Local
Maryland prepares for marriage referendum
O’Malley’s signature makes state eighth to legalize gay nuptials

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley was scheduled to sign the state’s marriage equality bill into law on Thursday. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley was scheduled to sign a bill to legalize same-sex marriage at a ceremony at the State Capitol building in Annapolis Thursday afternoon, highlighting what LGBT activists consider an historic advancement for marriage equality.
O’Malley’s signature on the Civil Marriage Protection Act was also considered the kick-off for what political observers predict will be an acrimonious referendum campaign in which opponents will ask Maryland voters to kill the bill before it becomes law.
Opponents were expected to gather the required number of petition signatures needed to place the referendum on the ballot for the November election.
The governor’s bill signing ceremony was set to take place one week after the Maryland Senate voted 25 to 22 to approve the marriage bill. The vote came after senators supporting the bill defeated six hostile amendments introduced by opponents.
The vote to approve the bill triggered a burst of applause and cheers in the Senate chamber by supportive lawmakers and LGBT activists, who packed the visitors gallery.
“We could not be more grateful to the senators who today voted to make all Maryland families stronger,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which is a member of Marylanders for Marriage Equality, a coalition of LGBT and allied organizations that pushed for the bill.
“Today we took another giant step toward marriage equality becoming law — and we are in this position due to the unwavering leadership and resolve of Gov. O’Malley and our legislative allies,” Solmonese said.
U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the Senate vote “an extraordinary victory for the people of Maryland and a critical step forward in the march for marriage equality nationwide.”
Pelosi added, “As a native Marylander, this vote is a source of personal pride; as an American this action is a symbol of our progress as a nation and as a people.”

Maryland Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County) said he considers himself a ‘married man’ and part of the ‘family of Maryland’ without the right to legalize his and his partner’s relationship with a marriage license. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The Senate vote came six days after the Maryland House of Delegates passed the bill by a razor-thin two-vote margin. That vote followed an intense lobbying effort by O’Malley, who is credited with helping to persuade the few wavering Democratic delegates needed to put the bill over the top.
Unlike past years, O’Malley this year introduced the marriage bill as part of his legislative package and placed all of the resources of his office behind the bill.
But supportive and opposing lawmakers acknowledged in the Senate floor debate Thursday night that the Civil Marriage Protection Act now faces its most daunting hurdle — a bruising referendum campaign leading up to the November election, when voters will have the final say on whether the bill should be enacted into law.
Public opinion polls show Maryland voters are nearly evenly divided on the issue of same-sex marriage, with supporters showing a slight lead.
Most political observers believe opponents of the bill have the resources to gather the required number of petition signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot in the November election, when President Barack Obama’s name will also be on the ballot.
The referendum campaign received a boost last Friday, when the Fox TV station in Baltimore, WBFF, posted a prominent link to the website gathering signatures for the referendum on its homepage.
Scott Livingston, news director at WBFF, denied any corporate involvement in promoting the referendum campaign.
“We are not endorsing any element of this debate,” Livingston told the Blade. “We see it as a political process. Our goal is letting viewers understand they have a voice in the debate.” He added that the site has now been “modified.” The link that previously sent readers directly to the petition site now goes to a new page within the WBFF site that also includes a link to Equality Maryland’s website. The change followed what Livingston characterized as a “handful” of complaints from WBFF viewers.
The marriage bill died in the House of Delegates last year after clearing the Senate. Supporters decided to pull it from the House floor without a vote after determining they didn’t have the votes to pass it.
The Senate passed the bill last year by a vote of 25-21. Its approval of the bill on Thursday night by a 25-22 vote did not represent a change in the breakdown of supporters and opponents, according to observers at the state capital in Annapolis.
Sen. Joanne Benson (D-Prince George’s County) announced her opposition to the bill last year but was unable to reach the Senate floor to vote at that time, resulting in her being listed as not voting. Benson voted ‘no’ on the bill this time.
She was among 11 Democrats who voted against the bill last week, opposing the 24 Democrats who voted ‘yes’ in the 47-member Senate.
Eleven Republicans voted against the bill, with just one, Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Carroll & Howard Counties), voting for it.
In the House debate, several opponents delivered highly emotional speeches condemning the bill as a threat to traditional marriage and an infringement on religious rights. The Senate debate was more measured, with opponents saying their positions were based mostly on religious beliefs while expressing respect for same-sex couples.
Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County), an American University law professor, served as floor leader for the marriage bill. LGBT advocates for the bill have long credited him with using a firm but diplomatic approach in refuting arguments that legalizing same-sex marriage would infringe on religious rights or create problems for traditional marriage.
Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), the Senate’s only openly gay member, called on his colleagues to support the bill to provide equality and dignity to “all” families, including those headed by same-sex couples.
“We all cherish families,” he said, adding that the bill is intended for “people who find love and want a family.”
Noting that he and his partner are raising two kids, Madaleno said he considers himself a “married man” and part of the “family of Maryland” without the right to legalize his and his partner’s relationship with a marriage license.
“It is the marriage license that symbolizes the commitment,” he said. “It makes it worthwhile. I want that marriage license in the State of Maryland.”
In his closing remarks, Raskin praised his fellow senators on both sides of the political aisle for their “extraordinary civility and decency and even affection that pervaded these very tough discussions.”
He told of his personal bout with colon cancer last year, just as the Senate deliberated over the marriage bill, saying his doctors have given him a “clean bill of health” at this time.
“But I learned that there is a difference between misfortune and injustice in life,” he said, noting that a cancer diagnosis, which can happen to anyone, is a misfortune.
“But if you find someone to love in this life and to have and to hold and to dedicate your life to and you have kids together and you want to be married… and you can’t do it, that’s not a misfortune, that’s an injustice because we have the power to do something about it,” he said. “And today we have.”
Senate observers said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Anne Arundel County), who voted against the bill, took the unusual step of explaining why he did so. Miller, who has said all along that he opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds, has been praised by the bill’s supporters for making sure it would reach the floor for a vote.
“Am I on the wrong side of history?” he asked. “As a historian, there is no doubt about it… I believe marriage is between a husband and a wife and that is why I voted the way I did,” he said.
Should Maryland’s marriage equality bill clear the referendum hurdle, the state joins D.C., Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and Washington State in allowing same-sex couples to marry.
“There remains a lot of work to do between now and November to make marriage equality a reality in Maryland,” said HRC’s Solmonese. “Along with coalition partners, we look forward to educating and engaging voters about what this bill does. It strengthens all Maryland families and protects religious liberty.”
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, the national same-sex marriage advocacy organization, startled HRC and other partners of the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition earlier this year when he expressed concern that supporters of the bill had not demonstrated the capability to win in a referendum fight.
“Lesbian and gay couples, their families, and non-gay friends and neighbors made a powerful case for the freedom to marry, which all should enjoy,” Wolfson told the Blade after the Maryland Senate vote Thursday night.
“The lawmakers responded to these moving stories of love and commitment,” he said. “Now, HRC, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, and those who led the passage of this bill must defend it against the attack coming in November. “
Asked if Freedom to Marry would become involved in the Maryland referendum fight, Wolfson said only, “You have my comment.”
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.”
