Local
O’Malley defends marriage bill at Md. House hearing
Dozens testify for and against Civil Marriage Protection Act

Gov. Martin O'Malley testifies before the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee in favor of the Civil Marriage Protection Act. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley remained firm in his support for a bill to legalize same-sex marriage Friday during a contentious joint hearing on the bill before two committees of the state’s House of Delegates.
After O’Malley and two prominent black ministers testified in support of the bill, the three were grilled with questions by two of the bill’s strongest opponents, Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) and Del. Neil Parrott (R-Washington County).
The two delegates disputed O’Malley’s claim that the bill would protect the religious rights of those who say same-sex marriage conflicts with their faith and asked the governor to support new language in the bill that would clear it for an immediate voter referendum.
“I think the people have already spoken in a real sense by sending each of you here to make the decision on this issue,” O’Malley said in response to the delegates’ calls for a referendum.
“It is not right or just that the children of gay couples should have lesser protections than the children of other families in our state,” he said in his testimony in support of the bill. “Nor would it be right to force religious institutions to conduct marriages that conflict with their own religious beliefs and teachings.”
He added, “This bill balances equal protection of individual civil marriage rights with the important protection of religious freedom for all.”
O’Malley and the two ministers who sat beside him at the witness table, Rev. Delman Coates, pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, Md., and Rev. Donte Hickman Sr., pastor of Southern Baptist Church in Baltimore, were the first three of dozens of witnesses expected to testify at the hearing.
The hearing, which was conducted jointly by the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee and Health and Government Operations Committee, began at 1:15 p.m. and lasted until close to 11 p.m.
Some witnesses opposing the bill expressed concern that House Speaker Michael Busch broke tradition by adding the Health and Government Operations panel to join the Judiciary Committee in overseeing the bill after determining that support for the bill in the Judiciary panel was waning and supporters may not have the votes in the committee to send it to the House floor.
Under House rules, the bill would be sent to the full House for a vote if one of the two committees votes to approve it.
Dwyer and Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County), one of the strongest opponents of same-sex marriage in the legislature, came to the witness table to testify as the first opposing witnesses at the hearing.
While speaking as a witness, Dwyer presented a documentary style video to the committee that alleged that legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts forced school children to undergo “indoctrination” in public schools on homosexuality.
The video included an interview of the father of an elementary school student who said he was arrested and jailed for staging a one-person protest against the school policy.
Same-sex marriage supporters in Massachusetts and Maryland have characterized as untrue claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to school curriculum changes. They say curricular changes to address issues of sexual orientation in Massachusetts were under consideration before same-sex marriage became legal in the state and would likely have been adopted even if Massachusetts didn’t legalize same-sex marriage.
Del. Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County), one of seven out gay members of the Maryland Legislature, disputed Dwyer and Parrott on the school curriculum question during the hearing, saying “not a syllable” could be found in the Civil Marriage Protection Act that would change school curricula.
Burns, in referring to O’Malley’s contention that the marriage bill protects religious freedom, called such a claim irrelevant, saying legal recognition of same-sex marriage would be a disaster for children, families and all people of faith in the state.
“I don’t want your protections,” he said. “I don’t need your protections. I don’t want the bill.”
Similar to a hearing held on the marriage bill on Jan. 31 by the State Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee, many of the same witnesses, including ministers and other clergy, testified on Friday and appeared to be evenly divided, with more than a dozen clergy members testifying on both sides of the issue.
“Regarding the rite of marriage, the practice of our local church is rooted in our understanding of the history and etymology of the term matrimony,” said Rev. Coats, who testified in favor of the bill at O’Malley’s side. “Therefore, wedding ceremonies witnessed and presided over at our church acknowledge the union of a man and a woman in a sacred ceremony,” he said.
“With that said, I am here today to express my full support of the proposed Civil Marriage Protection Act as proposed by the governor,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, I believe it is the obligation of the state to insure that all of her citizens are protected equally under the law.”
Hickman said, he too, believes the bill adequately distinguishes civil marriages from religious marriages.
“I believe that marriage is a God-ordained, spiritual and mystical union between a Christian man and a Christian woman,” he said. But he added, “I support the Civil Marriage Protection Act because it is civil and not religious. And as a matter of public policy and human rights it doesn’t threaten my religious convictions nor does it obligate me or my church to officiate or promulgate same-sex marriages.”
O’Malley appeared to respond with caution to Parrott’s repeated questions about whether a same-sex marriage bill in Maryland would lead to the teaching of homosexuality to elementary school students in the state’s public schools.
“In Massachusetts this same bill forced teachers to teach same-sex marriage to their students even when it violated their own religious beliefs,” Parrott told the governor. “Are you OK with that in this bill?”
