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
Thursday's delay gave supporters pause. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
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
District of Columbia
Mary’s House founder, CEO retires
Dr. Imani Woody played leading role in opening DC’s first home for LGBTQ seniors
The board of directors for Mary’s House for Older Adults, DC’s first official home dedicated to providing affordable housing for LGBTQ seniors, announced on July 7 that its founding president and CEO, Dr. Imani Woody, has retired.
Woody, who holds a PhD in Human Services, is credited with playing a leading role over many years in arranging both city and private funding needed to construct and operate the Mary’s House three-story building located at 401 Anacostia Road, S.E., in the city’s Fort Dupont neighborhood.
The house, which opened in March 2025, with a grand opening ceremony held in May 2025, includes 15 single-occupancy residential units and more than 5,000 square feet of shared communal living space.
“It is with profound gratitude and hearts full of celebration that the board of directors of Mary’s House for Older Adults, DC (MHFOA) announces the retirement of our visionary founder, Dr. Imani Woody, from her role as president and CEO,” the Mary’s House board says in a statement.
“Dr. Woody’s journey with Mary’s House began with her vision and a kitchen table gathering of women with a bold, urgent, and loving vision: to create safe, affirming, affordable housing for LGBTQ/SGL older adults in Washington, DC,” the statement says.
It adds, “What started as a dream has grown into DC’s first affordable LGBTQ+/SGL affirming communal living space for adults 60 and over, a 15-room community residence at 401 Anacostia Road in Southeast Washington.”
The statement says Woody will continue to serve on Mary’s House board.
“The board will be sharing information about the leadership transition process in the coming weeks,” the statement continues. “We are committed to honoring Dr. Woody’s legacy by ensuring Mary’s House continues to thrive and grow in faithful service to LGBTQ/SGL elders experiencing housing insecurity and isolation.”
Maryland
Va., Md., advocates brace for next fight after Supreme Court sports ruling
Neither state has statewide ban on trans student athletes
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for states to enforce laws barring transgender students from participating on school sports teams consistent with their gender identity, a decision LGBTQ advocates say could encourage additional restrictions across the country.
While neither Maryland nor Virginia currently has a statewide ban on trans student athletes, advocates say the decision could reshape future legislative battles and school policies throughout the region.
Directly following the case, attorneys for trans student athletes spoke out about the case and how detrimental it could be to students.
“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project for Lambda Legal, in a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The next step is figuring out how states will move forward, specifically in Maryland and Virginia.
As of right now, neither state has bans on trans athletes in schools. The new Supreme Court decision also does not require states to enact bans, only that bans are allowed if states or school districts choose to enforce them.
According to the ACLU, 27 states have banned trans youth from participating in school sports since 2020. Most of these states also require sex testing, which the organization says is invasive for all female athletes.
Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman said that while she has heard a lot of frustration following the decision, people are ready to take action.
“Families, parents and youth have lived through disappointing changes to the Virginia Department of Education’s model policies for the treatment of transgender students, and the Virginia High School League’s decades-old policy that allowed transgender students an opportunity to play sports with their friends,” Rahaman said in a statement to the Washington Blade.
She believes they are not ready to give up this fight quite yet.
As of now, trans and nonbinary students are protected under Virginia law, and Rahaman wants that to continue.
“This ruling will likely embolden right-wing members of the General Assembly to pursue trans athlete bans, and we will continue to defeat every bill like we have the past five legislative sessions. Now is our time to be proactive,” Rahaman said.
She also calls upon Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger to defend trans youth in Virginia from what she describes as bullies and to continue to stand up to federal attacks on the trans community in general.
For trans students, Rahaman wants to ensure that they continue to know that they belong and have a place in school sports.
“To the transgender young people watching this decision unfold: you belong on your team, in your school, in your community, and here in Virginia. This ruling does not change that. A single Supreme Court decision cannot define your worth or your future,” Rahaman said.
For people who may be outside the community but want to help, she encourages them to speak with trans and nonbinary people in their community, befriend the families of youth to show their support, and continue to speak up on these issues when needed.
According to ACLU of Virginia, high schooler Eliza Munshi was told she could not compete on the girls’ track team because she was trans. To prove a point, she decided to compete with the boys.
She had previously competed on the girls’s track team before her Virginia school decided to enforce the ban demanded by President Donald Trump. With pink hair and pink makeup, she decided to continue her love for the sport alongside boys. According to Munshi, her entire community rallied for her.
“I did it to prove a point. I knew I could do it. I knew it wouldn’t phase me. My gender itself and that label has been the least important part of my transition: I want to look how I want to look. I want to dress how I want to dress. If you don’t like that, then that’s not my business,” Munshi said.
DOE has launched Title IX probe against Md. school districts
In the weeks leading up to the ruling, multiple Maryland school districts were included in a Title IX probe stating that not enforcing sex-based protections guaranteed by federal law. Currently, there have been no updates on the lawsuit or the district’s decisions.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, the federal probe is based on parent complaints that the school districts were violating a specific Trump-Vance administration addition to Title IX, stating it aligned the sex-based protections “with biological reality, not ideological fantasy.”
According to FreeState Justice, an LGBTQ advocacy group in Maryland, while this is a disappointing ruling to see, they will continue to fight for trans student-athletes in Maryland and want trans youth to know that they belong.
“Every young person deserves the opportunity to participate in school and community life without being singled out because of who they are. These decisions send a harmful message to transgender youth that they are somehow less deserving of that opportunity,” said Phillip Westry, the group’s executive director.
Westry wants to make sure the community knows that their commitment to the organization has not changed and will continue to provide the same legal services they have prior and to advance policy solutions, to ensure “every LGBTQ+ Marylander can live with dignity, safety, and equal opportunity.”
Another issue brought up by trans advocates is the issue of testing women to determine whether they are biologically female or not.
According to Human Rights Watch, as of 2023, World Athletics required cis women with increased testosterone levels to undergo medical procedures to have it reduced to avoid advantages. Other forms of “sex verification” may include genetic testing, screenings of an athlete’s anatomy or chromosomes.
However, this can become detrimental because not all women have ovaries, a uterus, or XX chromosomes, meaning cisgender women could potentially be included in these bans, depending on how the specific state plans to enforce them.
Maryland
Eastern Shore school board wants an 18-and-over rule for young adult books
Classics like ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Little Women’ might be off limits to most students
By LIZ BOWIE | Somerset County’s school board is considering barring students under the age of 18 from reading any young-adult literature in school libraries, essentially restricting all but 12th graders from checking out books written for teens and tweens.
The proposed policy also calls for the superintendent to discipline librarians if “adult” reading material appears in the children’s section.
The policy defines young adult as students over 18. “Young adults are not minors and books suitable for young adults shall be placed on a separate Young Adults library section to reflect age-appropriate literature,” a draft of the policy says.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Former Fla. gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum arrested on drug charges
Dutch prime minister scheduled to open World Pride human rights conference
Philadelphia murder suspect remains at large
Mary’s House founder, CEO retires
Va., Md., advocates brace for next fight after Supreme Court sports ruling
Under-the-radar Delaware beach towns smart buyers are targeting
‘My Favorite Sociopath’ debuts at Shepherdstown’s CATF
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
When a church fears the rainbow
