Connect with us

Local

Md. House debating marriage

Final vote set for Friday; more heated debate expected

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Local

Comings & Goings

Gill named development manager at HIPS

Published

on

Warren Gill

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.  

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

D.C. Police Captain Paul Hrebenak (right) embraces his husband, James Frasere, and the couple's son. (Photo courtesy of Hrebenak)

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 inflect 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.  

Continue Reading

Virginia

LGBTQ rights at forefront of 2026 legislative session in Va.

Repeal of state’s marriage amendment a top priority

Published

on

Virginia Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

With 2026 ramping up, LGBTQ rights are at the forefront of Virginia politics. 

The repeal of Virginia’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is a top legislative priority for activists and advocacy groups.

The Virginia Senate on Jan. 17 by a 26-13 vote margin approved outgoing state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria)’s resolution that would repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment. The Virginia House of Delegates earlier this month passed it.

Two successive legislatures must approve the resolution before it can go to the ballot.

The resolution passed in 2025. Voters are expected to consider repealing the amendment on Nov. 3.

The Virginia General Assembly opened with an introduction of a two-year budget — Virginia’s budget runs biannually.

In 2024 some funding was allocated to LGBTQ causes, and others were passed over. This year’s proposed budget leaves room for funding for a host of LGBTQ opportunities. One specific priority that Equality Virginia is promoting would ensure the state budget expands healthcare for LGBTQ individuals and extending gender affirming care. 

Equality Virginia Communications Director Reed Williams told the Washington Blade the organization is also focused on passing three main budget amendments, and ensuring “LGBTQ+ students and their teachers have resources to navigate and address mental health challenges in K-12 schools.”

Along with ensuring school training, the organization wants funding in hopes of “​​establishing enhanced competency training for Virginia’s 988 Lifeline counselors and support staff to provide affirming care for LGBTQ+ youth.” This comes after the Trump-Vance administration shut down the specific hotline for LGBTQ young people that callers could previously reach if they called 988.

On a federal level, protections and health care access for LGBTQ people has taken a hit, as the Trump-Vance administration has continued to issue executive orders affecting the health care system. LGBTQ people no longer have federal legal health care protections, so local and state politics has become even more important for LGBTQ rights groups.

Equality Virginia has urged its supporters to call their local senators and stress the importance of voting to expand health care protections for LGBTQ people. The organization also plans to hold information sessions and a lobby day on Feb. 2.

Equality Virginia is tracking bills on its website.

Continue Reading

Popular