“No, and I don’t believe that’s what this bill does,” O’Malley said.
“Historically, parents do not have the right to pull their kids out of classes when it violates their religious teachings regarding marriage and family,” Parrott said. “Actually some of them have gone to jail in Massachusetts. Are you OK with that consequence to this bill?”
“No, I’m not aware of that and that is not in this bill,” O’Malley replied. “There are specific, clear prohibitions against forcing any religion to change or teach things that are contrary to its religious beliefs.”
Parrott ended the exchange by asking O’Malley if he would be inclined to amend the bill to “specifically protect students, teachers and parents so that [homosexuality] is not taught in the school system.”
O’Malley replied, “I think that anything that reinforces the inalienable and indispensible right of the free exercise of religions and individual conscience is a good thing.”
The governor’s press spokesperson couldn’t be immediately reached to clarify whether O’Malley was suggesting he might support new language in the bill to ban the teaching of gay-related subjects in the state’s school system.
District of Columbia
Nearly 6,000 turn out for Pride Night Out at the Nationals
Gay Men’s Chorus sings National Anthem
“Just shy of” 6,000 people purchased tickets for the Wednesday, June 24, 21st annual Pride Night Out at the Washington Nationals baseball stadium, which the Nationals said is the longest running LGBTQ Pride event in Major League Baseball, according to a Nationals spokesperson.
The event was organized with the Nationals by Team D.C., the local LGBTQ sports group that organizes similar Pride Nights for other professional D.C. area sports teams.
“It was a good time had by all as the Nationals celebrated the LGBTQ+ community during the Nationals 21st Pride Night Out, presented by Team D.C.” the Nationals said in a statement.
Nationals spokesperson Erica George said the overall game attendance was 27,200.
Similar to recent past years, the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington sung the National Anthem at the start of the game, drawing loud cheers from people throughout the stadium.
The Nationals lost the game to the Philadelphia Phillies by a score of 5-4. Although most of the LGBTQ attendees of the event, held in the right-field mezzanine section of the stadium, were cheering for the Nationals, a sizeable number also cheered for the Phillies.
Miguel Ayala, one of Team D.C.’s lead organizers, said he noticed fans displaying Pride flags and recognized LGBTQ people in all parts of the stadium, indicating significantly more LGBTQ people and their supporters attended the game beyond the close to 6,000 or more who purchased the specific Pride Night Out tickets.
“It was a great excitement last night,” he told the Washington Blade on the day following the event. “I saw a lot of big crowds of our people, I saw everybody I can think of in the community. And it was really great to see the turnout.”
Also, like in previous years, Team D.C. along with the Nationals helped to organize a pre-game show on the large concourse platform area next to the stadium seating area involving a drag show led by local drag performer Shi-Queeta Lee.
“During pregame ceremonies, the Nationals Pride employee resource group was recognized on the field,” the statement released by the Nationals says. “Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, a physician and public health leader who has had a profound impact on the LGBTQ+ community and those living with or vulnerable to HIV, threw out the ceremonial first pitch as the guest of Team D.C.,” the statement says.
It adds that Team D.C.’s scholarship recipient Spencer Doll made the ceremonial call to “Play Ball.”

As if all that were not enough, a Nationals employee who entertains during the Nationals pre-game shows on the field dressed as a giant eagle named “Screech” wearing an eagle’s head mask appeared in the seating area where the Pride Night Out crowd was seated and mingled with the LGBTQ fans, many of whom posed for photos with Screech.
District of Columbia
Washington Blade names new publisher
Longtime ad exec Brian Pitts to assume role from Lynne Brown
The Washington Blade announced this week that its longtime publisher, Lynne Brown, who has worked at the publication for nearly 40 years, is retiring from her day-to-day duties.
Blade co-owner and longtime advertising executive Brian Pitts will assume the role of publisher effective June 26.
Pitts, 46, is a native of Fredericksburg, Va. In 2004, he moved to Washington, D.C., from Rehoboth Beach, Del., to work at the Blade as a 24-year-old sales executive. Pitts, along with Brown and Blade Editor Kevin Naff have owned the Blade since 2009. Pitts has served as the Blade’s lead sales executive since then.
“We’ve been through a lot over the last 17 years, including a recession and a pandemic,” said Pitts. “Lynne has been a steady hand throughout and I’m excited to take the reins and help steer the Blade into its next chapter.”
Brown will assume the title of publisher emerita and remain a part owner of the Washington Blade and Los Angeles Blade and contribute to the business via special projects.
As for what’s next, she said, “I will take the summer to regroup. I have one more LGBTQ community project in mind, and a few personal goals to check off the list. I am a Washingtonian. I will continue to live, work, and love here in D.C. Of course every Friday morning, I will grab a cup of coffee and read the Blade.”
