National
2012 could prove landmark year for marriage rights
Will Washington, New Jersey, Maryland legalize gay nuptials?
This could be a landmark year in the marriage equality movement, as several states appear close to enacting marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Advocates are working to legalize marriage rights for gay couples in Washington State, Maryland and New Jersey; efforts are also underway to pursue civil unions in Colorado. Meanwhile, opponents are hoping to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.
Washington State could be in the strongest position among other states where advocates are undertaking efforts to legalize marriage equality. The legislation was introduced last week by request from Gov. Chris Gregoire (D), who announced her support in a news conference Jan. 4.
“I’m announcing my support for a law that gives our same-sex couples in our state the right to receive a marriage license in Washington — the same right given to our heterosexual couples,” Gregoire said. “It is time, it’s the right thing to do — and I will introduce the bill to make it happen.”
The number of co-sponsors for the legislation in the House already exceeds the votes needed for passage there. In the Senate, the legislation has 23 co-sponsors, which is two supporters short of 25 votes needed for passage.
Josh Friedes, marriage equality director for Equal Rights Washington, said he’s “really delighted” with the level of support the legislation has found upon introduction — especially from two Republican state senators who’ve already signed on in support.
“That was really important because it shows Republicans in Washington State that the moral arc is bending toward support for marriage,” Friedes said.
The Washington State Legislature is meeting only for a 60-day period this year, so if legislation is to make it to Gregoire’s desk, the marriage bills would have to pass by March 8. Per legislative rules, one version of the legislation would have to pass either the House or Senate by Feb. 14. Committee hearings are scheduled Monday.
In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley is set to introduce marriage equality legislation as part of his legislative package for 2012. Last year, the bill legislation passed the Senate, but advocates pulled the bill from the House floor after they determined they didn’t have enough votes for passage.
Lesbian Del. Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City) said chances for passage in the House have “greatly improved” now that O’Malley has made marriage a legislative priority.
“We’ve had the whole summer to talk to people, we’ve got more people involved and I think it will have a better shot,” Washington said.
Washington added that assigning the bill jointly to two panels — the Health & Government Operations Committee and the Judiciary Committee — would broaden the number of lawmakers who will hear testimony on marriage.
“I think as more delegates get to see what impact the current exclusion of gays and lesbians from the right to marry is doing for Maryland families, I think they’ll understand that passing civil marriage will be the right thing to do,” Washington said.
As far as timing for the vote, Washington said she thinks the vote on the marriage bill will take place before March — when it happened last year — because of the heavy workload lawmakers face this time around.
But Washington State and Maryland will face additional challenges even if the governors in those states sign the marriage legislation into law because residents there could put the measures on the ballot in November through a voter-initiated referendum process.
In Washington State, the signatures needed to bring a measure to referendum is 4 percent of the total votes from the last gubernatorial election, which in terms of absolute numbers would be 120,577 names. In Maryland, a total of just 55,736 signatures is necessary to put a law on the ballot in the upcoming election.
Washington said a referendum on the marriage bill in Maryland is a possibility for which advocates of same-sex marriage must prepare.
“I’m hoping that it doesn’t go to referendum, but if it does, I’m confident the citizens of Maryland will know that it’s time for all families and people to be treated equally under the Maryland Constitution,” Washington said.
Friedes said advocates in Washington State are taking “nothing for granted” after previous losses of same-sex marriage at the ballot and encouraged LGBT families to talk to others there about “why marriage matters.”
“We need to grow the number of people who support marriage equality and make sure that those who do, vote,” Friedes said. “The thing that would hurt us the most is if people become over-confident.”
Another state where advocates are hoping for passage of same-sex marriage is New Jersey, where legislation was introduced last week in both chambers of the legislature. A Senate committee is set to hold a hearing on the legislation Tuesday and the Assembly is expected to have one afterward.
But New Jersey is unlike Washington State or Maryland in that its governor, Republican Chris Christie, campaigned on a promise to veto any such bill that reached his desk.
However, when asked about the marriage bill this month, Christie didn’t reiterate his pledge to veto and made comments suggesting that his tune may have changed on the issue.
“When forced to make a decision, if forced to make a decision on it, I’ll make a decision,” Christie reportedly told NJ.com in Camden, N.J.
Gay Assembly member Reed Gusciora (D-Princeton) said he “wouldn’t rule the governor out” as someone who would sign the marriage bill if it reaches his desk.
“In the last several weeks, he’s visited four out of the six states that have marriage equality: Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York,” Gusciora said. “I don’t think he saw any diminishment in the institution of marriage other than when Newt Gingrich was around.”
Gusciora added he thinks the legislation has a “good shot of passage” in the legislature and the bill should reach Christie’s desk by the end of February.
New Jersey has no voter-initiated referendum process, so if Christie signs or allows the legislation to become law, it’ll stay on the books.
In Colorado, advocates are pressing to push civil unions legislation into law. Last year, the legislation was approved by the Senate, but a House committee voted 6-5 against reporting it out to the floor.
Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the legislation will have to go through the Senate once again because the House committee voted to kill the bill last year.
