Local
Senate bill would force D.C. marriage referendum
Nine U.S. senators have agreed to introduce a bill that would prohibit D.C. from allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the city until voters are allowed to decide the issue through a referendum or initiative.
The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, issued a statement Tuesday announcing the senators’ plans to introduce the legislation in the next few days. The statement says the bill will be similar to the one introduced last month in the House by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).
“An out-of-control city council tried to do an end run around the D.C. Charter, refusing to recognize the rights of D.C. voters to file an initiative petition on marriage,” said NOM Executive Director Brian Brown in the statement, which urges same-sex marriage opponents to call on Congress to pass the bill.
“Regardless of where your representatives stand on same-sex marriage, tell them that we ought not to stand for this sort of government abuse against the residents of the nation’s capital,” Brown said in the statement.
A same-sex marriage bill passed by the D.C. City Council and signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty in December is undergoing its required congressional review. Most political observers predict that Democratic leaders in the House and Senate will block attempts to derail the bill before the congressional review is completed in early March.
NOM identified the nine lawmakers expected to introduce and co-sponsor the bill calling for a D.C. marriage referendum as Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), David Vitter (R-La.), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
Chaffetz’s House version of the bill has only one co-sponsor, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
A “findings” section in Chaffetz’s bill says, “The unelected District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics and the unelected District of Columbia Superior Court thwarted the residents’ initiative effort to define marriage democratically, holding that the initiative amounted to discrimination prohibited by the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.”
The bill also says, “Notwithstanding any other provision, including the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, the government of the District of Columbia shall not issue a marriage license to any couple of the same sex until the people of the District of Columbia have the opportunity to hold a referendum or initiative on the question of whether the District of Columbia should issue same-sex marriage licenses.”
Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said last week she received assurances from House and Senate Democratic leaders that Chaffetz’s bill — or a similar bill in the Senate — would die in committee.
Norton said Democratic leaders, along with rank and file Democrats and some Republicans, believe D.C. should be allowed to pass its own laws like the 50 states without congressional interference.
Same-sex marriage advocates in the city have defended a city law prohibiting proposed bills or laws protecting the rights of minorities from being subjected to a popular vote. African American LGBT activists have said the black civil rights bills of the 1960s and 1970s would likely have gone down to defeat in many parts of the country if they were subject to an initiative or referendum.
“We should never underestimate our opponents and we will continue to work with our allies in the Senate to protect marriage equality in the District,” said Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, which is lobbying Congress in support of the same-sex marriage bill.
Peter Rosenstein, a gay Democratic activist, noted the Senate bill “had practically no chance of passage.
“But it is significant for D.C. voters to look at because these are the same Republicans who would deny us a vote in the Congress,” he said. “Their hypocrisy is amazing.”
District of Columbia
D.C. bar Rush facing eviction on charge of failing to pay rent
Landlord says $201,324 owed in back payments, late fees
The owners of the building at 14th and U Streets, N.W. where D.C.’s newest LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush opened on Dec. 5, 2025, filed a complaint in D.C. Superior Court on Feb. 3 seeking Rush’s eviction on grounds that the bar has failed to pay its required rent since last May.
According to the court filing by building owners Thomas and Ioanna Tsianakas Family Trust and Thomas Tsianakas Trustee, Rush owes $141,338.18 in back rent, $19,086.19 for utilities, and $40,900 in late fees, coming to a total of $201,324.37.
Rush owner Jackson Mosley didn’t immediately respond to a Feb. 5 phone message from the Washington Blade seeking comment on the court filing seeking his eviction from the building located at 200114th Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street.
WUSA 9 TV news reported in a Feb. 5 broadcast that Mosley said he “doesn’t see why the eviction notice is news and called it a ‘formality.’” The WUSA report adds that Mosley said he and the Rush landlord “have no bad blood” and if the action did reach the point of eviction he would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to restructure the lease and his debts.
The eviction court filing follows a decision by the city’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 to suspend Rush’s liquor license on grounds that its payment check for the liquor licensing fee was “returned unpaid.” The liquor board reissued the license three days later after Mosley paid the fee with another check
He told the Blade at the time that the first check did not “bounce,” as rumors in the community claimed. He said he made a decision to put a “hold” on the check so that Rush could change its initial decision to submit a payment for the license for three years and instead to arrange for a lower payment for just one year at a time.
Around that same time several Rush employees posted social media messages saying the staff was not paid for the bar’s first month’s pay period. Mosley responded by posting a message on the Rush website saying employees were not paid because of a “tax related mismatch between federal and District records,” which, among other things, involved the IRS.
“This discrepancy triggered a compliance hold within our payroll system,” his statement said. “The moment I became aware of the issue I immediately engaged our payroll provider and began working to resolve it,” he said.
But WUSA 9 reports in its Feb. 5 broadcast about the eviction issue that at least some of the now former employees say they still have not been paid since their first paycheck failed to come on Dec. 15.
Superior Court online records for the eviction case show that a “Remote Initial Hearing” for the case has been scheduled for March 30 before a Landlord & Tenant Judge.
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.

