Connect with us

Local

Freedom to Marry spurns Md. marriage campaign

Nat’l group uncertain local supporters can defeat referendum

Published

on

Evan Wolfson

Evan Wolfson says that a Maryland marriage bill would be vulnerable to a voter referendum. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The head of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry startled leaders of Maryland’s campaign to pass a same-sex marriage bill in 2012 when he implied this week that organizers weren’t doing the work needed to defeat an expected voter referendum to overturn such a bill.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, told the Washington Blade on Monday that his group chose not to join a coalition of local, state and national groups called Marylanders for Marriage Equality. The coalition is leading efforts to lobby the Maryland Legislature to approve a same-sex marriage bill when it convenes in Annapolis in January.

“We are deeply committed, as we have been for years, to ending exclusion from marriage in Maryland and throughout the country,” Wolfson told the Blade in an email.

But he added, “In Maryland, because of the likelihood that marriage legislation can be forced onto the ballot, the key question is not just passing a bill in the legislature, but defending it against an attack campaign via ballot measure,” he said.

“Freedom to Marry has made it clear to members of the coalition and to lawmakers that our goal is to win, not simply to pass a bill, if there is not sufficient groundwork and investment in a campaign to win at the ballot,” he said.

“We have continued to press for clarity and progress on benchmarks for success, and have urged elected officials, national organizations, and advocates on the ground to show the plan, investment, and activities needed now to build public support and succeed at the ballot, not just the legislature,” he told the Blade in his email message about the Maryland marriage campaign.

Spokespersons for two of the lead coalition partners of Marylanders for Marriage Equality – Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign and Lisa Polyak of Equality Maryland – responded cautiously to Wolfson’s comments, saying the coalition is actively engaged in laying the groundwork and mapping strategy for fighting a possible marriage referendum.

Other sources familiar with the coalition’s member groups, who spoke on condition that they not be identified, said at least some of the coalition’s representatives took offense at Wolfson’s remarks. They said he appeared to be drawing conclusions about the coalition’s capabilities and setting criteria for it to obtain help from Freedom to Marry without knowing the full details of the coalition’s activities since it formed in July.

In addition to HRC and Equality Maryland, other members of Marylanders for Marriage Equality include the NAACP of Baltimore, the ACLU of Maryland, the Service Employees International Union of Maryland, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Progressive Maryland, the National Black Justice Coalition, Catholics for Equality, Maryland Faith for Equality, Maryland NOW, the Family Equality Council, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

“With the help of all of our coalition partners we believe that both a legislative fight as well as a referendum is very winnable in Maryland,” said HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz. “In fact, our recent polling shows that 51 percent of Marylanders would support it,” he said in referring to the same-sex marriage bill.

Another HRC spokesperson, Kevin Nix, released to the Blade the results of a poll that HRC commissioned from the polling firm Garin Hart Yang, which shows 51 percent of those polled would vote in support of same-sex marriage in a possible Maryland referendum. The poll showed 44 percent would vote against same-sex marriage in such a referendum, while 5 percent were undecided or had no opinion.

Nix said the poll was conducted Oct. 20-23 of this year.

“We believe that the numbers will continue to grow and the enthusiasm for marriage equality will only become greater should there be the need for a referendum,” Sainz said.

Lisa Polyak, board chair for Equality Maryland, acknowledged that the makeup of the Maryland Legislature will be the same in January as it was in March of this year, when it failed to pass a same-sex marriage bill due to lack of support in the House of Delegates. The State Senate passed the measure in what observers called an historic development.

But Polyak said the difference going forward is that Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, has agreed to introduce the bill this time around and serve as its chief sponsor in the legislature’s 2012 session, providing an important boost for its chances of passing.

“At Equality Maryland, we’re following the governor’s lead and we intend to show that his confidence and the ability of Maryland to pass this legislation are well founded,” she said. “We are going to work and work and work to not just pass the bill through the legislature but to deal with anything that comes after it to make sure that we achieve the goal of legal equality for our families through civil marriage.”

Asked if she believes the coalition is prepared to fight a ballot referendum, Polyak said, “Yes, we feel that we are and will be prepared if that becomes a reality.”

Maryland State Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), who’s gay, said he, too, believes the coalition is quickly building an infrastructure needed to fend off a referendum. However, he said a referendum is not an absolute certainty. Under Maryland’s referendum law, organizers of a referendum must obtain about 52,000 petition signatures in a period of less than three months.

In past referendum battles, those opposing a referendum have challenged the validity of many of the signatures in efforts that have sometimes succeeded in preventing a referendum from reaching the ballot.