“All indicators suggest had it gotten out of committee, it would have passed on the floor of the House, which is why advocates felt comfortable enough to really push to have it come up again rather than waiting until after elections and then having new legislators in place,” Warbelow said.
Warbelow added Colorado has a longer legislative session that extends until May, so the civil unions bill may not be acted upon as soon as the marriage bills in other jurisdictions.
Advocates are pursuing civil unions in Colorado as opposed to marriage rights because the state constitution has an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
While progress on relationship recognition could come in those states, there is also the potential for repeal of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.
Gov. John Lynch (D), who signed marriage equality into law in 2009, has pledged to veto repeal, but the Republican supermajority of the legislature may have enough votes to override his veto.
Warbelow said the legislature is “highly likely” to pass the repeal legislation in the first round, but “all the effort” has been focused on making sure there aren’t enough votes to overturn Lynch’s veto.
The legislature has pushed back the timing for the repeal vote. According to the Eagle Tribune, House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said he won’t bring up the repeal measure until February.
“We must deal with some critical financial and economic-related legislation first, as well as legislative redistricting, prior to any discussion of gay marriage,” Bettencourt was quoted as saying. “It’s critical to keep legislative priorities in their proper order.”
Other bills related to advancing marriage rights for same-sex couples could emerge in Illinois and Rhode Island; both states passed civil unions last year.
Wyoming
U.S. attorney nominee confirmed despite anti-LGBTQ history, no trial experience
Nine felony grand jury indictments tied to Darin Smith dismissed last week
Republicans confirmed Darin Smith as U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming on Monday, regardless of his history as interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming and a state senator.
While serving as interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming — after being appointed by President Donald Trump last July despite never trying a case outside of his time as a law student intern — former state Sen. Darin Smith likely prejudiced jurors during grand jury proceedings.
Nine felony grand jury indictments tied to Smith’s tenure were dismissed last week.
Judges dismissed felony indictments against Cheyenne Swett, Richard Allen, Michael Scott Hopper, Brian Joseph Johnson, Dennison Jay Antelope, Matthew Christopher Jacoby, Matthew Miller Jr., Wolf Elkins Duran, and Jose Benito Ocon. The now-dismissed charges included felony firearm possession, drug distribution, and possession of child pornography, among other allegations.
Smith allegedly told the grand jury that the defendants were “bad guys,” described them as “murderers,” and said deliberations “won’t take long.”
Even the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Wyoming acknowledged that Smith’s comments were “ill-advised.”
Smith has a history of aligning with Trump over the Constitution and supporting anti-LGBTQ legislation.
In 2025, Smith co-sponsored House Bill 0194, titled “Obscenity amendments,” which, among other provisions, would have criminalized drag shows. The bill also would have repealed exemptions for public and school librarians from the crime of “promoting obscenity” to minors. The wording of the bill was so vague that Republican state Rep. Lee Filer said, “We will end up having to arrest somebody for allowing a child to read the Holy Bible.”
Smith also co-sponsored SF0062, a bill requiring public school students to use restrooms, sex-designated changing facilities, and sleeping quarters that align with their sex assigned at birth. In March 2025, the Wyoming governor signed the bill into law, along with its House companion.
He also attended the Jan. 6 Capitol riot alongside thousands of other Trump supporters.
“Smith was on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 … and made the reprehensible claim … that the hundreds of Capitol Police officers who risked their lives that day were guilty of ‘massive incompetence.’ Smith blames the police for what happened on Jan. 6. Without evidence, he claimed that rioters who breached the Capitol were victims of entrapment,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. “Moreover, Smith is not remotely qualified to be a U.S. Attorney. He’s going to be in the package — take it or leave it. Prior to becoming the interim U.S. Attorney, he had no courtroom or litigation experience whatsoever. None. And Smith’s lack of experience has had real-world consequences.”
Prior to his work in the Wyoming state legislature, Smith worked as Director of Planned Giving for the Family Research Council, an organization that describes homosexuality as “harmful” to society with “negative physical and psychological health effects.”
The organization also believes that sexual orientation “should [not] be included as a protected category in nondiscrimination laws or policies, as it is not comparable to inborn, immutable characteristics such as race or sex.”
During questioning before the U.S. Senate, he denied that his work with the organization shows he has loss of impartiality when it comes to matters of LGBTQ rights.
Also questioning, Smith was asked about a now-deleted Facebook post in which he appeared to express support for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was found to be unconstitutional in her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite Obergefell v. Hodges.
“Perhaps Hillary and Obama can share the cell with Kim Davis for refusing to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act,” the post said.
When asked why he posted it, Smith told Durbin: “I do not recall.”
Josh Sorbe, spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and Durbin, said:
“Anti-LGBTQ+ extremist Darin Smith has no business serving as a top law enforcement officer in any state — let alone a state with as much history of queer importance as Wyoming. He’s an unqualified insurrectionist with no experience litigating criminal or federal matters, and his bigotry puts into serious question his commitment to upholding the law for all Americans.”
Human Rights Campaign Vice President of Government Affairs David Stacy also condemned Smith’s confirmation to the U.S. Attorney’s office.