Asked what advice she has for Pitts as he takes over the publisher’s job, Brown replied, “Brian is going to be great. He has all the skills needed to run this business. He also has a deep, silent passion for the Blade. My only advice: Slow and steady wins the race.”
Pitts said his primary goal as publisher is to ensure the Blade continues its mission as America’s LGBTQ news source.
“Another goal is to reach a younger audience and to include an educational component,” he added. “Some younger community members may be newer to the Blade and less familiar with LGBTQ history. Recently, we published a special commemorative magazine to coincide with America 250, chronicling LGBTQ history and contributions to U.S. culture. It’s so important not to let our history get erased and to remember where we came from and to work toward where we want to go.”
He described the biggest challenge to queer media as the Trump administration’s attacks on DEI.
“We have companies that have advertised with us for years who are now afraid of the potential consequences,” he said.
Brown joined the Blade in 1987. She was named publisher in 2007 by previous owner Window Media. In 2009, Window Media filed for bankruptcy; shortly after, Brown, Naff, and Pitts acquired the Blade’s assets from the bankruptcy court and relaunched the brand with Brown as publisher.
She said the period after the bankruptcy became her biggest challenge as publisher.
“The crisis that birthed Brown Naff Pitts Omnimedia kept me overly focused on millions of details,” she recalls. “My greatest personal challenge was delegating and letting go of details. Trusting staff with their strengths and skills to do their jobs was slow to come. It has proved to be most rewarding. Building the right team — knowing the people you work with are committed, professional, and honest — is a great thing.”
Pitts described the bankruptcy and rebirth of the Blade in 2009 as his proudest moment with the company.
“Working at the paper has been great, but becoming a co-owner was a dream come true,” he said.
Naff praised both of his colleagues.
“Lynne has been a rock, helping us navigate financial crises and a pandemic. The Blade wouldn’t have survived without her dedication,” he said. “She is the publisher every editor would want. Brian has terrific instincts, a passion for the Blade’s important mission, and an eye on growth. I am proud to call both of them friends and mentors and look forward to the next chapter.”
Asked why LGBTQ media are still relevant, Brown cited the recent erosion of queer rights as evidence that the Blade’s work remains important.
“The Blade helps fight invisibility and isolation,” she said. “We may have rights today, but we have seen rights eroded or erased. The Blade reports on those rights authentically and accurately and serves as a communication tool and a historian for the community.”
Pitts added, “While mainstream media may cover LGBTQ+ issues, no one covers them quite like us. These are our community’s stories and voices and this is your news source.”
The Blade will host a happy hour event later this summer where the community can meet Pitts and thank Brown for her decades of service.
Delaware
Vote to enshrine same-sex marriage in state constitution fails in Delaware
‘General Assembly turned its back on the people of this state’
The Delaware General Assembly on Tuesday failed to pass Senate Bill 100 (SB-100), an amendment that would add protections for same-sex and interracial marriage to the Delaware Constitution.
In order for the bill to pass, 28 out of 41 members needed to vote ‘yes,’ meaning all 27 Democrats and one Republican needed to vote in favor of the bill.
Rep. Eric Morrison (D-27) told the Blade that an anonymous Republican member agreed to vote in favor prior to the vote but ultimately did not follow through on that promise.
“It’s a shame,” said Rep. Morrison, who’s gay. He explained the difficult nature of passing this amendment with only three legislative days remaining in this session.
The bill needs to receive a two-thirds majority vote in two different sessions and the current two-year long session ends on July 1. Thus, if the bill does not pass before July 1, it will take a minimum of three years to pass the amendment.
The bill was introduced by State Sen. Russ Huxtable (D-07) on June 5, 2025.
Rep. Josue Ortega (D-03) was one of two Democrats to not vote in favor of the bill, voting ‘no.’ Rep. Ortega has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.
Rep. Madinah Wilson-Anton (D-27) was the other Democrat missing from the ‘yes’ votes. She did not vote on the bill.
Sponsor of the measure, Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D-14), made a technical decision to reverse her vote from a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’ last-minute in order to keep the bill alive.
In a Facebook post, Rep. Snyder-Hall said that, “The General Assembly turned its back on the people of this state.”
“When we had the chance to add an extra layer of protection from attempts to turn back the clock and strip our constituents of the rights that Democrats fought for decades to secure, we failed,” said Snyder-Hall.
However, Snyder-Hall said that the failure to pass this bill is not the end. “There are still three legislative days left in the 153rd General Assembly and I am hopeful that we will be able to get the votes required to pass this incredibly basic — but important — bill.”
