Connect with us

Local

Md. lawmaker says gay marriage ban ‘not discriminatory’

Published

on

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland state Del. Emmett Burns Jr. (D-Baltimore County) railed against comparisons between LGBT and black civil rights last week during a hearing for his bill that would block recognition of same-sex marriage licenses issued out of state.

Burns claimed that he doesn’t support discrimination, but was tired of same-sex marriage supporters raising the Loving v. Virginia ruling that struck down interracial marriage bans. He said the current ban on same-sex marriage is not the same.

“It is not discriminatory,” he said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 31 in Annapolis. “I cannot hide my color. I don’t want to. I’m proud to be who I am. But those who are of a different sexual orientation could.”

His exchange with fellow Democratic committee members grew testy as they quoted NAACP Chair Julian Bond and U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) as saying the LGBT and black civil rights struggles were shared. Burns dismissed the comments, saying he didn’t recognize their leadership.

Burns said the state faces a crisis with the neighboring District of Columbia poised to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses, a development that could put Maryland’s same-sex marriage ban at risk.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler has given no timeframe for when he will release a long-expected opinion on the issue of recognizing same-sex marriage licenses issued in D.C. and elsewhere, but some sources speculated that he will wait until the legislative session ends in April to take that step. Burns said he feared Gansler’s opinion could legislate same-sex marriage “through the back door.”

“Our back door is wide open,” Burns said. “Our law does not speak to marriages performed in other jurisdictions.”

Committee member Michael Smigiel Sr. (R-Caroline, Cecil, Kent and Queen Anne’s counties) added that he believes Gansler has a political agenda and would act only after the current session had ended.

Gansler’s spokesperson denied the claim this week, saying the attorney general was still investigating the issue.

Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, testified in support of Burns’ bill during the hearing, saying the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages would undermine the right of the General Assembly and the people of Maryland to decide the issue.

“The legalization of same-sex marriage in a small number of other states, and the prospect of its legalization in our neighboring jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, provides no legitimate legal cause for granting recognition in Maryland to those marriages,” Russell said. “House Bill 90 provides an added measure of assurance to the people of Maryland that the decisions of out-of-state courts or legislatures cannot, and should not, provide grounds for usurping the legitimate democratic process in our state for deciding this issue.”

She added that the Catholic Church supports the state’s current marriage definition in recognition that “only a man and a woman are capable of bringing children, our society’s next generation, into the world” and that voters have repeatedly agreed, even in liberal states.

Committee Chair Joseph Vallario Jr. (D-Calvert and Prince George’s counties) asked if gay Marylanders could meet, go to D.C., conduct a “drive through” wedding, return to Maryland and expect that marriage to be recognized “without even leaving their car.”

Lawyers for Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union testified that Maryland’s 1973 law defining marriage as one man and one woman would not be undermined if the attorney general upheld the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates recognition of other states’ marriage licenses.

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County) testified against the bill, citing her own California-issued marriage certificate to her spouse Deborah.

“This bill is about me, and it’s about my family, and it’s about thousands of families across the state,” Mizeur said. “In Pasadena, Calif. — 3,000 miles from here — we’re treated as a married couple. In Pasadena, Md. — less than 30 minutes from here — we’re not. In Cambridge, Mass., our marriage would protect us were life to deal us a bad hand. In Cambridge, Md., we’re two unrelated women with some very expensive legal documents and a lot of uncertainty.”

Mizeur said Maryland’s current legal recognition of same-sex couples grants her 12 statutory rights of the 425 rights bestowed upon married couples.

Mizeur said she didn’t know how Gansler would decide the issue, but said that Maryland has a long tradition of upholding the full faith and credit clause and Maryland would eventually change its law, anyway.

“But either way, this bill is wrong,” she said. “It’s a step backwards for a state that presses forward.”

The hearing drew a standing-room-only crowd of mostly same-sex marriage supporters, including high school students, who frequently reacted to Burns’ colorful explanations of why LGBT bans were not discrimination.

