Local
Council casts ‘historic’ vote for marriage
D.C. Council member David Catania thanked those on both sides of the marriage debate for conducting a ‘civil discussion’ of the issue. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
The D.C. City Council on Tuesday voted 11-2 to give preliminary approval to a bill that would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the city.
Council members backing the bill said its overwhelming support on the 13-member Council means it would sail through its required second-reading vote set for Dec. 15, sending it to Mayor Adrian Fenty for his signature. Fenty has pledged to sign the measure.
“It’s a day I never thought I would see and never thought I would have the privilege to participate in as a gay person,” said Council member David Catania (I-At Large), the bill’s author, during the Council’s 40-minute debate on the measure.
“And I want to thank, again, everyone on both sides of this discussion who, by and large, engaged in an extraordinarily civil discussion on what is a difficult matter for many,” Catania said.
Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) and Council member Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) were the only ones to vote against the bill. Alexander didn’t speak during the debate.
Barry noted his long record of support for LGBT rights during his 39-year tenure in D.C. politics as school board president, mayor and Council member, saying same-sex marriage was the only issue in which he has not been in lock step with the gay community.
“I am firm in my commitment to this community,” he said. “But I’m going to vote no because my conscience says so and because the majority of my constituents say so.”
Those voting for the bill were Council Chair Vincent Gray (D-At Large), and Council members Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5), Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), Kwame Brown (D-At Large) and Michael Brown (I-At Large).
“This bill is the next step, a logical step, in the progress we have made in significantly expanding our domestic partnership law over the last 17 years,” said Phil Mendelson, chair of the Committee on Public Safety & Judiciary, which shepherded the bill through the Council.
“I don’t think it’s a giant step,” he said. “It’s a final step in a process in a steady march since 1992 as the District of Columbia, as a matter of public policy, has proceeded toward full equality regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.”
The Council chamber was not quite full as members debated and voted on the marriage bill, a development that surprised news reporters and Council staff members. Some had expected the turnout to be similar to the overflowing show among gay rights supporters and a raucous crowd of opponents during the Council’s spring vote on a separate bill that called for legally recognizing in D.C. same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
That measure passed by a similarly lopsided margin, with Barry emerging as the only Council member to vote against it. It cleared its required congressional review in July, becoming law July 7.
A coalition of LGBT organizations and mainline civil rights groups viewed the earlier measure as a trial run for the full same-sex marriage bill that the Council passed on first reading this week.
Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., and leader of a coalition of social conservative and Christian groups opposed to same-sex marriage, watched the Council’s vote Tuesday from a front-row seat in the audience.
He told reporters after the vote that his coalition would continue to urge Congress to step in to overturn the same-sex marriage law. He said he and his supporters also would continue their court challenge of a D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics decision in October that refused to place on the ballot a voter initiative seeking to ban same-sex marriage in the District.
The board concluded that an initiative banning gay marriage would violate the city’s Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jackson filed suit in D.C. Superior Court seeking to overturn the election board’s action. He has said he would appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if he and his backers lose in lower courts.
“Our desire is to let the people vote,” he told reporters after the Council’s approval of the marriage measure Tuesday.
Bishop Harry Jackson, leader of a coalition of conservative and Christian groups opposed to same-sex marriage, watched the Council’s vote Tuesday from a front-row seat. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
“It’s clear that the other side in D.C. has been organized, has been systematic,” he said. “They dotted all their I’s and crossed all their T’s and, in a sense, this battle today was won two-and-a-half, three years ago by folks lobbying behind the scenes. The people have not had a chance to weigh in as of yet.”
Jackson and Barry have said they believe a majority of D.C. residents — particularly African-American residents — oppose same-sex marriage and are upset with the Council’s action on the issue.
But Michael Crawford, chair of same-sex marriage advocacy group D.C. for Marriage, disputed Jackson and Barry’s assessment of voter sentiment in the city.
“I am African American, there are a lot of folks working on marriage equality who are African American, there are a lot of straight African Americans who are supporting marriage equality,” Crawford said. “And the majority of African-American members of the City Council voted for marriage equality.
