Connect with us

Local

Maryland to take up marriage, trans bills

Lawmakers return next week; supporters plan Feb. lobbying events

Published

on

Martin O'Malley, gay news, gay politics dc

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley announced plans last year to include a same-sex marriage bill as part of his administration’s legislative package in 2012. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Bills calling for legalizing same-sex marriage and banning discrimination against transgender persons are among the hot-button issues set to emerge next week when the Maryland State Legislature begins its 2012 session.

Officials with an expanded coalition backing the marriage bill and a new transgender advocacy group leading the effort on behalf of the Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act say they are hopeful that the legislature will pass both measures before it adjourns for the year in April.

“It’s all hands on deck with both bills,” said Carrie Evans, executive director of the statewide LGBT group Equality Maryland. “We’re talking to many lawmakers, including Republicans.”

Evans and others working on the two bills were cautious about predicting when leaders of the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates will bring the measures up for a vote, saying control over the timing of the bills was exclusively in the hands of the lawmakers.

Supporters were also cautious about disclosing strategy for defeating an expected voter referendum that experts say will almost certainly be brought before the electorate in November – in the midst of the U.S. presidential election – if the Maryland Legislature passes a marriage bill this spring.

Public opinion polls show voters in the state are evenly divided over whether to vote for or against same-sex marriage.

Under rules of the Maryland Legislature, the committees with jurisdiction over the bills must hold a public hearing on the marriage and gender identity bills, even though the two bills were the subject of lengthy and contentious hearings less than a year ago during the legislature’s 2011 session.

The Democratic-controlled Senate approved the marriage bill last March in what supporters called an historic 25-21 vote. But the Democratic-controlled House of Delegates killed the measure for the year by voting to send it back to committee after supporters determined they were a few votes short of the 71 votes needed to pass it in the 141-member House.

In what some called an ironic twist, the House of Delegates passed the transgender bill last year before the Senate killed it by voting to send it back to a Senate committee. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Prince George’s and Calvert Counties) reportedly orchestrated the decision to hold off on a Senate vote, saying a number of key supporters changed their minds and threatened to vote against the bill.

Shortly after the defeat of the marriage bill last year, supporters led by the Human Rights Campaign formed Marylanders for Marriage Equality, an expanded coalition of organizations with a track record of political clout with state lawmakers. Among the coalition partners are the NAACP of Baltimore, the Maryland ACLU, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Equality Maryland and HRC are also members of the coalition.

Coalition spokesperson Kevin Nix of HRC has said each coalition partner brings unique skills and expertise to the lobbying effort on behalf of the marriage bill.

But coalition officials haven’t disclosed which, if any, lawmakers who were uncommitted or against the bill last year have indicated support this time around.

“The good news and the bad news is the legislators are the same,” said Mark McLaurin, a gay man who serves as political director for the Local 500 of the SEIU of Maryland.

He noted that having the same players is helpful to a degree because they are already informed on the marriage and transgender bills. But McLaurin cautioned that with no election taking place since the 2011 legislative session, it may be hard to line up the additional supporters needed to pass the bills.

“Quite frankly, despite the great work that’s been done since the last session, I haven’t heard very many announced conversions from no to yes,” he said. “So in many respects I feel we’re in the same place that we were.”

Like others lobbying for the marriage bill, McLaurin said he is hopeful that Gov. Martin O’Malley’s decision to include the marriage and transgender bills as part of his legislative package this year will provide an important boost for both measures.

McLaurin, a former board member of Equality Maryland, criticized LGBT advocates and supportive lawmakers last year for their decision to withdraw the marriage bill from the House rather than bring it up for a vote. He said a vote would have helped in the lobbying efforts this year by identifying for certain where lawmakers stand on the marriage measure.

Other supporters disagree with that view, saying a vote last year would have forced wavering House members to take a position, possibly against the bill, making it more difficult for them to vote for it this year without being labeled as “flip-floppers.”

Veteran transgender advocate Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, the newly formed statewide group, said a number of important developments since the transgender bill died in the legislature last year have given the bill “great momentum” this year.

Among the developments are O’Malley’s strong endorsement of the bill and his pledge to make it one of his legislative priorities, said Beyer. She noted that O’Malley responded, in part, to the flurry of publicity surrounding the beating of transgender woman Chrissy Lee Polis at a McDonald’s restaurant outside Baltimore in April. The beating, which was captured on video taken by a McDonald’s employee, created a national sensation and boosted support in Maryland for transgender non-discrimination legislation.

In two other developments, the Howard County, Md., legislature passed a gender identity non-discrimination bill in December and the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that same month that a transgender woman fired from her job in Georgia was protected from discrimination by the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause barring gender-related discrimination.

“All of these things are giving this bill tremendous momentum,” Beyer said. “I feel really good about where things stand.”

Opposition to the marriage bill, coordinated last year by the National Organization for Marriage, is being spearheaded this year by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, a state coalition with ties to NOM.

“Special interest groups are pressuring politicians in Annapolis to redefine marriage in Maryland – despite the strong opposition of a majority of Maryland citizens,” the group says on its website. “A large outcry throughout the state convinced our elected officials last year to reject this drastic action, but the threat is raising its head again,” the web message says.

The group is calling on Marylanders to send contributions to support its effort to oppose the marriage equality bill and to “protect” marriage as a union of “one man and one woman.”

It has announced plans for a rally against the bill in Annapolis early this year and is encouraging churches to call on their congregations to oppose the bill on a regular basis during Sunday sermons.

Supporters of the marriage bill say the approval of a similar bill by the New York Legislature last year, under the strong leadership of New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo, would also help the effort in Maryland.

Leaders of Marylanders for Marriage Equality, including HRC officials involved with the coalition, have yet to disclose their views on possible changes in the wording of the Maryland bill. But speculation has surfaced that O’Malley and supportive lawmakers in the legislature might follow Cuomo’s decision to add a new provision to expand the bill’s exemption for religious organizations.

Cuomo reportedly persuaded some wavering lawmakers to support the New York marriage bill by agreeing to add a provision that allows religious organizations other than churches, including some businesses, to refuse to rent their facilities or provide services, such as catering or the sale of wedding gowns, for same-sex marriages.

Gay rights groups that had been opposed to such exemptions went along with Cuomo’s backing of the exemptions.

When asked about a possible broadening of the religious exemption provision of the Maryland marriage bill, Nix, the spokesperson for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said only, “Governor O’Malley is committed to ensuring that religious institutions are protected under Maryland law.”

Equality Maryland, meanwhile, announced this week a series of events and activities it will sponsor to push for the marriage bill. Among them are nightly phone banks staffed by volunteers across the state; a Feb. 1 prayer breakfast and Clergy Lobby Day in Annapolis; and a Feb. 13 lobby day in Annapolis in which LGBT advocates from across the state will visit their representatives to urge support for the marriage bill.

“Equality Maryland will also work with Gender Rights Maryland to pass a bill that will add protections in existing anti-discrimination laws for transgender individuals,” according to a statement issued this week by Equality Maryland.

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