Local
Md. House debating marriage
Final vote set for Friday; more heated debate expected
The Maryland House of Delegates began floor debate on the marriage equality bill at 11 a.m. Friday. The atmosphere in the chamber is tense amid speculation that there are only 69 or 70 votes — 71 are required for passage.
So far this morning, several Republicans have taken to the floor to denounce the bill, including Del. Emmett Burns who claims his life has been threatened due to his opposition.
The Blade will update this page as developments warrant.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE:
A bill to allow same-sex couples to marry survived an attempt to kill or weaken it through amendments in the Maryland House of Delegates on Wednesday and was expected to come up for a final vote Friday.
The amendments were introduced during the opening round of debate in the chamber on the Civil Marriage Protection Act. A vote on the bill was initially set for Thursday, but House Speaker Michael Busch (D-Anne Arundel County) moved it back to Friday as supporters scrambled to line up the 71 votes needed for passage.
“I feel very confident that we’re going to get to 71,” said Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), one of seven openly gay members of the House of Delegates.
Others following the bill have expressed concern that support in the House began to erode after the Senate passed the measure last month and Gov. Martin O’Malley reiterated his commitment to sign it.
Del. Heather Mizuer (D-Montgomery County), a lesbian, said the defeat by supporters of four hostile amendments during Wednesday morning’s opening round was a good sign because it showed supporters had the strength to stop attempts to derail the bill. But she cautioned that more amendments were expected during Friday’s session.
Del. Aisha Braveboy (D-Prince George’s County) introduced what backers of the bill considered the most threatening of the proposed amendments.
Saying she wanted to ensure that voters rather than lawmakers have the final say on the issue, Braveboy said her amendment would accomplish that by converting the marriage bill into a proposed state constitutional amendment calling for legalizing same-sex marriage. Maryland’s constitution requires that all proposed amendments to the constitution be placed before voters in a referendum.
Supporters of the marriage bill, led by Del. Kathleen Dumais (D-Montgomery County), the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, noted that a vote by the House to convert the bill into a constitutional amendment would send it back to committee. With most observers believing support for such a constitutional amendment is lacking in the committee, Dumais and other backers of the marriage bill said Braveboy’s amendment would effectively kill the bill.
The amendment was defeated by a roll-call vote of 72 to 63.
Among those voting for it were Delegates Jill Carter (D-Baltimore City) and Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George’s County), two of three original co-sponsors of the marriage bill who stunned supporters last week by announcing they were considering withdrawing their support.
Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery County), who joined Carter and Alston in saying he was about to withdraw his support for the bill, changed his mind following a firestorm of criticism from residents of his district. He issued a statement last week saying he would vote for the bill in committee and on the House floor, with the expectation that voters would have the final say in an expected referendum, which he favors.
Arora voted against the Braveboy amendment on Wednesday but voted for another amendment calling for allowing private social services agencies to refuse to provide adoption, foster care or other services if providing such services “would violate the entity’s religious beliefs.”
Although the amendment did not specifically mention gay adoptions, LGBT activists said they believed it was aimed at using the marriage equality bill as a vehicle for weakening the state’s existing adoption policies. The existing polices prohibit adoption agencies from discriminating against same-sex couples or gay or lesbian single parents seeking to adopt if they meet the same eligibility requirements as heterosexuals seeking to adopt.
The adoption related amendment, introduced by Del. John Donoghue (D-Washington County), lost by a vote of 79 to 58. Alston voted for the amendment; Carter voted against it.
An amendment introduced by Del. Kathryn Afzali (R-Frederick County) called for allowing parents of public school children to excuse a child from attending classes or instruction “involving materials that promote same-sex marriage.” The amendment also called for allowing a teacher to decline to teach such a class or materials.
Afzali and others supporting the amendment argued that teachers and parents should be given the right to opt out of such classes or instructional programs if same-sex marriage is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs.
Similar to her arguments against the adoption amendment, Dumais said curriculum related policies for the public schools were not germane to a marriage equality bill and should be left to locally elected school boards or the state’s education department to decide.
The amendment lost by a vote of 86 to 54, with Alston, Carter and Arora voting against it.
The fourth amendment targeting the marriage bill, introduced by Del. Andrew Serafini (R-Washington County) called for changing the bill’s name from the Civil Marriage Protection Act to the “Same-Sex Marriage Act.” Serafini said his proposed name was a more accurate description of what the bill would do.
The amendment was defeated by a vote of 85 to 52. Alston voted for it, Arora voted against it, and Carter did not cast a vote on the amendment.
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 David Reid on his new position as Principal, Public Policy, with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. Upon being named to the position, he said, “I am proud to be part of this inaugural group of principals as the firm launches it new ‘principal, public policy’ title.”
Reid is a political strategist and operative. He is a prolific fundraiser, and skilled advocate for legislative and appropriations goals. He is deeply embedded in Democratic politics, drawing on his personal network on the Hill, in governors’ administrations, and throughout the business community, to build coalitions that drive policy successes for clients. His work includes leading complex public policy efforts related to infrastructure, hospitality, gaming, health care, technology, telecommunications, and arts and entertainment.
