Local
Marriage in Maryland?
Supporters optimistic, but 2012 referendum expected
Advocates for same-sex marriage in Maryland, including the seven gay and lesbian members of the state legislature, are optimistic that the legislature will pass a marriage equality bill in 2011 but they are less certain about the prospects for a transgender rights bill.
The gains in the number of supporters of a same-sex marriage bill in the November election and commitments by top leaders of the legislature to name marriage equality supporters to the committees that must clear them appear to have tipped the balance in favor of the bill passing, according to advocates and lawmakers.
“We remain cautiously optimistic that we’ve got the votes to push this bill through in this session, and that’s what we intend to do,” said Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County), a lesbian.
News surfaced last week that the main bottleneck in preventing the bill’s passage during the past few years – its blockage in the state Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee – would be lifted when the legislature convenes in January. Changes in the committee’s makeup due to the election and a decision by one marriage equality opponent to move to another committee make it nearly certain that the committee will vote to send the bill to the Senate floor.
Meanwhile, the Judiciary Committee in the House of Delegates, which has been supportive of a marriage equality bill in the past, is also undergoing a major change in membership, and its composition won’t be disclosed until January.
But Mizeur told the Blade this week that Del. Mike Busch (D-Annapolis), who serves as Speaker of the House, has indicated to her and other gay and lesbian caucus members that he will make sure the committee’s pro-gay marriage majority is maintained.
“We didn’t meet with him as a full caucus,” Mizeur said. “But many of us individually have reached out to him. We kind of said it’s important that the Judiciary Committee’s open positions get assigned to people who are pro-marriage equality. And it’s been a very positive conversation.”
Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of the statewide LGBT advocacy group Equality Maryland, said the now expanded LGBT caucus in the legislature, which climbed from four to seven following the November election, will also play a key role in helping to pass a marriage bill in 2011.
“They will do much of the heavy lifting,” she said.
Meneses-Sheets noted that everything must come together in just 90 days, beginning in January, during the three-month-long 2011 session of the Maryland General Assembly.
“I do think we can make this happen,” she said.
With head counts showing that the bill should clear the House of Delegates, both in committee and on the floor, and general consensus that it will clear the Senate committee, Meneses-Sheets said the next hurdle would be to overcome a filibuster on the floor of the Senate.
She said Equality Maryland and other advocates for the bill believe they have the 29 votes needed to stop a filibuster in the 47-member Senate. Once that hurdle is cleared, just 24 votes are needed to pass the bill in a direct floor vote.
Gov. Martin O’Malley told the Blade in an exclusive 2007 interview that he would sign a marriage equality bill; he reiterated that pledge during his successful campaign for re-election last month.
Meneses-Sheets said advocates for a pending transgender rights bill believe they have the votes to pass that measure in the House of Delegate if not the Senate, too. But similar to the gay marriage bill in past years, the main hurdle for the transgender measure is getting it out of committee in both the House and Senate, she said.
The bill would add the terms gender identity and expression to the categories included in an existing state civil rights law.
The General Assembly added sexual orientation protection to the state’s civil rights statute in 2001 under the administration of former Gov. Parris Glendenning.
“[The transgender bill] is where the committee assignments are even more important because it goes to the [House] Committee on Health and Government Operations,” she said. “It’s typically been a tough committee for us. They don’t deal with a lot of social policy bills like this one. So in the past, we’ve been short a good number of votes in order to get it out.”
Montgomery County transgender advocate Dana Beyer, who ran unsuccessfully in November for a seat in the House of Delegates, said she is more optimistic over the transgender bill, saying she believes LGBT allies in the General Assembly’s two bodies will help move the bill out of the two committees.
“I feel whatever has happened with the marriage bill should happen with the gender identity and expression bill,” Beyer said. “Mike Miller [president of the Senate] said he wants a floor vote on marriage. I feel that will apply to gender identity, too.”
Beyer said she’s confident that both the marriage and transgender bills will pass in the General Assembly in 2011, leading to yet another big hurdle for both measures: She’s certain that opponents will gather the required number of signatures to bring both bills before the voters in 2012 in separate referendums.
“I think we’re going to find ourselves with two Proposition 8s,” she said, referring to the California ballot measure that overturned that state’s same-sex marriage law.
Under Maryland law, bills passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor are placed on hold if sufficient signatures are obtained to call a referendum on a measure.
A recent Washington Post poll showed that 46 percent of Maryland residents favor legalizing same-sex marriage, 44 percent oppose it and 10 percent had no opinion. Opponents of same-sex marriage, led by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, point out that voters have banned or overturned same-sex marriage laws in every state that such laws have come up on the ballot, even in cases where public opinion polls showed support for gay marriage.
Mizeur and Meneses-Sheets said the four out gay or lesbian incumbents in the General Assembly have lobbied their fellow lawmakers for the marriage bill in a low-key way in colleague-to-colleague discussions.