“Today is an amazingly historic day,” he said. “The City Council voted overwhelmingly to end discrimination against gay and lesbian families. They have stated without hesitation that they believe gay and lesbian families should not be treated as second-class citizens in the District.”
D.C. gay activist Bob Summersgill, who has coordinated same-sex couples’ rights issues in the city, including efforts to pass domestic partnership legislation, called the Council’s approval of a gay marriage bill the last major hurdle in providing equal rights for gays.
“I’m thrilled that the last major place in the law where we aren’t equal is being amended,” he said. “So now the promise of full equality under the law is being provided.”
Summersgill’s comment picked up on a theme sounded by gay D.C. Council member Jim Graham during the Council’s debate Tuesday on the marriage bill. Graham noted that on the heels of the Council’s actions in the 1970s to include gays in the Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, the Council in the early 1990s began approving a series of measures to provide rights to same-sex couples.
He noted that the protections focused on domestic partnership amendments, beginning with the first domestic partnership bill approved by the Council in 1992. Graham said a steady stream of LGBT-related measures followed, including non-discrimination protections for transgender residents.
“I have been privileged to be on this Council for almost 11 years,” Graham said. “And the times that I have been most privileged to be here have been the times when this Council has acted to enhance and to protect human rights.”
Mendelson said he and Catania sought to reach a compromise with the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which has called for expanding the bill’s religious exemption clause.
The bill exempts religious institutions and clergy from having to perform same-sex marriages or make their facilities, products or services available for such marriages if doing so is contrary to their religious beliefs.
Archdiocesan officials asked the Council to go further by exempting one of their charitable entities, Catholic Charities, from having to provide employee benefits to the same-sex married partners of their workers providing services to needy residents under city contracts.
Mendelson said he and Catania met with Catholic Charities representatives Monday to determine if the group would back down on its threat to withdraw from city contracts providing services to as many as 68,000 people, including operation of homeless shelters, unless the Council grants it the employee benefits exemption.
“It’s their choice,” Mendelson said after the Council vote, in discussing whether Catholic Charities withdraws from city contracts.
Mendelson said he and Catania, with the backing of other Council members, declined to add language to the marriage bill allowing the group to withhold employee benefits for same-sex married partners of their employees because doing so would be a violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
Mendelson said he and Catania remain open to discussing other options for Catholic Charities during the two-week interval between Tuesday’s first-reading vote on the marriage bill and the final vote Dec. 15.
Wells noted during Council debate on the marriage bill that the city has access to other vendors and contractors who would step in to replace Catholic Charities.
“There’s Lutheran Social Services, Methodist Board of Child Care, Family Matters, D.C. Family Child Services, Pathways to Housing,” said Wells in naming some of the groups that provide similar services.
“They do not ask to be exempt from any D.C. laws,” he said. “Choosing to be a contractor to serve functions in the District of Columbia is not a right. You’re part of a bidding process.”
Susan Gibbs, an Archdiocese of Washington spokesperson, said after the vote that archdiocesan officials also look forward to a “continuing dialogue” with Council members over the issue.
“Catholic Charities has been here for 80 years,” she said. “The archdiocese, the Catholic Church, has been here since before there was a City Council. So we’re committed to continue doing the services we can with the resources we have. We’re not stopping providing services.”
Thomas told his colleagues during Tuesday’s debate that his Ward 5 constituents were “torn down the middle” on the gay marriage issue. He said he recognizes the strong religious beliefs of many of his constituents, but decided to vote for the bill on grounds of human rights to help ensure equality under the law.
“As a legislator, I cannot allow my personal preferences or my religious practices, or anything that in my personal life, that would allow the disenfranchisement of any individual in the District of Columbia,” he said.
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].
The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ+ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success.
Congratulations to R. Warren Gill III, M.Div., M.A. on being appointed as the development manager at HIPS. Upon his appointment, Gill said, “For as long as I’ve lived in Washington, D.C., I’ve followed and admired the life-saving work HIPS does in our communities. I’m proud to join the staff and help strengthen the financial support that sustains this work.”