Melissa Goemann, legislative director of the ACLU of Maryland, said her organization and the coalition as a whole are “definitely” working on a plan to deal with a referendum over the marriage bill. She said ACLU of Maryland has hired a field director to work full-time on the marriage bill.

“We are very enthusiastic,” she said.

Others familiar with the Maryland coalition acknowledge that fighting a voter referendum will be a daunting task if recent history is a predictor of the outcome. Since 2004, opponents of same-sex marriage have succeeded in persuading voters in 29 states to approve ballot measures banning same-sex marriage in those states’ constitutions.

In 2006, same-sex marriage supporters in Arizona succeeded in defeating a ballot measure seeking to put in place a draconian constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage in the state as well as civil unions and domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples. The defeat marked the first and only time a state ballot measure calling for banning same-sex marriage had been beaten back.

But a short time later, Arizona voters passed a less restrictive ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage while allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The National Organization for Marriage, the group leading efforts to oppose same-sex marriage in the United States, boasts that opponents of same-sex marriage have a perfect record of 29-0 in the fight against same-sex marriage.

Despite these odds, marriage equality advocates, including Wolfson, have said in the recent past that efforts to pass same-sex marriage bills in state legislatures or through the courts should continue. In discussing the approval in 2008 by California voters of Proposition 8, which overturned that state’s same-sex marriage law, Wolfson said the debate over Prop 8 played an important role in educating the American public about the importance of marriage equality.

Although Prop 8 was a defeat for LGBT equality in the short term, Wolfson has said it opened the way for “conversations” about marriage equality among the American people that would lead to the changing of hearts and minds of the public in the near future.

Some of the participants of Marylanders for Marriage Equality, speaking on condition that they not be identified, said the same principles should apply to Maryland. They said Wolfson should not impose a “benchmark” on the Maryland effort that calls for a guarantee that a referendum will be defeated before Freedom to Marry or other national organizations will lend their support.

Wolfson responded to these concerns in a follow-up email on Tuesday reiterating his belief that some benefit can be achieved even if a state marriage referendum loses. But he said such a benefit can only come about if supporters of marriage equality wage an effective and well thought-out campaign.

“[W]hen we engage in these campaigns against ballot attacks, we should fight so as to at least ‘lose forward,’ i.e., gain ground and set the stage for the next fight, via public education and enlisting support, even if we can’t prevail on the enemy’s timeframe by election day,” he said.

“So it is true that I believe in the value, indeed the necessity, of persuasion,” he added, which he described as lesson number two. “Lesson 1 was win,” he said.

“In Maryland, we have the opportunity to actually win and hold marriage, if we do what is needed not just to advance a bill but to mount a sustained and sufficient campaign to defend marriage at the ballot,” Wolfson said. “Benchmarks for achieving and holding the win are what Freedom to Marry has called for.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Maryland

Salisbury, Md. rainbow crosswalk removed on Veterans Day

Mayor’s order denounced by LGBTQ activists as act of bigotry

Published

on

Salisbury Mayor Randy Taylor ordered the removal of the rainbow crosswalk. (Screen capture via PAC 14/YouTube)

Under the directive of its mayor and over strong objections from LGBTQ rights advocates and their supporters, the city of Salisbury, Md. on Nov. 11 removed a rainbow crosswalk from a prominent intersection across from the mayor’s office and the city’s public library. 

Salisbury LGBTQ rights advocate Mark DeLancey, who witnessed the crosswalk removal, said instead of painting over it as other cities have done in removing rainbow crosswalks, a powerful grinding machine was used to rip apart the asphalt pavement under the crosswalk in what he believes was an effort by the mayor to “make a point.”

Like officials in other locations that have removed rainbow crosswalks, Salisbury Mayor Randy Taylor said the crosswalk removal was required under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations put in place by the Trump administration that do not allow “political” messages on streets and roadways.

“Since taking office, I’ve been transparent about my concerns regarding the Pride crosswalks installed in Downtown Salisbury,” Taylor said in a statement. “While I have made every effort to respect the decisions of previous administrations and the folks that supported them, it has become clear that a course of correction – as planned – is necessary to align with current Department of Transportation standards for roadway markings,” he said in his Nov. 7 statement that was posted on the city’s Facebook page.

DeLancey is among the activists and local public officials in many cities and states that dispute that the federal Department of Transportation has legal authority to ban the Pride crosswalks. D.C. and the Northern Virginia jurisdictions of Arlington and Alexandria are among the localities that have refused to remove rainbow crosswalks from their streets.

