Local
Couples plan courthouse visits to celebrate D.C. marriage law
Aisha Mills and her domestic partner, Danielle Moodie, plan to mark March 3, the day the District’s same-sex marriage law is scheduled to take effect, by going to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license.
Due to a mandatory three-business-day waiting period, jubilant same-sex couples — some of whom have been in relationships for more than 20 years — won’t be able to marry until March 9 at the earliest. That’s when the D.C. Superior Court’s Marriage Bureau completes the processing of their marriage licenses.
But for Mills, president of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Campaign for All D.C. Families, March 3 nevertheless represents an historic day.
“The Campaign for All D.C. Families has been working hard for some time to ensure that all residents of the District of Columbia have the opportunity to wed here, and we are excited that it will finally become a reality on March 3,” she said.
Mills’ group and other local LGBT organizations were still finalizing plans this week for a celebration linked to a possible joint appearance by same-sex couples at the courthouse on the morning of the March 3 to fill out their applications for a marriage license.
“We have at least a half-dozen couples expected at the courthouse,” said Cathy Renna of Renna Communications, an LGBT-oriented public relations firm that’s coordinating plans for celebrating the start of the marriage law.
Under court rules, a $35 license application fee plus a $10 fee for a Certificate of Marriage, must be paid by cash or money order to enable couples to submit their applications. All this takes place in Room 4485 of the Moultrie Superior Court Building at 500 Indiana Ave., N.W.
Other groups involved in the same-sex marriage equality effort in D.C. that were expected to participate in a celebration March 3 include the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, D.C. for Marriage, and D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality.
District resident Reggie Stanley and partner Rocky Galloway “definitely” plan to be at the courthouse on the morning of March 3 to apply for a marriage license, Stanley said. But Deacon Maccubbin and longtime partner Jim Bennett, owners of the recently closed Lambda Rising Bookstore, weren’t sure this week whether to join other same-sex couples at the courthouse that morning.
“Jim and I haven’t had time to sit down and actually work out how we want to do this — whether we want to be in that first wave or whether we just want to take our time and do it in the old-fashioned way, so to speak,” Maccubbin said.
But regardless of which couples are in the first wave — or which couple is the first to wed in D.C. — Rick Rosendall of GLAA said the shared moment will be special.
“Whichever couples happen to be first in line on March 3, and whoever happens to have the first [wedding] ceremony on March 9,” he said, “it will be a deeply satisfying moment for those of us who have worked to make it possible.”
Local same-sex marriage advocates expressed a sigh of relief Feb. 19 when a Superior Court judge denied a request by their opponents for a court injunction to stop the same-sex marriage law from taking effect.
The opponents, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., said an injunction was needed to give them more time to organize a voter referendum that could overturn the marriage law.
Judge Brian Holeman denied the injunction request on grounds that the court lacked legal authority to block a law approved by the local D.C. government and cleared by Congress through its regular 30 legislative day review, which ends March 3.
Holeman, in a ruling delivered from the bench Feb. 19 and released in writing Monday, also said an underlying lawsuit filed by Jackson seeking to force the city to hold a referendum on the marriage issue did not appear likely to succeed on its merits. He noted the likelihood of the success of Jackson’s lawsuit was a key factor in determining whether to grant an injunction.
Jackson and his attorneys appealed Holeman’s ruling Monday to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Legal observers believe the Appeals Court is likely to uphold Holeman’s decision.
“In my view, the appeals court has no more authority to stop a law passed by the city and cleared by Congress than the lower court,” said Mark Levine, a local gay rights attorney.
Under the city’s election law, Jackson and his backers must complete a series of requirements for a referendum, including obtaining petition signatures from voters, by the time Congress completes March 3 its review of the same-sex marriage law.
Even if the appeals court were to grant him a stay, many observers believe it would be impossible for Jackson to complete the administrative requirements for a referendum by that date.
Jackson is separately appealing a D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics decision denying his application for a voter initiative seeking to ban same-sex marriage in the city. Under the city’s election law, Jackson and his backers have at least six months to complete the petition requirements for an initiative and an unlimited time to challenge the city’s denial of his initiative request through the courts.
The election board has on three occasions denied requests by Jackson and others for ballot measures seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage law. The board has based its denials on grounds that such measures would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In addition to pushing for ballot measures, same-sex marriage opponents have called on Congress to either overturn the marriage law or force the city to place the issue on the ballot through a referendum or initiative. Most political observers believe Congress won’t intervene on the matter as long as Democrats are in control.
Capitol Hill insiders say all bets are off if Republicans regain control of Congress in the November election or sometime after that. But large numbers of same-sex couples will have married by the time a serious threat to the law surfaces in Congress.
“Everyone will see that the sky hasn’t fallen,” said Michael Crawford, a same-sex marriage activist.
Maryland
White House threatens Anne Arundel schools over gender identity policy
District faces possible legal action or loss of federal funding
By JESSICA CALEFATI | The Trump-Vance administration on Monday threatened to punish Anne Arundel County’s school system with legal action or the loss of federal funding for allegedly withholding information about a student’s gender identity and transition from the child’s parents.
The U.S. Education and Justice Departments together determined that the suburban Maryland district treats students’ gender identities as confidential medical information that cannot be shared with parents, in violation of federal student privacy law, according to a news release. A federal lawsuit filed against the district earlier this month made similar claims.
“As a mother and a grandmother, it is unconscionable that any school district would hide the most sensitive information about children in their care from their own parents,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “This is not only an affront to basic moral principles, but also to parents’ rights under federal law.”
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Virginia
Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
Former LG lost to Abigail Spanberger in 2025 gubernatorial race
Less than a year after losing Virginia’s gubernatorial race, former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is campaigning across the state against constitutional amendments that would protect marriage equality and reproductive freedom.
She is launching a statewide “Life and Marriage Tour” ahead of November’s election.
Although same-sex couples can legally marry under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Virginia’s constitution still contains language that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Supporters say removing the language would protect marriage equality should federal precedent change.
The original ban was written into the state constitution in 2006.
It has been hinted at in the past by Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas that he would consider revisiting Obergefell v. Hodges regarding contraception and marriage rights for same-sex couples. He stated this in his concurring opinion regarding the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which allows for state-level abortion bans.
Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman said removing the ban would bring the state’s constitution in line with existing law.
“20 years after banning marriage equality, it’s time for our commonwealth to fully complete our evolution — and finish the job on protecting marriage equality for all,” Rahaman said.
In an email to supporters, Earle-Sears said these amendments “raise serious concerns” and could alter principles about which Virginians care.
“That is why our efforts are focused not only on informing voters, but also encouraging them to carefully consider these proposals and vote NO on both amendments,” Earle-Sears said.
Virginia voters will consider three constitutional amendments this November.
Earle-Sears is campaigning for voters to reject two of them: the Virginia Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment and the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.
A “Yes” vote on the Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment would include removing a provision that states marriage is between one man and one woman and prohibitng the state from denying a marriage license to two adults based on their sex, gender, or race, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
In 2025, during debates against now Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Earle-Sears argued it is not discrimination to think that gay people should not be allowed to marry. She claims it conflicts with her faith.
According to ABC 8, in 2024 she wrote that she had a “moral opposition” to marriage equality, after former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, signed a marriage equality bill that barred denying marriage licenses based on sex, gender, or race.
According to the Virginia Department of Elections, a “Yes” vote on the Reproductive Freedom amendment supports adding a section to the state constitution that would give Virginians the right to make and carry out decisions regarding reproductive healthcare, except in specific exemptions.
The Virginia Department of Elections wrote that if accepted, the amendment would allow the state government to pass laws to regulate abortion care in the third trimester of pregnancy, but require abortion care when it is medically needed to protect the life and health of the pregnant person or because the fetus is not viable.
During the 2025 election cycle, Earle-Sears was clear on her anti-abortion stance.
According to the Virginia Independent, she utilized campaign funds to donate to the Family Foundation of Virginia. The group is a faith-based, anti-abortion, and anti-in vitro fertilization non-profit.
The “Life and Marriage Tour” will include traveling throughout Virginia to speak with citizens, churches, community organizations, and local leaders. The exact locations have yet to be announced.
District of Columbia
D.C. Council approves increased funding for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
Increase attached to 2027 budget bill
The D.C. Council on July 14 gave final approval for the city’s fiscal year 2027 budget that includes an amendment calling for increasing the number and size of funding grants that the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs provides for local organizations providing services for the LGBTQ community.
The amendment, called the “LGBTQ Community Grant Amendment Act of 2026,” was introduced earlier this year by D.C. Council member Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), the Council’s only gay member.
The D.C. LGBTQ Budget Coalition called the Parker amendment “a historic measure that establishes the District’s most sustainable model for a vehicle for investing in LGBTQ communities.”
The Council approved the version of the FY 2027 budget bill with the attached Parker amendment in its first of two required votes on June 9. Shortly after voting unanimously to give final approval of an earlier version of the two-part budget measure on July 7 that includes the Parker amendment, the Council sent the bill to Mayor Muriel Bowser for her signature.
Bowser has expressed strong opposition to several provisions in the $22 billion budget measure passed by the Council that are unrelated to the Parker amendment regarding the Office of LGBTQ Affairs. The mayor has yet to say whether she will sign, veto, or choose not to sign the bill.
The latter option would allow the bill to become law if Congress does not choose to overturn it during its required 30-day legislative review period for all D.C. bills. Political observers believe the Council will vote to override a veto if Bowser chooses to veto the bill.
When contacted by the Washington Blade on July 22 to determine where the mayor stands on the budget bill, mayoral spokesperson Daniel Gleick said only, there was “no update on the budget just yet.”
Among other things, the Parker amendment calls for the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs to issue a $980,000 grant in FY 2027 to a private, nonprofit organization in partnership with the office “for the purpose of supporting programs that promote the welfare of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning community.”
It would allocate $680,000 of that funding total from existing funds from the city’s community affairs grants program and calls for $200,000 in newly appropriated funds.
It says the organization selected would also initiate its own fundraising effort to expand the amount of funds beyond the amount the office would provide, enabling it to provide larger grants to a greater number of local LGBTQ organizations.
“The legislation arrives at a critical moment, as LGBTQ-serving organizations face unprecedented uncertainty,” the D.C. Budget Coalition said in its comment on the Parker amendment. “Growing demand for services is colliding with shrinking resources, federal attacks on LGBTQ programs, and ongoing threats to local funding streams,” the coalition’s statement says.
In what some observers have called a highly controversial action; the budget bill approved by the Council reverses and restores millions of dollars in budget cuts proposed by Bowser in the budget she submitted to the Council earlier this year.
Among other things, the Council’s budget preserves the current level of funding for housing vouchers, childcare, paid family leave, and other programs slated to be cut in the mayor’s proposed budget, according to a report by the Washington Post.
Bowser points out that the Council approved budget bill calls for using $150 million from the city’s reserve fund, which she and others have said could put the city in jeopardy in future years. The mayor has said the cuts were needed to prevent a major funding shortfall brought about by the action by Republicans in Congress to cut the city’s budget by over a billion dollars.
White House threatens Anne Arundel schools over gender identity policy
PHOTOS: Front Royal Pride
Dutch queen opens World Pride in Amsterdam
Gary Sutton, known for ‘warmth and laughter,’ dies at 62
With gas prices soaring again, a staycation is a good plan
Summer in D.C. brings sports, Restaurant Week, festivals, and more
No Pride without Disability Pride
Trump tries to scare Americans into not voting
2026 International AIDS Conference to take place in Rio