Gill will lead fundraising strategy, donor engagement, and institutional partnerships. HIPS promotes the health, rights, and dignity of individuals and communities impacted by sexual exchange and/or drug use due to choice, coercion, or circumstance. HIPS provides compassionate harm reduction services, advocacy, and community engagement that is respectful, non-judgmental, and affirms and honors individual power and agency.
Gill has built a career at the intersection of progressive politics, advocacy, and nonprofit leadership. Previously he served as director of communications at AIDS United, supporting national efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Prior to that he had roles including; being press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential primary, and working with the General Board of Church and Society, the United Methodist Church, the denomination’s social justice and advocacy arm.
Gill earned his bachelor’s degree in philosophy and religious studies, Jewish Studies, Stockton University; his master’s degree in political communication from American University, where his graduate research focused on values-based messaging and cognitive linguistics; and his master of Divinity degree from the Pacific School of Religion.
District of Columbia
Judge denies D.C. request to dismiss gay police captain’s anti-bias lawsuit
MPD accused of illegally demoting officer for taking family leave to care for newborn child
A U.S. District Court judge on Jan. 21 denied a request by attorneys representing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a gay captain accusing police officials of illegally demoting him for taking parental leave to join his husband in caring for their newborn son.
The lawsuit filed by Capt. Paul Hrebenak charges that police officials violated the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act, a similar D.C. family leave law, and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by refusing to allow him to return to his position as director of the department’s School Safety Division upon his return from parental leave.
It says police officials transferred Hrebenak to another police division against his wishes, which was a far less desirable job and was the equivalent of a demotion, even though it had the same pay grade as his earlier job.
In response to a motion filed by attorneys with the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents and defends D.C. government agencies against lawsuits, Judge Randolph D. Moss agreed to dismiss seven of the lawsuit’s 14 counts or claims but left in place six counts.
Scott Lempert, the attorney representing Hrebenak, said he and Hrebenak agreed to drop one of the 14 counts prior to the Jan. 21 court hearing.
“He did not dismiss the essential claims in this case,” Lempert told the Washington Blade. “So, we won is the short answer. We defeated the motion to dismiss the case.”
Gabriel Shoglow, a spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, said the office has a policy of not commenting on pending litigation and it would not comment on the judge’s ruling upholding six of the lawsuit’s initial 14 counts.
In issuing his ruling from the bench, Moss gave Lempert the option of filing an amended complaint by March 6 to seek the reinstatement of the counts he dismissed. He gave attorneys for the D.C. attorney general’s office a deadline of March 20 to file a response to an amended complaint.
Lempert told the Blade he and Hrebenak have yet to decide whether to file an amended complaint or whether to ask the judge to move the case ahead to a jury trial, which they initially requested.
In its 26-page motion calling for dismissal of the case, filed on May 30, 2025, D.C. Office of the Attorney General attorneys argue that the police department has legal authority to transfer its officers, including captains, to a different job. It says that Hrebenak’s transfer to a position of watch commander at the department’s First District was fully equivalent in status to his job as director of the School Safety Division.
“The Watch Commander position is not alleged to have changed plaintiff’s rank of captain or his benefits or pay, and thus plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that he was put in a non-equivalent position,” the motion to dismiss states.
“Thus, his reassignment is not a demotion,” it says. “And the fact that his shift changed does not mean that the position is not equivalent to his prior position. The law does not require that every single aspect of the positions be the same.”
Hrebenak’s lawsuit states that “straight” police officers have routinely taken similar family and parental leave to care for a newborn child and have not been transferred to a different job. According to the lawsuit, the School Safety Division assignment allowed him to work a day shift, a needed shift for his recognized disability of Crohn’s Disease, which the lawsuit says is exacerbated by working late hours at night.
The lawsuit points out that Hrebenak disclosed he had Crohn’s Disease at the time he applied for his police job, and it was determined he could carry out his duties as an officer despite this ailment, which was listed as a disability.
