Local
Vote on D.C. anti-bullying bill expected in fall
Fate of marriage ‘officiant’ measure unclear
Council member Phil Mendelson chairs a committee overseeing the Marriage Officiant Amendment Act. (Washington Blade file photo)
Action on legislation pending before the D.C. Council that would prohibit bullying in the city’s schools, parks, and libraries, among other places, has been put on hold until the Council returns from its summer recess in September.
A separate bill of interest to the LGBT community that would allow a notary public to perform a civil marriage at a location other than the D.C. courthouse remains stalled in the Council’s Judiciary Committee since the panel held a hearing on the measure last October.
The Bullying and Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011 has strong support in the LGBT community following widely publicized incidents of gay teen suicides linked to school bullying. Nearly all Council members have signed on as co-sponsors or co-introducers of the bill.
But LGBT advocacy groups believe the bill as introduced doesn’t have adequate enforcement and implementation provisions. They are working closely with Council members to prepare one or more amendments to strengthen the bill, according to Rick Rosendall, vice president of the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance.
The bill requires the city’s public and charter schools, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the city’s public libraries, and the University of the District of Columbia to adopt “a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying” in their respective facilities, buildings and grounds.
The legislation defines harassment, intimidation or bullying as “any gesture or written, verbal or physical act, including electronic communication, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory handicap, or by any other distinguishing characteristic.”
LGBT youth representatives joined officials from LGBT organizations, including the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, a national group that monitors anti-LGBT bullying, in testifying for the bill and for amendments to strengthen it at a Council hearing in May.
Meanwhile, supporters of the Marriage Officiant Amendment Act of 2011, which was authored by Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), say it’s aimed at giving couples – gay or straight – who are interested in a non-religious civil marriage the option of having such a marriage performed at a location outside the D.C. Superior Court building.
Under current city law, civil marriages must be performed at the courthouse by a court-appointed marriage “officiant” unless the parties getting married know a judge and the judge agrees to perform the marriage at another location, such as a banquet hall or a private home.
Backers of the bill say D.C. Superior Court judges, who are authorized to perform marriages under city law, do so only on a limited basis and are not available to most people seeking a civil marriage.
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large), who chairs the committee overseeing the bill, could not be immediately reached to determine whether he plans to move the bill out of committee for a vote anytime soon.
At the time of the hearing in October, Mendelson told the Blade he believed more research was needed on the bill and he had no immediate plans to call for a vote in committee or before the full Council.
“As far as I know, the notary bill will not be marked up,” gay activist Bob Summersgill told the Blade last week. “The bill is severely flawed and will need to be completely rewritten.”
Summersgill testified in favor of the bill at the October hearing. But he called for major changes that would allow any adult to perform a civil marriage by obtaining a one-day authorization to become a marriage officiant.
Massachusetts and some counties in California have similar one-day officiant laws that allow a couple planning to marry to select a friend or family member or anyone else of their choosing to perform their civil marriage. In Massachusetts the person seeking to perform the marriage must apply in advance and pay a $25 fee for the one-day authorization.
South Carolina, Florida and Maine have laws that allow a notary public to perform civil weddings.
Gay Council member David Catania (I-At-Large) and Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) joined Cheh in co-introducing the D.C. Marriage Officiant Amendment Act last year. Gay Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) and Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) signed on as co-sponsors. Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) co-sponsored the bill last year but has not signed on as a co-sponsor this year.
Cheh told the Blade in an e-mail that she would consider the changes proposed by Summersgill to broaden the bill to include a one-day officiant provision similar to Massachusetts’ civil marriage law.
“I don’t know exactly why the bill hasn’t moved,” Cheh said. “Council member Mendelson has had a huge volume of stuff to move through his committee, and I have no reason to think he is opposed to the bill,” she said.
Steven Lowe, a D.C. resident who testified in support of the bill at last October’s hearing, said the bill as currently written provides couples seeking a civil marriage an option for having their marriage ceremony outside the courthouse. He describes the courthouse as “bureaucratic” and unappealing to many couples seeking a civil marriage.
Lowe said he doesn’t object to Summersgills’ call for a one-day officiant provision that would be available to all adults.
“But the point for me was to have something less restrictive and a non-religious option” in a location that people can choose, Lowe said. “So I supported the notary public bill because it was at least a move in the right direction.”
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.
Sharon Nichols, who serves as press spokesperson for Norton’s congressional office, 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.
‘The Director’ highlights film director who collaborated with Hitler
ICE agents murder another American citizen in Minneapolis
Corte IDH reconoce a Thalía Rodríguez como familia social de Leonela Zelaya
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
The felon in the White House must be stopped
LGBTQ rights at forefront of 2026 legislative session in Va.
Companies participate in ‘Pride on the Promenade’ at World Economic Forum
El 2026 bajo presión
