C. Office of the Attorney General attorneys argue that the police department has legal authority to transfer its officers, including captains, to a different job. It says that Hrebenak’s transfer to a position of watch commander at the department’s First District was fully equivalent in status to his job as director of the School Safety Division.
“The Watch Commander position is not alleged to have changed plaintiff’s rank of captain or his benefits or pay, and thus plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that he was put in a non-equivalent position,” the motion to dismiss states.
“Thus, his reassignment is not a demotion,” it says. “And the fact that his shift changed does not mean that the position is not equivalent to his prior position. The law does not require that every single aspect of the positions be the same.”
Hrebenak’s lawsuit states that “straight” police officers have routinely taken similar family and parental leave to care for a newborn child and have not been transferred to a different job. According to the lawsuit, the School Safety Division assignment allowed him to work a day shift, a needed shift for his recognized disability of Crohn’s Disease, which the lawsuit says is exacerbated by working late hours at night.
The lawsuit points out that Hrebenak disclosed he had Crohn’s Disease at the time he applied for his police job, and it was determined he could carry out his duties as an officer despite this ailment, which was listed as a disability.
Among other things, the lawsuit notes that Hrebenak had a designated reserved parking space for his earlier job and lost the parking space for the job to which he was transferred.
“Plaintiff’s removal as director at MPD’s School Safety Division was a targeted, premeditated punishment for his taking statutorily protected leave as a gay man,” the lawsuit states. “There was no operational need by MPD to remove plaintiff as director of MPD’s School Safety Division, a position in which plaintiff very successfully served for years,” it says.
In another action to strengthen Hrebenak’s opposition to the city’s motion to dismiss the case, Lempert filed with the court on Jan. 15 a “Notice of Supplemental Authority” that included two controversial reports that Lempert said showed that former D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith put in place a policy of involuntary police transfers “to effectively demote and end careers of personnel who had displeased Chief Smith and or others in MPD leadership.”
One of the reports was prepared by the Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the other was prepared by the office of Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C. appointed by President Donald Trump.
Both reports allege that Smith, who resigned from her position as chief effective Dec. 31, pressured police officials to change crime reporting data to make it appear that the number of violent crimes was significantly lower than it actually was by threatening to transfer them to undesirable positions in the department. Smith has denied those claims.
“These findings support plaintiff’s arguments that it was the policy or custom of MPD to inflict involuntary transfers on MPD personnel as retaliation for doing or saying something in which leadership disapproved,” Lempert says in his court filing submitting the two reports.
“As shown, many officers suffered under this pervasive custom, including Capt. Hrebenak,” he stated. “Accordingly, by definition, transferred positions were not equivalent to officers’ previous positions,” he added.