“He decided to take this on himself,” DeLancey said of Taylor’s action. “It’s not a law. It’s not a ruling of any kind. He just said that was something that should happen.”

DeLancey points out that Salisbury became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to install a  rainbow crosswalk on a public street in September 2018.

“This is another blatant attempt by our Republican mayor to remove any references to groups that don’t fit with his agenda,” Salisbury LGBTQ advocate Megan Pomeroy told the local publication Watershed Observer. “The rainbow crosswalk represents acceptance for everyone. It tells them, ‘You matter. You are valued. You are welcome here,’” she was quoted as saying.

The publication Delmarva Now reports that a longtime Salisbury straight ally to the LGBTQ community named K.T. Tuminello staged a one-person protest on Nov. 10 by sitting on the sidewalk next to the rainbow crosswalk holding a sign opposing its removal.

“Tuminello said Nov. 10 he had been at the embattled crosswalk since 12 a.m. that morning, and only three things could make him leave: ‘I get arrested, I have to get into an ambulance because of my medical difficulties, or Randy Taylor says you can keep that one rainbow crosswalk,’” the Delaware Now article states.

DeLancey said he has known Tuminello for many years as an LGBTQ ally and saw him on the night he staged his sit-in at the site of the crosswalk. 

“I actually went to him last night trying to give him some water,” DeLancey told the Washington Blade. “He was on a hunger strike as well. He was there for a total of 40 hours on strike, not eating, no sleeping in the freezing cold” 

Added DeLancey, “He has been supporting our community for decades. And he is a very strong ally, and we love his contribution very much.”

Political observers have pointed out that Salisbury for many years has been a progressive small city surrounded by some of Maryland’s more conservative areas with mostly progressive elected officials.

They point out that Taylor, a Trump supporter, won election as mayor in November 2023 with 36.6 percent of the vote. Two progressive candidates split the vote among themselves, receiving a combined total of 70.8 percent of the vote.  

Continue Reading

Virginia

Ghazala Hashmi names Equality Virginia executive director to transition team

Narissa Rahaman will join Adam Ebbin, Mark Sickles on LG-elect’s committee.

Published

on

Virginia Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi (YouTube screenshot)

Virginia Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi has named Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman to her transition team.

State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and state Del. Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) are among those who Hashmi also named to her Transition Committee.

“I am honored to have this diverse group of leaders join our transition,” said Hashmi in a statement. “Their experience, perspective, and commitment to public service will help build an Office of the Lieutenant Governor that is responsive, innovative, and relentlessly focused on improving the lives of every Virginia resident.”

“Together, we will develop a thoughtful roadmap for the work ahead — one that ensures we are engaging communities, strengthening partnerships across the state, and preparing this office to serve with purpose and conviction from Day One,” she added. “I am grateful to each member for bringing time, expertise, and passion to this effort.”

Hashmi, a Democrat, defeated Republican John Reid, who is openly gay, on Nov. 4.

Hashmi will succeed outgoing Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears on Jan. 17.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist

Darren Pasha denies charge, claims action is linked to Ashley Smith’s resignation

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a Civil Complaint on Oct. 27 against local LGBTQ activist and former volunteer Darren Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers.

The complaint, which was filed in D.C. Superior Court, was accompanied by a separate motion seeking a court restraining order, preliminary injunction and anti-stalking order prohibiting Pasha from “any further contact, harassment, intimidation, or interference with the Plaintiff, its staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates.”

According to online court records, on Oct. 28, a judge issued an “initial order” setting the date for a scheduling conference for the case on Feb. 6, 2026. As of the end of the business day on Friday, Nov. 7, the judge did not issue a ruling on Capital Pride’s request for an injunction and restraining order

The court records show that on Nov. 5 Pasha filed an answer to the complaint in which he denies all allegations that he targeted Capital Pride officials or volunteers for stalking or that he engaged in any other improper behavior.

“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” Pasha says in his response, adding that “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to meet the statutory requirements for an anti-stalking order.

The Capital Pride complaint includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out in the court filing documents.

“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Dolshad Pasha (“DSP”} has engaged in a sustained and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.

It continues, “This conduct included physical intimidation, unwanted physical contact, deception to gain unauthorized access to events, retaliatory threats, abusive digital communication, proxy-based harassment, and knowing defiance of organizational bans and protective orders.”

The sweeping anti-stalking order requested in Capital Pride’s court motion would prohibit Pasha from interacting in person or online or electronically with “all current and future staff, board members, and volunteers of Capital Pride Alliance, Inc.”