Reid has extensive political finance experience. He leads Brownstein’s bipartisan political operation each cycle with Republican and Democratic congressional and national campaign committees and candidates. Reid is an active member of Brownstein’s pro-bono committee and co-leads the firm’s LGBT+ Employee Resource Group.
He serves as a Deputy National Finance Chair of the Democratic National Committee and is a member of the Finance Committee of the Democratic Governors Association, where he previously served as the Deputy Finance Director.
Prior to joining Brownstein, Reid served as the Washington D.C. and PAC finance director at Hillary for America. He worked as the mid-Atlantic finance director, for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and ran the political finance operation of a Fortune 50 global health care company.
Among his many outside involvements, Reid serves on the executive committee of the One Victory, and LGBTQ Victory Institute board, the governing bodies of the LGBTQ Victory Fund and Institute; and is a member of the board for Q Street.
Congratulations also to Yesenia Alvarado Henninger of Helion Energy, president; Abigail Harris of Honeywell; Alex Catanese of American Bankers Association; Stu Malec, secretary; Brendan Neal, treasurer; Brownstein’s David Reid; Amazon’s Suzanne Beall; Lowe’s’ Rob Curis; andCornerstone’s Christian Walker. Their positions have now been confirmed by the Q Street Board of Directors.
District of Columbia
D.C. pays $500,000 to settle lawsuit brought by gay Corrections Dept. employee
Alleged years of verbal harassment, slurs, intimidation
The D.C. government on Feb. 5 agreed to pay $500,000 to a gay D.C. Department of Corrections officer as a settlement to a lawsuit the officer filed in 2021 alleging he was subjected to years of discrimination at his job because of his sexual orientation, according to a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C.
The statement says the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Sgt. Deon Jones by the ACLU of D.C. and the law firm WilmerHale, alleged that the Department of Corrections, including supervisors and co-workers, “subjected Sgt. Jones to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.”
Daniel Gleick, a spokesperson for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, said the mayor’s office would have no comment on the lawsuit settlement. The Washington Blade couldn’t immediately reach a spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents the city against lawsuits.
Bowser and her high-level D.C. government appointees, including Japer Bowles, director of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, have spoken out against LGBTQ-related discrimination.
“Jones, now a 28-year veteran of the Department and nearing retirement, faced years of verbal abuse and harassment from coworkers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment,” the ACLU’s statement says.
“The prolonged mistreatment took a severe toll on Jones’s mental health, and he experienced depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and 15 anxiety attacks in 2021 alone,” it says.
“For years, I showed up to do my job with professionalism and pride, only to be targeted because of who I am,” Jones says in the ACLU statement. “This settlement affirms that my pain mattered – and that creating hostile workplaces has real consequences,” he said.
He added, “For anyone who is LGBTQ or living with a disability and facing workplace discrimination or retaliation, know this: you are not powerless. You have rights. And when you stand up, you can achieve justice.”
The settlement agreement, a link to which the ACLU provided in its statement announcing the settlement, states that plaintiff Jones agrees, among other things, that “neither the Parties’ agreement, nor the District’s offer to settle the case, shall in any way be construed as an admission by the District that it or any of its current or former employees, acted wrongfully with respect to Plaintiff or any other person, or that Plaintiff has any rights.”
Scott Michelman, the D.C. ACLU’s legal director said that type of disclaimer is typical for parties that agree to settle a lawsuit like this.
“But actions speak louder than words,” he told the Blade. “The fact that they are paying our client a half million dollars for the pervasive and really brutal harassment that he suffered on the basis of his identity for years is much more telling than their disclaimer itself,” he said.
The settlement agreement also says Jones would be required, as a condition for accepting the agreement, to resign permanently from his job at the Department of Corrections. Michelman said Jones has been on leave from work for a period of time, but he did not know how long. Jones couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
“This is really something that makes sense on both sides,” Michelman said of the resignation requirements. “The environment had become so toxic the way he had been treated on multiple levels made it difficult to see how he could return to work there.”
Virginia
Spanberger signs bill that paves way for marriage amendment repeal referendum
Proposal passed in two successive General Assembly sessions
Virginians this year will vote on whether to repeal a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger on Friday signed state Del. Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County)’s House Bill 612, which finalized the referendum’s language.
The ballot question that voters will consider on Election Day is below:
Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to: (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?
Voters in 2006 approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment.
Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Virginia since 2014. Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who is a Republican, in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.
Two successive legislatures must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can go to the ballot.
A resolution to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment passed in the General Assembly in 2025. Lawmakers once again approved it last month.
“20 years after Virginia added a ban on same-sex marriage to our Constitution, we finally have the chance to right that wrong,” wrote Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman on Friday in a message to her group’s supporters.
Virginians this year will also consider proposed constitutional amendments that would guarantee reproductive rights and restore voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences.
-
Virginia4 days agoHashmi speaks at Equality Virginia Lobby Day
-
District of Columbia4 days agoNorton hailed as champion of LGBTQ rights
-
Maryland4 days ago4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy
-
District of Columbia3 days agoD.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill
