Local
Maryland House debate on marriage bill to conclude tonight
Debate on bill expected to continue this evening after supporters successfully scuttle four hostile amendments
UPDATE: The House of Delegates is currently adjourned and will reconvene at 4:30 for a third reading on the marriage bill, which may or may not be followed by a vote.
ANNAPOLIS — At 2:45 the Maryland House of Delegates adjourned after voting down three amendments to the Civil Marriage Protection Act, while adopting two amendments, including one by former marriage foe, Del. Tiffany Alston.
The Alston amendment, supported by many in the LGBT delegation, including Dels. Clippinger, Mizeur, Cullison, and Washington, as well as the bill sponsor, floor leader Del. Dumais — who spoke passionately in favor of same-sex unions throughout the debate — would make clear that the law would not go into effect until all legal challenges to the law, or any referendum process relating to the law, have been exhausted.
The amendment sparked a heated debate between Republicans and Democrats in regard to the power of the amendment to effect the referendum process and the power of the courts in intervening. Minority leader Anthony O’Donnell sought to move to special order on the bill and the amendment for an opinion on the impact from Attorney General Douglas Gansler, tabling the debate on both until Monday. The motion on the special order was handily defeated 55-79, to the chagrin of many.
The Alston amendment — which could signal a shift in support for that delegate — passed easily 81-52, easing the way for those troubled by the bill to feel more comfortable in voting in its favor.
“It was something that could add a level of comfort for some people,” Del. Washington told the Blade. “This is something that we could negotiate on.”
Though the LGBT lawmakers would not comment on whether or not they think that Alston will now support the law, after her surprise vote against in March of 2011, all indicated a hope that she’s come around.
“We believe that she is raising this in good faith,” Del. Cullison told the Blade in regard to Alston’s possible support after passage of her amendment. “And if that’s what makes her comfortable with the bill, knowing that all of the safeguards for the referendum are in place, then I hope she’ll be more comfortable with voting for the entire bill.”
“We hope it makes her feel more comfortable,” Del. Clippinger added.
On Sam Arora, Del. Clippinger hopes that he’s moved back to the side of supporting same-sex marriage, after his surprise rejection of the law in March of 2011.
“I don’t know where he stands right this second,” Del. Clippinger told the Blade. “I don’t know how he’s going to stand until I see a dot on the board.”
“But at the same time, he’s expressed some misgivings, he passed in committee, he asked questions in regard to Del. Alston’s amendment, we certainly hope that if it will help him fell more comfortable maybe that will move him along,” Clippinger added.
Del. Arora voted against the Alston amendment.
In 2010 when Sam Arora was campaigning for the House of Delegates, he was able to pull massive amounts of LGBT support and fundraising money as a result of his close ties with gay Democratic activists and his pro-same-sex marriage position, at that time. Many of his former colleagues indicated a feeling of anger and betrayal after his 2011 flip on the issue. Since that vote, Arora has been ambiguous about his stance on the current effort.
Washington County Republican Del. Andrew Serafini proposed an amendment that would push the age of consent for same-sex marriages to 18, rather than allow the same-sex marriages to adhere to the current age of consent laws that allow girls under the age of 16 to marry with parental consent and proof of pregnancy. Supporters of the same-sex marriage bill argued that it may be time to change the age of consent in Maryland, but that there ought not to be differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples, should the bill pass and get signed into law. The amendment failed 54-81.
The delegates also passed on an amendment by Washington County Republican Del. Neil C. Parrott that would allow parents to opt out of allowing their children be exposed to curriculum that they find objectionable in terms of its presentation of same-sex marriage.
“That already is the law,” Montgomery Co. Democrat, Del. Anne Kaiser, argued before the House voted down the amendment 48-73.
Prince George’s Co. Democrat, Del. Aisha Braveboy offered the amendment that same-sex marriage advocates railed hardest against. The amendments would have changed the date the law becomes effective from October 2012 to January 2013, which would prevent marriages from occurring before an expected ballot initiative vote takes place. After impassioned discussion, the amendment was passed on a 72-63 vote.
Additionally, a short debate preceded a vote on amending the bill to change the word “marriage” to “civil unions” in the law. After supporters of same-sex marriage presented evidence from around the nation where civil unions were found to be inferior to marriage in offering couples equal protection, the delegates rejected the amendment 45-78.
Yesterday we reported that the Maryland House of Delegates on Thursday put off for at least one day a scheduled debate on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, leading some to speculate that supporters lack the votes to pass the legislation.
And in a surprise development, supporters of the Civil Marriage Protection Act agreed to accept an amendment they helped to defeat in committee earlier this week that would put off the date same-sex marriages would become legal from October of this year to January 2013 if the bill should pass.
During a brief joint-committee meeting that adjourned in less than five minutes Friday morning, the delegates opted to save debate on the amendments proposed to the bill for the Friday afternoon floor debate.
In the committee debate Thursday, supporters of the amendment, nearly all of whom opposed the bill, said it was needed to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed in Maryland before a referendum could be held to overturn the legislation should the legislature pass it.
The amendment’s backers said they did not want a situation similar to California, where same-sex marriages were performed before voters approved Proposition 8, which overturned the state’s same-sex marriage law.
During a brief debate early Thursday evening in the full House, Del. Kathleen Dumais (D-Montgomery County), the floor leader for the marriage bill, startled some supporters when she told House Speaker Michael Busch (D-Anne Arundel County) that the bill’s supporters would accept the proposal as a friendly amendment.
It then passed by voice vote.
Minutes later, Busch agreed to requests by delegates who support the marriage bill to send a flurry of proposed floor amendments to the bill to the joint Judiciary Committee and Health and Government Operations Committee so the two panels could conduct a last-minute review to begin at 11 a.m. Friday.
Busch announced that the full House would resume debate over the amendments after it goes back into session at 12:30 p.m. Friday.
It could not be immediately determined whether a vote would take place Friday on the bill itself.
Dumais and spokespersons for Marylanders for Marriage Equality and one of its coalition partners, Equality Maryland, couldn’t be immediately reached for comment Thursday night.
News of the delay in debate on the bill and the approval of the amendment to put off the effective date of legalizing same-sex marriages came several hours after Del. Wade Kach (R-Baltimore County) announced he would vote for the bill.
His announcement boosted the hopes of the bill’s supporters that other Republicans would follow Kach, enabling backers to attain the 71 delegates needed to pass the bill.
Shortly after midnight, Marylanders for Marriage Equality issued a statement announcing that two more delegates whose position on the bill was uncertain had declared their support for the bill – Pamela Beidle (D-Anne Arundel County) and John Olszewski (D-Baltimore County).
Additional reporting by Phil Reese
Maryland
Anne Arundel schools now need parent permission to call trans students by preferred names
Conservative groups challenged system’s policy
By JESSICA CALEFATI | Anne Arundel County Public Schools staff cannot use transgender students’ preferred names if their parents oppose it, according to an internal document reviewed by the Banner, a change that comes after conservative groups challenged the school system’s approach to gender identity.
Teachers union president Kristina Korona told members in an Aug. 20 email that the new guidance undermines district policy on acceptance and inclusivity and “will begin harming affected students immediately.”
Previously, the district didn’t require parental permission to use a high school student’s chosen name and pronouns corresponding to their gender identity, the internal document says. Now it does. The change comes as parents challenge the suburban school system’s gender identity policy and regulation in court and the Trump-Vance administration threatens the district’s funding.
The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
District of Columbia
‘People don’t see me. They see a trend’
New popularity of all things Asian warps view of multiple cultures
As I was growing up, my parents often shared stories about how they were bullied when they were my age, just for being Asian. My mom is Cambodian and my dad is “Wasian,” Chinese and white. Students teased them for their looks, their homemade lunches, and treated their traditional holidays as jokes.
I once asked my mom when I was little if she could pack me dumpling leftovers for lunch. “Yes,” she said with a surprised look, adding, “I would have never wanted to bring dumplings to school when I was your age because I would always get bullied for them. I’m glad times have changed.”
At the time, I was confused. Whenever I brought a homemade Asian dish to school for lunch, I was happy to hear intriguing and curious questions from the other kids. It felt good to have my meal be popular and different from the Lunchables everyone else had.
Though times have changed, racism still continues. It just has a new face. Today, social media pretends to flatter our cultures in an insincere way trying to gain popularity just for clicks. Think anything from K-pop to Japan’s surge in international tourism. Even Starbucks has added drinks with the flavor of ube yam, native to the Philippines, onto its menu.
I feel that now when people see me, they don’t see me, they see a trend.
For years, Asian people have been portrayed as foreign or exotic. The new embrace of foods and fashion at first felt good. Asians have never been represented as much as they’ve deserved.
But this new popularity warps what non-Asians see. Instead of the blunt and direct racism my parents faced, everything now is a gray area, more discreetly hidden behind some TikTok video. It actually normalizes racism and stereotypes.
Whitewashing my culture
As a 15-year-old Asian American who lives in D.C., I’ve always been one of the few Asian kids in school; my high school today counts less than 2 percent of students as being of Asian descent. I remember always being called “that one Asian girl” or some slur a kid learned from their parents. Every time I search for something related to Asian culture, such as a recipe or maybe a holiday, it’s always the same thing: some white person whitewashing my culture.
Social media is the main culprit, of course. I realized this when I entered high school and got a phone and was introduced to the internet. That is when I realized how messed up the new stereotypes around Asians are.
One pattern I started to notice was people wanting to be Asian just because it was popular. It was hurtful, patronizing, and annoying. They made assumptions about our race and then only found us “cool” because we were trending. How can people go from hating us or finding us weird, to then only liking us because we’re popular?
There was a trend going around on TikTok called “race change to another” or RCTA. It is this trend of people manifesting certain physical traits to change their appearance in order to change races. According to journalist Emi Tran, writing then as an intern for NBC Digital, the trend started when a white woman wanted to be Japanese. The woman began posting TikTok videos of herself wishing for different features such as monolids. Tran wrote in that 2023 article that “the overwhelming majority of the RCTA community wants to be East Asian.”
People also look up to K-pop culture, idolizing the pop groups pulled together by big entertainment companies. Most people expect all Koreans to be K-pop fans. Korean friends are asked about K-pop all the time even though they are not into the South Korean music genre.
Although I am not South Korean — I am half Cambodian and Chinese — I still get asked, almost like I’m expected, “You’re really into this group, right?” or “Can you tell me how to pronounce this member’s name?”
I was asked even worse questions during COVID-19. Suddenly, discrimination and violence were increasing specifically toward Asians everywhere. Suddenly, almost everyone was blaming Chinese people for spreading and causing COVID-19.
I remember going to school for one of the last times before quarantine had started and hearing kids whisper, “Oh, she’s going to give us the Coronavirus.” President Donald Trump had publicly posted his opinions about the situation on social media, blaming China for the pandemic, even calling it the “Chinese Virus” or the “Wuhan Virus.” According to NPR, anti-Asian hate crimes in U.S. cities surged 149 percent that year.

The topic of Asians in the media has always been complicated. One moment people can hate us for being weird and different and the next we’re suddenly popular and cool for the same reasons.
I feel conflicted on whether I should feel happy that we’re being represented or angry that it’s all for the wrong reason and has the wrong effects.
Lily Brugman is a sophomore at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. She worked with YMG volunteer and Professor Emerita in journalism at American University Amy Eisman on this piece.
District of Columbia
Gay men linked to 2006 Wone murder failing to make lawsuit settlement payment
Stabbing death of D.C. attorney in house near Dupont Circle startled community
The wife of D.C. attorney Robert Wone, who was found stabbed to death on Aug. 2, 2006, in the Dupont Circle area home of three gay men, has filed a complaint in court accusing two of the men of failing to make the payments they promised to make to settle a $20 million wrongful death lawsuit the wife filed against them in 2008.
The court filings in D.C. Superior Court in May of this year by Katherine Wone provide new details of the lawsuit settlement related to a 20-year-old murder case that observers have compared to a murder mystery novel involving three gay men and the fatal stabbing of their friend whose wife insists was straight.
Court records and D.C. police reports show that Robert Wone was said to have arrived at the townhouse of his long-time college friend Joe Price after spending all day and part of the night working late at his downtown office at Radio Free Asia.
Price, a gay rights attorney at that time associated with the LGBTQ group Equality Virginia, and his partner Victor Zaborsky and their housemate Dylan Ward – who were also friends of Wone – said later that they invited Wone to spend the night in their guest bedroom so he wouldn’t have to drive home to Oakton, Va., where he and his wife lived, before having to return to work in D.C. the next morning.
Court records show that later that night D.C. police responded to a 911 emergency call made by Zaborsky to the gay men’s house at 1509 Swann Street, N.W. and found Wone stabbed to death on what appeared to be a neatly arranged bed.
The three men told police they were certain an intruder entered the house and stabbed Wone while they were asleep in their bedrooms. But homicide detectives reported that the crime scene appeared to have been cleaned up and possible evidence tampered with.
After the investigation dragged on for more than two years, prosecutors obtained an indictment against the three men on charges of obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and evidence tampering in connection with the Wone murder. No murder-related charges were brought, prompting legal observers to conclude that authorities didn’t have sufficient evidence to charge the men with murder.
But a detailed arrest affidavit filed and released at the time the charges were brought against the three gay men startled those who knew them and created a sensation in the surrounding community, especially the LGBTQ community.
Among other things, it said autopsy findings and physical evidence indicated that Wone had been restrained or immobilized by a paralytic drug before being stabbed. It said three stab wounds on Wone’s chest and abdomen were surgical in nature, with no indication that Wone moved or tried to defend himself while being stabbed.
In addition, the affidavit said the autopsy found needle marks on Wone’s body that were not made by emergency medical technicians that arrived on the scene and examined Wone.
At the advice of their attorneys, the three men chose to wave their right to a jury trial and requested that Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz preside over the trial and render the verdict. Following testimony by expert witnesses on both sides, after the men chose not to testify, and dramatic closing arguments by prosecutors and the defense attorneys, the judge found the men not guilty on all three charges.
In a lengthy written verdict, she read from the bench, Leibovitz said while she believed there was significant evidence implicating the defendants, there continued to be reasonable doubt on all charges against them. However, she said she did find that prosecutors established beyond probable cause that Wone was not murdered by an intruder who entered the house while the three men were asleep.
“Nevertheless, after lengthy analysis of the evidence, I conclude that the government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of obstruction of justice or evidence tampering,” Leibovitz said in delivering her verdict.
While greatly relieved by the not guilty verdict, Price, Zaborsky, and Ward were still facing a $20 million wrongful death lawsuit that Katherine Wone filed against them prior to their criminal trial. As the two sides prepared for a civil trial the defense team announced the three gay men would invoke their Fifth Amendment constitutional right to refuse to testify at the civil trial on grounds that their testimony could lead to self-incrimination.
Possibly because of that or other reasons, Katherine Wone announced that she and the three men had reached an out of court monetary settlement of the lawsuit, the terms of which would not be publicly disclosed.
In her recent court filings in May on behalf of the Estate of Robert Wone, which were filed against Price and Zaborsky but not against Ward, Katherine Wone charges the two men with failing to pay thousands of dollars as part of the settlement agreement. Separate complaints she filed against them disclose for the first time that Price had agreed to an $80,000 settlement amount in 2011 to be paid through monthly installments over the next 20 years.
The non-payment complaint filed against Zaborsky by Wone states that he had agreed to a settlement in 2011 of $66,000 also to be paid over 20 years in 240 monthly payments.
Although the initially filed $20 million lawsuit also named Dylan Ward as a defendant, court records do not show any complaint filing against Ward for nonpayment, leading some observers to speculate that Ward may have already paid the full sum of whatever amount Wone’s lawsuit sought from him.
The Washington Post has reported that court filings show that as of May 29 of this year, Price owed $56,893.75 and Zaborsky owed $31,753.75 in missed payments and bounced checks plus fees and interest.
The two complaints filed by Wone against the two men also state that the settlement agreement they signed allows the Wone estate to call for the “immediate” payment of the entire amount they agreed to pay if they default on their monthly payments.
Court records show that a “remote scheduling conference” before a debt collection judge was scheduled to take place in D.C. Superior Court on Sept. 22.
Price, Zaborsky, and Ward have declined to respond to press inquiries including inquiries from the Washington Blade regarding the criminal trial and lawsuit. The non-payment complaints filed by Katherine Wone show that Price’s current residence is in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. and Zaborsky now resides in Tamarac, Fla.
News of the latest complaints filed against Price and Zaborsky for nonpayment of the lawsuit settlement payments was first reported on Aug. 2 by the website called Who Murdered Robert Wone, which was created by four gay men shortly after Wone’s 2006 murder.
“We’re left to wonder if the threesome, or whoever remains of it now, will ever come clean on what they know and may have done,” Craig Brownstein, one of the men who created the website stated in the Aug. 2 posting. “The optimists will hope for a confession of some sort, an explanation, the pessimists are convinced they’ll take their secrets to the grave,” Brownstein wrote. “Time will tell.”
-
California4 days agoSan Francisco, long a queer safe haven, remains competitive for homebuyers
-
Netherlands4 days agoTrans, nonbinary Americans find refuge in the Netherlands
-
Calendar4 days agoCalendar: August 28-September 3
-
Movies4 days ago‘Teenage Sex and Death’ has never been more entertaining