The proposed order adds, the “defendant shall stay at least 200 yards away from the principal offices of Capital Pride Alliance” and “shall stay at least 200 yards away from all Capital Pride Alliance events, event venues, associated activities, and affiliated gatherings.”

The reason for these restrictions, according to the complaint, is that Pasha’s actions toward Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers allegedly reached the level of causing them to fear for their safety, become “alarmed, disturbed, or frightened,” or suffer emotional distress as defined in D.C.’s anti-stalking law.

Among the Capital Pride officials who are identified by name and who have included statements in the complaint in support of its allegations against Pasha are Ashley Smith, the former Capital Pride Alliance board president, and June Crenshaw, the Capital Pride Alliance deputy director.

“I am making this declaration based on my personal knowledge to support CPA’s petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (ASO) against Daren Pasha,” Smith says in his court statement. “My concerns about the respondent are based on my personal interactions with him as well as reports I have received from other members of the CPA community,” Smith states.

The Capital Pride complaint against Pasha and its supporting documents were filed by D.C. attorney Nick Harrison of the local law firm Harrison-Stein PC.

In his 16-page response to the complaint that he says he wrote himself without the aid of an attorney, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint against him appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, over the past year.

His response states that the announcement last month by Capital Pride that Smith resigned from his position as board president on Oct. 18 after it became aware of a “claim” regarding Smith and it had opened an investigation into the claim supports his assertion that Smith’s resignation is linked to his year-long claim that Smith tarnished his reputation.

Among his allegations against Smith in his response to the Capital Pride complaint, Pasha accuses Smith of using his position as a member of the board of the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization, to persuade HRC to terminate his position as an HRC volunteer and to ban him from attending any future HRC events. He attributes HRC’s action against him to “defamatory” claims about him by Smith related to his ongoing dispute with Smith.

The Capital Pride complaint cites HRC officials as saying Pasha was ousted from his role as a volunteer after he allegedly engaged in abusive and inappropriate behavior  toward HRC staff members and other volunteers.

 Capital Pride has so far declined to disclose the reason for Smith’s resignation pending an internal investigation. 

In its statement announcing Smith’s resignation, a copy of which it sent to the Washington Blade, Capital Pride Alliance says, “Recently, CPA was made aware of a claim made regarding him. The organization has retained an independent firm to initiate an investigation and has taken the necessary steps to make available partner service providers for the parties involved.”

The statement adds, “To protect the integrity of the process and the privacy of all involved, CPA will not be sharing further information at this time.”

Smith did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment, and Capital Pride has declined to disclose whether Smith’s resignation is linked in any way to Pasha’s allegations. 

The Capital Pride complaint seeks to “characterize me as posing a threat sufficient to justify the issuance of a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (CAO), yet no credible or admissible evidence has been provided to satisfy the statutory elements required under D.C. Code 22-3133,” Pasha states in his response.

“CPA’s assertions fail to establish any such conduct on my part and instead appear calculated to discredit and retaliate against me for raising legitimate concerns regarding the conduct of its former Board President,” he states in his response.

In its complaint against Pasha and its legal memorandum supporting its request for an anti-stalking order, Capital Pride provides a list of D.C. Superior Court records that show Pasha has been hit with several anti-stalking orders in cases unrelated to Capital Pride in the past and has violated those orders, resulting in his arrest in at least two of those cases.

“A fundamental justification for granting the [Anti-Stalking Order] lies in the Respondent’s extensive and recent criminal history demonstrating a proven propensity for defying judicial protective measures,” the complaint states. “This history suggests that organizational bans alone are insufficient to deter his behavior, elevating the current situation to one requiring mandatory judicial enforcement,” it says.

“It is alleged that in or about June 2025, Defendant was convicted on multiple counts of violating existing Anti-Stalking Orders in matters unrelated to Capital Pride Alliance (“CPA”),with consecutive sentences imposed, purportedly establishing a pattern of contempt for judicial restraint,” Pasha states in his court response to the Capital Pride complaint.

“These allegations are irrelevant to the matter currently before the Court,” his response continues. “The events cited are entirely unrelated to CPA and the allegations underlying the petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order. Moreover, each of these prior matters has been fully adjudicated, resolved, and dismissed, and therefore cannot serve as a basis to justify the issuance of a permanent Civil Anti-Stalking Order in this unrelated proceeding.”

He adds in his response, “Any reliance on such prior matters is misleading, prejudicial, and legally insufficient.”

Continue Reading

Popular