Living
GLAA celebrates 40 years
Activists move from the street to the suite after 4 decades of work
Frank Kameny remembers seeing Paul Kuntzler, his campaign manager on a 1971 bid for Congress, walk into Temple Sinai on Military Road in Washington with large reams of paper rolled under each arm and an elated look on his face.
Kameny, who founded the gay liberation movement in D.C. after being fired from the federal government in 1957, needed 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot. With the late February deadline looming, the group only had about 1,300. Realizing outside help was needed, Kameny and Kuntzler thought a gay group in New York whom they found to be one of the few “getting much of anything done,” as Kameny puts it, might be able to help. The group — Gay Activists Alliance of New York — sent two busloads of people to blanket the District one Sunday afternoon to secure signatures.
A vintage 'Kameny for Congress' poster from 1971. This campaign inspired the launch of GLAA. (Image courtesy of Rainbow History Project)
A dance was held that night at the Temple and when Kuntzler arrived, the group knew it was home free. They had about 7,700 signatures — plenty to get Kameny on the ballot. The “Kameny for Congress” campaign ended with the candidate coming in fourth in a six-way race. Though he lost, the 1,900 votes he secured while running as a then-unheard-of openly gay candidate, galvanized local activists.
Kameny’s own Mattachine Society was fading as members began to find its formality anachronistic in the Vietnam era. And the D.C. Gay Liberation Front was too radical for some others. The Kameny campaign activists were so impressed with the GAA New York group, they used about $400 left in their coffers after the election to visit the Big Apple and find out how the group operated.
By about the third week in April, a D.C. chapter was formed in the apartment of Jim McClard, the local group’s first president. While the New York group folded about a decade later, Washington’s Gay Activist Alliance is celebrating its 40th anniversary this month (in 1986 then-president Lorri Jean — now head of Los Angeles’ mammoth LGBT Community Center — insisted on changing the name to Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, or GLAA as it is commonly known). It’s the oldest continuously active gay organization in the country.
The group celebrates Wednesday at the Washington Plaza Hotel in Thomas Circle. Kameny, now 85, will give his founder’s Champagne toast, as has become GLAA tradition. And the group will bestow its annual Distinguished Service Awards to six local activists. Minimum donations are $50. Visit glaa.org for more information.
Kameny says the group — which lists pages of political gains on its website — has thrived under strong leadership.
“Some of it has been sheer good luck,” he said. “Throughout the ’70s, ’80s and beyond, the group had a string of presidents who were absolutely superb. I said that frequently back then and I still say it. One after another, there were just a lot of great people. There may have been one or two duds, but they really had good people, good officers who kept the organization going. They kept it effective and were very dedicated.”
The group’s first effort was also its only formal collaboration with Mattachine and the local Gay Liberation Front — a protest of the 1971 American Psychiatric Association’s convention held that year in Washington. Though GLAA disavowed the use of force and worked to “act within the existing order,” that first effort involved storming the conference and seizing the microphone in an effort to convince APA brass that gays were not mentally ill.
“We couldn’t possibly be trusted with government secrets and security clearances if we were mentally disturbed,” Kameny said.
He chuckles at the tactics now and says the groups soon went in their own direction — GLAA with Robert’s Rules of Order for its meetings, a gay-specific focus and a strong commitment to non-partisanship.
“I used to attend the GLF meetings,” Kameny said. “They seemed to just drone on endlessly and you had the impression there was a small group meeting in the attic who really ran things. And they tried to tie in all the issues of the day. My feeling has always been if you try to do everything you end up doing nothing very well.”
Former president Craig Howell, who joined in 1973 and has been active ever since, admits the heavily political nature of the group’s work limits its appeal, but said its track record over 40 years speaks for itself.
The late Jeff Coudriet, a former GLAA president, speaks at the group's 2007 awards. (Blade file photo by Henry Linser)
“There’s always been a small number doing most of the work,” Howell said. “Many times we’d just be sitting there in the living room on [former president] Bob Carpenter’s couch. If we had four or five at a meeting, that was considered good. It’s always been very wonky, so that makes for limited people, but the devil is in the details and you have to go through that trivia to get what you want. But it’s worth paying the price.”