Burns’ bill is not believed to have the necessary votes to make it out of the House Judiciary Committee. However, the as-yet-unscheduled vote will not be an indicator of support for legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland.

Mizeur told DC Agenda that she doubts a marriage equality bill would be introduced in the state House this year. While confident there are enough votes in the House Judiciary Committee to pass such a bill, Mizeur said same-sex marriage supporters are still shy of their goal in the companion Senate committee.

“We have supporters [in the House] who we don’t want to put at risk when there isn’t the support in the Senate,” she told DC Agenda, alluding to possible electoral fallout.

Equality Maryland is holding its annual lobby day Feb. 8.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale but owners aim to keep it in gay-friendly hands

$4.5 million listing includes real estate; business sold separately

Published

on

The real estate at Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale for $4.5 million. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay gasps could be heard around the DMV earlier this week when a real estate listing for Rehoboth Beach’s iconic Blue Moon bar and restaurant hit social media.

Take a breath. The Moon is for sale but the longtime owners are not in a hurry and are committed to preserving its legacy as a gay-friendly space.

“We had no idea the interest this would create,” Tim Ragan, one of the owners, told the Blade this week. “I guess I was a little naive about that.”

Ragan explained that he and longtime partner Randy Haney are separating the real estate from the business. The two buildings associated with the sale are listed by Carrie Lingo at 35 Baltimore Ave., and include an apartment, the front restaurant (6,600 square feet with three floors and a basement), and a secondary building (roughly 1,800 square feet on two floors). They are listed for $4.5 million. 

The bar and restaurant business is being sold separately; the price has not been publicly disclosed. 

But Ragan, who has owned the Moon for 20 years, told the Blade nothing is imminent and that the Moon remains open through the holidays and is scheduled to reopen for the 2026 season on Feb. 10. He has already scheduled some 2026 entertainment. 

“It’s time to look for the next people who can continue the history of the Moon and cultivate the next chapter,” Ragan said, noting that he turns 70 next year. “We’re not panicked; we separated the building from the business. Some buyers can’t afford both.” 

He said there have been many inquiries and they’ve considered some offers but nothing is firm yet. 

Given the Moon’s pioneering role in queering Rehoboth Beach since its debut 44 years ago in 1981, many LGBTQ visitors and residents are concerned about losing such an iconic queer space to redevelopment or chain ownership.

“That’s the No. 1 consideration,” Ragan said, “preserving a commitment to the gay community and honoring its history. The legacy needs to continue.” He added that they are not inclined to sell to one of the local restaurant chains.

You can view the real estate listing here.

Continue Reading

Local

Comings & Goings

Tristan Fitzpatrick joins TerraPower

Published

on

Tristan Fitzpatrick

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected]

Congratulations to Tristan Fitzpatrick on his new position as Digital Communications Manager with TerraPower. TerraPower creates technologies to provide safe, affordable, and abundant carbon-free energy. They devise ways to use heat and electricity to drive economic growth while decarbonizing industry.

Fitzpatrick’s most recent position was as Senior Communications Consultant with APCO in Washington, D.C. He led integrated communications campaigns at the fourth-largest public relations firm in the United States, increasing share of voice by 10 percent on average for clients in the climate, energy, health, manufacturing, and the technology. Prior to that he was a journalist and social media coordinator with Science Node in Bloomington, Ind. 

Fitzpatrick earned his bachelor’s degree in journalism with a concentration in public relations, from Indiana University.

Congratulations also to the newly elected board of Q Street. Rob Curis, Abigail Harris, Yesenia Henninger, Stu Malec, and David Reid. Four of them reelected, and the new member is Harris. 