Two sources familiar with the caucus, who spoke on condition that they not be identified, said some LGBT activists have expressed concern that the caucus has not been aggressive enough in lining up more co-sponsors for the marriage bill. In particular, they expressed concern that Del. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City), the most senior LGBT caucus member and one of three delegates representing District 43 in Baltimore, has shied away from LGBT issues in her public statements and constituent mailings, including the same-sex marriage debate.
Noting that McIntosh is widely recognized as vying for the position of Speaker of the House when the post becomes vacant, one of the sources wondered whether she was backing away from speaking out publicly on the marriage bill to avoid generating opponents in a future quest for the speaker’s position.
“I absolutely disagree with that,” said Mizeur. “Maggie is as visible and vocal and supportive on our issues as any other member of the caucus.”
Mizeur added, “I do think that Maggie will make a great Speaker of the House and I would put money on the fact that she will be the next Speaker of the House. And she doesn’t play politics with the gay and lesbian community on changing who she is or how visible she would be on an issue in order to attain that goal.”
Voters in District 43, while re-electing McIntosh in November, also elected Mary Washington, the nation’s second black lesbian to win election to a state legislature and, like McIntosh, a supporter of the marriage equality bill.
But the district’s voters also have continued to elect same-sex marriage opponent Joan Carter Conway, also a Democrat, as their state senator. McIntosh has not stated publicly whether she has approached Conway to change her mind on the bill.
McIntosh and two other incumbent LGBT caucus members – Sen. Richard Madeleno and Del. Anne Kaiser, both Democrats from Montgomery County – did not return calls by press time.
The newly elected LGBT caucus members – Washington, and delegates-elect Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore) and Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County) – have each said they would work hard to secure the votes needed to pass the marriage bill.
District of Columbia
D.C. Council gives first approval to amended PrEP insurance bill
Removes weakening language after concerns raised by AIDS group
The D.C. Council voted unanimously on Feb. 3 to approve a bill on its first of two required votes that requires health insurance companies to cover the costs of HIV prevention or PrEP drugs for D.C. residents at risk for HIV infection.
The vote to approve the PrEP D.C. Amendment Act came immediately after the 13-member Council voted unanimously again to approve an amendment that removed language in the bill added last month by the Council’s Committee on Health that would require insurers to fully cover only one PrEP drug.
The amendment, introduced jointly by Council members Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), who first introduced the bill in February 2025, and Christina Henderson (I-At-Large), who serves as chair of the Health Committee, requires insurers to cover all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved PrEP drugs.
Under its rules, the D.C. Council must vote twice to approve all legislation, which must be signed by the D.C. mayor and undergo a 30-day review by Congress before it takes effect as a D.C. law.
Given its unanimous “first reading” vote of approval on Feb. 3, Parker told the Washington Blade he was certain the Council would approve the bill on its second and final vote expected in about two weeks.
Among those who raised concerns about the earlier version of the bill was Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, who sent messages to all 13 Council members urging them to remove the language added by the Committee on Health requiring insurers to cover just one PrEP drug.
The change made by the committee, Schmid told Council members, “would actually reduce PrEP options for D.C. residents that are required by current federal law, limit patient choice, and place D.C. behind states that have enacted HIV prevention policies designed to remain in effect regardless of any federal changes.”
Schmid told the Washington Blade that although coverage requirements for insurers are currently provided through coverage standards recommended in the U.S. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, AIDS advocacy organizations have called on D.C. and states to pass their own legislation requiring insurance coverage of PrEP in the event that the federal policies are weakened or removed by the Trump administration, which has already reduced or ended federal funding for HIV/AIDS-related programs.
“The sticking point was the language in the markup that insurers only had to cover one regimen of PrEP,” Parker told the Blade in a phone interview the night before the Council vote. “And advocates thought that moved the needle back in terms of coverage access, and I agree with them,” he said.
In anticipation that the Council would vote to approve the amendment and the underlying bill, Parker, the Council’s only gay member, added, “I think this is a win for our community. And this is a win in the fight against HIV/AIDS.”
During the Feb. 3 Council session, Henderson called on her fellow Council members to approve both the amendment she and Parker had introduced and the bill itself. But she did not say why her committee approved the changes that advocates say weakened the bill and that her and Parker’s amendment would undo. Schmid speculated that pressure from insurance companies may have played a role in the committee change requiring coverage of only one PrEP drug.
“My goal for advancing the ‘PrEP DC Amendment Act’ is to ensure that the District is building on the progress made in reducing new HIV infections every year,” Henderson said in a statement released after the Council vote. “On Friday, my office received concerns from advocates and community leaders about language regarding PrEP coverage,” she said.
“My team and I worked with Council member Parker, community leaders, including the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute and Whitman-Walker, and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, to craft a solution that clarifies our intent and provides greater access to these life-saving drugs for District residents by reducing consumer costs for any PrEP drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” her statement concludes.
In his own statement following the Council vote, Schmid thanked Henderson and Parker for initiating the amendment to improve the bill. “This will provide PrEP users with the opportunity to choose the best drug that meets their needs,” he said. “We look forward to the bill’s final reading and implementation.”