The group counts among its victories:
• Council’s 1973 passage of Title 34, which made Washington the first major U.S. city to outlaw discrimination against gays in housing, employment and public accommodations.
• Kameny’s 1975 appointment to the city’s Human Rights Commission, a first
• A 1978 gay rights rally, the largest of its kind to that time, to protest anti-gay singer Anita Bryant
• A 1979 public service campaign that required a court fight to allow “Someone you know is gay” posters to be placed at Metro stations
• Former president Mel Boozer’s 1980 speech at the Democratic National Convention
• Repeal of D.C.’s sodomy law in 1981
• A 1982 commitment from D.C. police for fair treatment of gays
• A 1986 Council bill that prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to HIV-positive residents
• 1990 hate crimes legislation
• A 1992 domestic partnership bill
• A 1999 settlement in the Tyra Hunter case, a trans resident who was shunned and ridiculed by EMS workers following a car accident. She died in 1995.
• Part of a broad coalition that opposed an exception from the D.C. Department of Corrections from requirements in the D.C. Human Rights Act in 2008
• Marriage for same-sex couples in 2009
Current president Mitch Wood says the group is “really a labor of love” and that its non-partisan nature “allows us to build bridges across the political spectrum.”
It’s all volunteer and operates on a small budget of about $10,000 per year, most of which goes to maintain its website and blog and stage its annual awards reception. Money comes from nominal member dues — $25 per year — and ticket sales and donations. The group meets twice monthly for about 90 minutes, mostly at the Charles Sumner School but sometimes at the Wilson building. Meetings are usually followed by dinner and drinks, often at Dupont Italian Kitchen. New members are always welcome.
Among GLAA’s signature work is its candidate ratings. Members always point out the ratings should not be seen as endorsements, but they rank those running for local office based on questionnaire responses and members’ knowledge of the candidates’ records on gay issues, to rank them on a scale that runs from -10 to +10.
GLAA today (Blade file photo by Joey DiGuglielmo)
“Usually in every election cycle somebody working with one of the candidates or another gets unhappy that so-and-so didn’t get a high enough rating,” Rick Rosendall, the group’s vice president for political affairs and a former president, says. “So they’ll make some snarky comments, but because we back up so thoroughly how we arrive at our ratings, we can show the point breakdowns and their responses to the questions, so they know what went into the ratings. It’s a very open process, not some beauty contest score with us up in some ivory tower.”
Over the years, the group’s ratings gained heft. Though he notoriously voted against the marriage bill, Council member Marion Barry initially scored a -10 during his run for mayor in the early ’80s. The low score led him to work with the local gay community and for years he was seen as a supportive public official.
Rosendall said the group’s decades of groundwork pays off even in unlikely places. He cites the two Council members — Barry and Yvette Alexander — who voted against marriage, and also Council member Harry Thomas Jr., who opposed the infamous club relocation bill for gay bars in 2007.
“They’ve all at various times emphasized their pro-gay credentials,” Rosendall said. “Even though Barry did speak at one of Bishop [Harry] Jackson’s rallies in Freedom Plaza, it was a far cry from the hateful rhetoric you hear from state legislators. … And GLAA can take some of the credit for that, but the community has played a key role in this as well. … It’s not just a handful of policy wonks, it’s our community who has been active in this city since before home rule.”
Gay D.C. Council member Jim Graham, who’s received many perfect scores from the group, said he respects GLAA even when he occasionally disagrees with members.
Frank Kameny giving his traditional GLAA toast at the group's 2007 awards. (Blade file photo by Henry Linser)
“They put an enormous amount of sincere effort into it,” Graham said. “I mean they really do. It’s not anything they do in a casual way. And most recently I’ve been getting pretty much 10s, so you’re always happy with a perfect score.”
Rosendall says one big change over the years has been what he calls “street versus suite” activism. The group has moved away from demonstrations largely because it’s usually given a seat at the discussion table.
“As you get more power and influence, there’s less need to be standing outside,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for groups like GetEqual. Different groups are good at different things. I like to say we’re working different parts of the vineyard.”
The group has, at times, faced criticism. Within the last four years or so, some activists, including Michael Crawford, said the group wasn’t moving fast enough on the marriage issue.
Rosendall said GLAA prides itself on avoiding excessive intramural fighting among other local activist groups.
“We really try not to let things deteriorate too much into personality and battles we don’t need,” he said. “We’ve tried to keep our collective eyes on the prize and the marriage victory demonstrated that. There’s no way we would have been doing all this policy work and building coalitions if we weren’t wanting it to happen. We just wanted to make sure it stuck.”
Graham said the group deserves praise for its tenacity, especially considering the era in which it launched.
“It’s difficult to imagine how very important and pioneering they were back in 1971,” Graham said. “In this day and age when we’ve made such progress, it’s important that we pause and acknowledge those who were there 40 years ago at a time when things were so very different. … The young men and women in our community really need to stop and realize this. We’re here because of these folks.”
Michael,
I’m 34, and after being on the dating scene for about 12 years, I’m coming to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in a relationship.
I don’t love hanging out with the same person over and over again. I don’t feel all gooey when I’ve been with someone for a while. I run out of things to say, and also, it just gets boring.
I like my space. I don’t like having to share the bathroom or have someone next to me all night, especially when they want to go to sleep holding me. I know that sounds like heaven to a lot of people but it just feels intrusive to me.
It’s a pain to have to compromise what I want to do. When I want to go someplace on vacation, or try a restaurant, or get up early to go to the gym, or sleep in, I don’t want to have to run that by someone else and get their OK. Life’s short. I want to do what I want to do.
I feel like we are constantly bombarded with the message to date and find a mate, but I don’t really see the point. I don’t think I’m an introvert—I have a lot of friends—but I also like to spend time by myself and not be accountable to anyone.
When I think about marriage, it seems like a very old-fashioned concept, developed for straight people who want to have children. Historically you needed one person to work and another one to stay home and raise the kids. And you needed to stay together to give your kids two parents and a stable home. I get that.
But if I’m not having kids, what’s the point? I don’t need a husband to have sex. I can and do hook up all the time. It’s so easy to find someone online. And I get to have a lot more variety when I’m single than when I’m dating. Even though my relationships are always open, when I am dating someone, I always hook up a lot less, because I have to worry about the boyfriend’s feelings being hurt if I hook up “too much.”
I know I sound unromantic and maybe selfish but this is how I see it.
My friends are all about having a boyfriend. They think I’m being ridiculous. Can I get another opinion?
Michael replies:
You make great points. Relationships do require us to give up some of our independence. They can feel stifling at times. And when the excitement of a new partner fades, things will at times feel “boring” in all sorts of ways, including sex. You can choose to avoid all of this by remaining single.
But relationships also give us tremendous overlapping opportunities to grow, including:
Being pushed to develop a clear sense of self: When we must constantly decide what we are willing to do or not do as part of a couple; and when our partner inevitably and frequently has interests, values, and priorities that conflict with ours, then we are challenged, over and over, to decide what is most important to us and how we want to live our lives.
Frequent opportunities to build resilience: All those old issues from our past that get us upset or riled up? We have to work through them so that we can stay (pretty) calm rather than losing our minds when our buttons are pressed.
Improving our ability to have hard conversations – and without rancor: Unless we’re able to disagree, speak up, or confront when it’s important to do so, we are going to twist ourselves into a pretzel striving to accommodate the other person. And being able to engage in tough talks in a loving way is necessary if we want to have a loving relationship.
Becoming a more generous person: You wrote that you like to have things your way. But part of life, whether or not we are partnered, involves being thoughtful, considerate, and willing to put someone else first at times. Great relationships require us to do all of these things regularly—and many of us find that contributing to the happiness of someone we care about can increase our own happiness.
Besides these ongoing challenges, relationships give us the experience of someone knowing us deeply, and knowing someone deeply. There can be great comfort in going through life with someone with whom we have this intimate connection, along with ongoing shared experiences of trust, support, comfort, and love. Long-term companionship is also an adventure: Can we keep the relationship vibrant and fun as we both keep changing over time?
If you choose to remain single: Many people play their friendships on the easy setting, keeping things pleasant, on-the-surface, and non-confrontational; and cutting people off when things aren’t going well. Hanging in there to deal with the rough stuff can lead to deeper, longer friendships, and plenty of personal growth.
I do have a question for you: I am curious what sort of relationships you saw growing up, and what your own relationship experiences have been.
Intimate relationships aren’t for everyone, and you get to decide what is right for you. But if your negative view of relationships is influenced by having witnessed or experienced intrusive or just plain awful relationships, maybe you want to do some work (therapy, for example) to heal from this stuff, rather than letting your past limit your future. A healthy relationship means being part of a couple while also remaining a vibrant individual, not being stifled, bored, and losing your independence.
(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)
Autos
Wagons ho! High-class, head-turning haulers
Automakers still offer a few good traditional station wagons
As a teenager, one of the first cars I drove — and fell in love with — was our family’s hulking full-size wagon. It stretched over 19 feet in length and weighed a whopping 5,300 pounds. That’s three feet longer and 1,000 heavier than, say, a Ford Explorer today.
But this Leviathan felt safe and practical, especially when tootling around town with my crew or traveling solo cross-country. Of course, this hauler was also an eco-disaster.
Luckily, that’s not the case today. And even though the number of traditional station wagons keeps shrinking, automakers are still offering a few gems.
VOLVO V60 CROSS COUNTRY
$54,000
MPG: 23 city/31 highway
0 to 60 mph: 6.6 seconds
Cargo space: 51 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Elegant design. Composed handling. Top safety features.
CONS: So-so power. Modest rear legroom. Only two trim levels.
The 2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country doesn’t cry for attention — and that’s the point. This is the automotive equivalent of Kristen Stewart, a celebrity who’s confident in her own skin and sees no need to post about it.
Under the hood, there’s a four-cylinder turbo engine paired with a mild-hybrid system, producing 247 horsepower. You won’t outrun other drivers, but there is a sense of calm authority when accelerating. The standard all-wheel drive and 8.1 inches of ground clearance mean this wagon is ready for dirt roads, bad weather or a spontaneous weekend jaunt.
And inside? Scandinavian minimalism at its finest. Clean lines. Gorgeous materials. Google-based infotainment that mostly works — though occasionally the system could be a bit faster, at least for my taste. The ride is smooth, composed and quiet, even if acceleration feels more “measured sip” than “espresso shot.”
But here’s the twist: After more than a decade, this is the final Volvo wagon in the U.S. Its farewell tour ends in 2026. That alone gives it collector-car status.
MERCEDES-AMG E53 WAGON
$95,000
MPG: 21 city/25 highway
0 to 60 mph: 3.4 seconds
Cargo space: 64.6 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Supercar vibe. Hybrid versatility. Stunning interior.
CONS: Some fussy controls. Can feel heavy when cornering.
If the Volvo V60 Cross Country is subtle, the 2026 Mercedes-AMG E53 Wagon is a screamer. It’s like being at a Lil Nas X concert: flashy, high energy, and full of shock and awe.
This performance wagon — a plug-in hybrid, no less — pushes well over 500 horsepower (and in some configurations over 600 horsepower), launching from 0 to 60 mph as fast as a $300,000 Aston Martin supercar.
Yes, deep down, this is still a wagon. But you also can do a Costco run in something that could embarrass sports cars at a stoplight. That duality is delicious.
Inside, Mercedes leans all the way in. The high-tech Superscreen setup stretches across the dash. Ambient lighting glows like a curated art installation. The 4D surround-sound audio literally pulses through the seats. It’s immersive. Borderline excessive. And entirely the point.
Rear-axle steering helps mask the size of this car, but there’s no hiding the weight — it’s a big, powerful machine. Still, this hauler handles far better than physics suggests it should.
PORSCHE TAYCAN CROSS TURISMO
$121,000
Range: 265 miles
0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Cargo space: 41 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Lightning fast. Space-age design. EV smoothness.
CONS: Very pricey. Options add up quickly. Limited rear visibility.
The Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo completely rewrites the wagon formula. Fully electric. Shockingly fast. Designed like it belongs in the Louvre.
Performance is instant. Depending on trim level, you’re looking at 0-to-60 mph in less than 3 seconds. No exuberant engine noise — just that smooth, purring EV surge.
Handling? Pure Porsche. Low center of gravity thanks to the battery-pack placement. Precision that makes winding roads feel like choreography. And then — hello — there’s also a Gravel Mode for light off-road use.
Inside, the style is restrained but high-tech. Digital displays dominate, including a 10.3-inch passenger side touchscreen. Yet the layout feels intentional rather than overwhelming. Build quality is exceptional. Options, including leather-free materials and an active-leveling system for hard cornering, are endless — and expensive.
Range varies by model. But as with any EV, your lifestyle (and charging access) matters.
Overall, this is a wagon that looks and behaves like one helluva class act.
Advice
My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact
Now my father is ill and I don’t know what to do
Dear Michael,
I stopped talking to my family last year because they all voted for Trump. It’s not like they didn’t know whom they were voting for — they’d already had four years of seeing him in action.
I decided that I couldn’t remain in contact with people whom I felt wanted to take away my rights as a gay man. That is what they essentially did by voting for Trump.
They had come to my wedding in 2012, they had welcomed my husband and me into their homes for the holidays for our entire relationship, so I couldn’t believe how little they actually cared about me and my community. I was profoundly hurt.
They’ve reached out but I have been too angry at their hypocrisy to engage in more than a perfunctory way. I miss them, sure, but as I’ve watched our community be attacked, I just get so angry that I don’t want to talk. I certainly don’t want to hear them justify bigotry and hatred.
Now one of my siblings has reached out to let me know that my father’s health is rapidly declining. I’m wondering if I should rethink my decision and reach out to him, maybe even visit, before he dies.
But then I think of ICE’s attack on our country and the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall and I don’t want to talk to people who support what is happening to vulnerable, marginalized people and the LGBTQ community.
My father was a good father to me. Even when I first came out to him, he was loving and supportive. I can’t square his behavior personally toward me with his support of this regime. The hypocrisy makes me so angry. How could he purport to love me and then vote against my freedoms?
I would love some suggestions about how to square my two opposing viewpoints.
Michael replies:
Many years ago, a great mentor taught me that the one thing you can count on in a relationship is learning to tolerate disappointment: Both being a disappointment, and being disappointed in the other person. This is true for love relationships and it’s also true for other significant relationships. All of us are different in some major ways and so we are bound at times to disappoint our loved ones in major ways, and to be disappointed by them in major ways.
That is why I’m not a fan of purity tests. To expect that someone must think like you (much less vote like you) in order for you to have a relationship with them is unrealistic, impractical, and sometimes damaging.
Of course, a person may hold some beliefs that give you reason not to want to have any connection to them. But is that the case here?
From your description, your family has always been loving and supportive of you as a gay man. That is no small thing. They seem to care about you enough to have continued to reach out, even though you have stopped talking to them.
Perhaps they had some other reasons for voting as they did, other than to roll back LGBTQ rights and to attack immigrants.
Instead of wondering how they could be so hypocritical, how about talking with them and striving to understand their choices? I don’t know what they will say, and you may hear different answers from your various family members. But at least you will get some clarity, rather than presuming that they made their voting choices from a place of malice. Then you will be in a better position to decide if you want a relationship going forward.
Another point to consider: Very few things are set in stone. Even if your family made their voting choices based on holding positions that you neither like nor respect, they may be open to shifting their views over time. One way to perhaps influence their thinking is by engaging with them, sharing your thoughts, and asking them to consider the possible consequences of their actions. If you choose to re-engage with them, two points to consider:
First, don’t expect that you will change their minds. You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the results.
Second, they are more likely to consider your points if you do not approach them from a judgmental, self-righteous stance.
Many years ago, when I was newly a vegetarian, I was eager to challenge and “educate” friends who weren’t following my dietary ideas. Guess what? It didn’t work. Then I got some great advice: A great way to influence others to consider eating fewer animals was to serve them delicious vegetarian food.
The same point is true here. We can’t beat people over the head to agree with us. But if we approach them with some kindness, rather than with the certainty that we hold the moral high ground, we may help them see a bigger picture.
And sometimes, we too may see a bigger picture.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
State Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
I’m telling the scared little girl I once was it’s okay to feel free
Memorial for groundbreaking bisexual activist set for May 2
ROSENSTEIN: Chavous for Democratic D.C. Council-at-Large
I don’t see the point in a relationship
Inside the lonely world of MAGA gay men
Wagons ho! High-class, head-turning haulers
Rorschach stages ‘Dragon Play’ in unlikely, raw space
PHOTOS: National Champagne Brunch