Q Street is the nonprofit, nonpartisan, professional association of LGBTQ+ policy and political professionals, including lobbyists and public policy advocates. Founded in 2003 on the heels of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Lawrence v. Texas, when there was renewed hope for advancing the rights of the LGBTQ community in Washington. Q Street was formed to be the bridge between LGBTQ advocacy organizations, LGBTQ lobbyists on K Street, and colleagues and allies on Capitol Hill.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

New queer bar Rush beset by troubles; liquor license suspended

Staff claim they haven’t been paid, turn to GoFundMe as holidays approach

Published

on

A scene from the dance floor of Rush at a preview night on Friday, Nov. 28. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The D.C. Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 issued an order suspending the liquor license for the recently opened LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush on grounds that it failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.

Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 2001 14 Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker. 

It describes itself on its website as offering “art-pop aesthetics, high-energy nights” in a space that “celebrates queer culture without holding back.” It includes a large dance floor and a lounge area with sofas and chairs.

Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, did not immediately respond to a phone message from the Washington Blade seeking his comment on the license suspension.  

The ABC Board’s order states, “The basis for this Order is that a review of the Board’s official records by the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) has determined that the Respondent’s renewal payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”

The three-page order adds, “Notwithstanding ABCA’s efforts to notify the Respondent of the renewal payment check return, the Respondent failed to pay the license fee for the period of 2025 to 2026 for its Retailer’s Class CT license. Therefore, the Respondent’s license has been SUSPENDED  until the Respondent pays the license fees and the $50.00 per day fine imposed by the Board for late payment.”

ABCA spokesperson Mary McNamara told the Blade that the check from Rush that was returned without payment was for  $12,687, which she said was based on Rush’s decision to pay the license fee for four years. She said that for Rush to get its liquor license reinstated it must now pay $3,819 for a one-year license fee plus a $100 bounced check fee, a $750 late fee, and $230 transfer fee, at a total of $4,919 due.

Under D.C. law, bars, restaurants and other businesses that normally serve alcoholic beverages can remain open without a city liquor license as long as they do not sell or serve alcohol. 

But D.C. drag performer John Marsh, who performs under the name Cake Pop and who is among the Rush employees, said Rush did not open on Wednesday, Dec. 17, the day the liquor board order was issued. He said that when it first opened, Rush limited its operating days from Wednesday through Sunday and was not open Mondays and Tuesdays. 

Marsh also said none of the Rush employees received what was to be their first monthly salary payment on Dec. 15. He said approximately 20 employees set up a GoFundMe fundraising site to raise money to help sustain them during the holiday period after assuming they will not be paid.

He said he doubted that any of the employees would return to work in the unlikely case that Mosley would attempt to reopen Rush without serving liquor or if he were to pay the licensing fee to allow him to resume serving alcohol without having received their salary payment. 

As if all that were not enough, Mosley would be facing yet another less serious problem related to the Rush policy of not accepting cash payments from customers and only accepting credit card payments. A D.C. law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2025, prohibits retail businesses such as restaurants and bars from not accepting cash payments. 

A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, which is in charge of enforcing that law, couldn’t immediately be reached to determine what the penalty is for a violation of the law requiring that type of business to accept cash payments.

The employee GoFundMe site, which includes messages from several of the employees, can be accessed here.

Mosley on Thursday responded to the reports about his business with a statement on the Rush website. 

He claims that employees were not paid because of a “tax-related mismatch between federal and District records” and that some performers were later paid. He offers a convoluted explanation as to why payroll wasn’t processed after the tax issue was resolved, claiming the bank issued paper checks.

“After contacting our payroll provider and bank, it was determined that electronic funds had been halted overnight,” according to the statement. “The only parties capable of doing so were the managers of the outside investment syndicate that agreed to handle our stabilization over the course of the initial three months in business.”  

Mosley further said he has not left the D.C. area and denounced “rumors” spread by a former employee. He disputes the ABCA assertion that the Rush liquor license was suspended due to a “bounced check.” Mosley ends his post by insisting that Rush will reopen, though he did not provide a reopening date.  

Continue Reading

Popular