Maryland
4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy
Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024
A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.
The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”
“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”
The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.
District of Columbia
Norton hailed as champion of LGBTQ rights
D.C. congressional delegate to retire after 36 years in U.S. House
LGBTQ rights advocates reflected on D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton’s longstanding advocacy and support for LGBTQ rights in Congress following her decision last month not to run for re-election this year.
Upon completing her current term in office in January 2027, Norton, a Democrat, will have served 18 two-year terms and 36 years in her role as the city’s non-voting delegate to the U.S. House.
LGBTQ advocates have joined city officials and community leaders in describing Norton as a highly effective advocate for D.C. under the city’s limited representation in Congress where she could not vote on the House floor but stood out in her work on House committees and moving, powerful speeches on the House floor.
“During her more than three decades in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a champion for the District of Columbia and the LGBTQ+ community,” said David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization.
“When Congress blocked implementation of D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, Norton led the fight to allow it to go into effect,” Stacey said. “When President Bush tried to ban marriage equality in every state and the District, Norton again stood up in opposition. And when Congress blocked HIV prevention efforts, Norton worked to end that interference in local control,” he said.

In reflecting the sentiment of many local and national LGBTQ advocates familiar with Norton’s work, Stacy added, “We have been lucky to have such an incredible champion. As her time in Congress comes to an end, we honor her extraordinary impact in the nation’s capital and beyond by standing together in pride and gratitude.”
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.
Activists familiar with Norton’s work also point out that she has played a lead role in opposing and helping to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation. In 2018, Norton helped lead an effort to defeat a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act introduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), which Norton said included language that could “gut” D.C.’s Human Rights Act’s provisions banning LGBTQ discrimination.
Norton pointed to a provision in the bill not immediately noticed by LGBTQ rights organizations that would define D.C.’s local government as a federal government entity and allow potential discrimination against LGBTQ people based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”
“This bill is the latest outrageous Republican attack on the District, focusing particularly on our LGBT community and the District’s right to self-government,” Norton said shortly after the bill was introduced. “We will not allow Republicans to discriminate against the LGBT community under the guise of religious liberty,” she said. Records show supporters have not secured the votes to pass it in several congressional sessions.
In 2011, Norton was credited with lining up sufficient opposition to plans by some Republican lawmakers to attempt to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law, that the Council passed and the mayor signed in 2010.
In 2015, Norton also played a lead role opposing attempts by GOP members of Congress to overturn another D.C. law protecting LGBTQ students at religious schools, including the city’s Catholic University, from discrimination such as the denial of providing meeting space for an LGBTQ organization.
More recently, in 2024 Norton again led efforts to defeat an attempt by Republican House members to amend the D.C. budget bill that Congress must pass to eliminate funding for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs and to prohibit the city from using its funds to enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act in cases of discrimination against transgender people.
“The Republican amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to enforce anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination regulations and the amendment to defund the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs are disgraceful attempts, in themselves, to discriminate against D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community while denying D.C. residents the limited governance over their local affairs to which they are entitled,” Norton told the Washington Blade.
In addition to pushing for LGBTQ supportive laws and opposing anti-LGBTQ measures Norton has spoken out against anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and called on the office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. in 2020 to more aggressively prosecute anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.

“There is so much to be thankful for Eleanor Holmes Norton’s many years of service to all the citizens and residents of the District of Columbia,” said John Klenert, a member of the board of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. “Whether it was supporting its LGBTQ+ people for equal rights, HIV health issues, home rule protection, statehood for all 700,000 people, we could depend on her,” he said.
Ryan Bos, executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events, called Norton a “staunch” LGBTQ community ally and champion for LGBTQ supportive legislation in Congress.
“For decades, Congresswoman Norton has marched in the annual Capital Pride Parade, showing her pride and using her platform to bring voice and visibility in our fight to advance civil rights, end discrimination, and affirm the dignity of all LGBTQ+ people” Bos said. “We will be forever grateful for her ongoing advocacy and contributions to the LGBTQ+ movement.”
Howard Garrett, president of D.C.’s Capital Stonewall Democrats, called Norton a “consistent and principled advocate” for equality throughout her career. “She supported LGBTQ rights long before it was politically popular, advancing nondiscrimination protections and equal protection under the law,” he said.
“Eleanor was smart, tough, and did not suffer fools gladly,” said Rick Rosendall, former president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance. “But unlike many Democratic politicians a few decades ago who were not reliable on LGBTQ issues, she was always right there with us,” he said. “We didn’t have to explain our cause to her.”
Longtime D.C. gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein said he first met Norton when she served as chair of the New York City Human Rights Commission. “She got her start in the civil rights movement and has always been a brilliant advocate for equality,” Rosenstein said.
“She fought for women and for the LGBTQ community,” he said. “She always stood strong with us in all the battles the LGBTQ community had to fight in Congress. I have been honored to know her, thank her for her lifetime of service, and wish her only the best in a hard-earned retirement.”