“The justice system in America is supposed to be about ensuring the law is applied fairly and equally. But Darin Smith has spent his career obsessed with making life worse for LGBTQ+ people, opposing marriage equality, cosponsoring state legislation targeting transgender youth, and smearing LGBTQ+ people in public statements,” Stacy said. “Just over two decades after Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in that same state, Wyoming deserves better than tired anti-LGBTQ+ hate at the helm of federal law enforcement. The Senate should reject Darin Smith and demand a nominee who will put the people — and justice — first.”
Vermont
Vt. lawmaker equates transgender identity with bestiality
Vermont Democrats condemned comments, demanded apology
State Sen. Steven Heffernan (R-Addison) equated transgender people to bestiality on the Vermont Senate floor on May 15 while debating an animal cruelty bill.
Heffernan, who was elected in 2024 to the state Senate, constructed a scenario in which a trans person is indistinguishable from someone committing bestiality.
“In these crazy times, what happens if the individual identifies as an animal having intercourse with an animal? How is the courts going to handle that?” the former member of the Vermont Air National Guard said while debating House Bill 578. “Being that we voted through Prop Four, and if it does make it through this state, and I have a gender identity that I identify as a dog and had sex with my dog, is this law going to affect me?”
State Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (D-Chittenden Central), who presented H. 578 responded professionally.
“The bill that we are putting forward in the current law is quite clear that any act between a person and an animal that involves contact with the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the person, and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the animal, without a bona fide veterinary purpose, will be a crime.”
In the video, Heffernan continued to ask inappropriate questions — questions that Vyhovsky answered.
“If I identify as that animal, will this be able to … It says a person. I’m not a person. I’m identifying as this animal I’m having intercourse with,” he said. “We are identifying genders, of whatever gender we decide we want to be, and I think I like this bill. I’m going to vote for this bill, but I want to make this chamber aware of what’s coming.”
Vyhovsky made a statement saying this was a planned move in an attempt to “other” trans Vermonters instead of protecting them.
“Senator Heffernan knew exactly what he was doing,” said Vyhovsky. “Sen. Heffernan is using the same dehumanizing playbook that has been used against LGBTQ+ people for generations — the false, ugly suggestion that queer and trans identity is synonymous with deviance and harm. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.”
This derogatory action at the expense of trans people appears to be part of a pattern of behavior from Heffernan in his official capacity.
In March, Heffernan left the floor right before lawmakers voted on Proposal 4, conveniently missing the bill vote. PR 4, if passed by the state’s voters in the fall, would amend the state constitution to enshrine protections against unjust treatment, including discrimination based on a “person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.”
Heffernan told VTDigger at the time that he left because his stomach was feeling “agitated” and he needed to use the restroom. He said he had not made up his mind on how to vote on the amendment, largely because he’d heard from constituents urging him both to vote for and against it.
“My pizza hit at the right time, I guess,” he said, calling the timing “convenient.”
Despite his leaving — and being the only lawmaker to do so — the state Senate voted to pass it 29-0, with Heffernan marked “absent.” This came after the state House of Representatives voted to pass it 128-14 last week.
Vermont Senate Democrats condemned the statement and used the opportunity to emphasize the need for the state to pass PR 4 on Nov. 4.
“In the wake of Sen. Heffernan’s comments, the stakes of this election couldn’t be more clear,” the statement provided to the Washington Blade read. “Transgender and nonbinary Vermonters are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. On Friday, Sen. Heffernan used his platform as an elected official representing the people of Vermont to dehumanize them. Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for dignity for all Vermonters. We demand Senator Heffernan apologize to those he has harmed with his words and actions.”
State Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden Southeast), speaking in her capacity as chair of the Senate Ethics Panel, responded to similar transphobic comments made by President Donald Trump in a White House counterterrorism strategy document last week, in which he said those with “extreme transgender ideologies” should know “we will find you and we will kill you,” stating:
“A lot of people are living in fear in this country because of what somebody with the power of the pen and the power of the military is saying every day,” Hinsdale said. “Just because [speech] is protected does not mean it is worthy of this institution, and does not mean it is worthy of the office we hold and the power that we wield in the lives of Vermonters.”
The Blade reached out to Heffernan for comment but has not heard back.
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) died on Tuesday. He was 86.
The Massachusetts Democrat served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981-2013. Frank in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay.
The Washington Blade earlier this month interviewed Frank after he entered hospice care at his Ogunquit, Maine, home where he lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since 2013. The former congressman, among other things, talked about his new book, “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy.”
The book is scheduled for release on Sept. 15.
NBC Boston reported Frank’s sister, Ann Lewis, and a close family friend confirmed his death.
The Blade will update this article.
Iran war causes condom shortage in India
U.S. attorney nominee confirmed despite anti-LGBTQ history, no trial experience
Vt. lawmaker equates transgender identity with bestiality
Gay Men’s Chorus celebrates 45 years at annual gala
BREAKING NEWS: Barney Frank dies at 86
Disillusioned about democracy? Think of it as a community garden
Honey, have we been priced out of gay paradise?
IDAHOBiT a reminder we all must stand up against transphobia
PHOTOS: Blade Summer Kickoff Party