Among other things, the lawsuit notes that Hrebenak had a designated reserved parking space for his earlier job and lost the parking space for the job to which he was transferred.
“Plaintiff’s removal as director at MPD’s School Safety Division was a targeted, premeditated punishment for his taking statutorily protected leave as a gay man,” the lawsuit states. “There was no operational need by MPD to remove plaintiff as director of MPD’s School Safety Division, a position in which plaintiff very successfully served for years,” it says.
In another action to strengthen Hrebenak’s opposition to the city’s motion to dismiss the case, Lempert filed with the court on Jan. 15 a “Notice of Supplemental Authority” that included two controversial reports that Lempert said showed that former D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith put in place a policy of involuntary police transfers “to effectively demote and end careers of personnel who had displeased Chief Smith and or others in MPD leadership.”
One of the reports was prepared by the Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the other was prepared by the office of Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C. appointed by President Donald Trump.
Both reports allege that Smith, who resigned from her position as chief effective Dec. 31, pressured police officials to change crime reporting data to make it appear that the number of violent crimes was significantly lower than it actually was by threatening to transfer them to undesirable positions in the department. Smith has denied those claims.
“These findings support plaintiff’s arguments that it was the policy or custom of MPD to inflect involuntary transfers on MPD personnel as retaliation for doing or saying something in which leadership disapproved,” Lempert says in his court filing submitting the two reports.
“As shown, many officers suffered under this pervasive custom, including Capt. Hrebenak,” he stated. “Accordingly, by definition, transferred positions were not equivalent to officers’ previous positions,” he added.
Virginia
LGBTQ rights at forefront of 2026 legislative session in Va.
Repeal of state’s marriage amendment a top priority
With 2026 ramping up, LGBTQ rights are at the forefront of Virginia politics.
The repeal of Virginia’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is a top legislative priority for activists and advocacy groups.
The Virginia Senate on Jan. 17 by a 26-13 vote margin approved outgoing state Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria)’s resolution that would repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment. The Virginia House of Delegates earlier this month passed it.
Two successive legislatures must approve the resolution before it can go to the ballot.
The resolution passed in 2025. Voters are expected to consider repealing the amendment on Nov. 3.
The Virginia General Assembly opened with an introduction of a two-year budget — Virginia’s budget runs biannually.
In 2024 some funding was allocated to LGBTQ causes, and others were passed over. This year’s proposed budget leaves room for funding for a host of LGBTQ opportunities. One specific priority that Equality Virginia is promoting would ensure the state budget expands healthcare for LGBTQ individuals and extending gender affirming care.
Equality Virginia Communications Director Reed Williams told the Washington Blade the organization is also focused on passing three main budget amendments, and ensuring “LGBTQ+ students and their teachers have resources to navigate and address mental health challenges in K-12 schools.”
Along with ensuring school training, the organization wants funding in hopes of “establishing enhanced competency training for Virginia’s 988 Lifeline counselors and support staff to provide affirming care for LGBTQ+ youth.” This comes after the Trump-Vance administration shut down the specific hotline for LGBTQ young people that callers could previously reach if they called 988.
On a federal level, protections and health care access for LGBTQ people has taken a hit, as the Trump-Vance administration has continued to issue executive orders affecting the health care system. LGBTQ people no longer have federal legal health care protections, so local and state politics has become even more important for LGBTQ rights groups.
Equality Virginia has urged its supporters to call their local senators and stress the importance of voting to expand health care protections for LGBTQ people. The organization also plans to hold information sessions and a lobby day on Feb. 2.
Equality Virginia is tracking bills on its website.
‘Heated Rivalry’ stars to participate in Olympic torch relay
Comings & Goings
Here’s where to watch ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ with fellow fans
‘Queer Eye’ watch party set for Friday
Calendar: January 23-29
Hot rod heaven: Chevy Corvette, Dodge Charger
Two gay candidates running in ‘firehouse’ Va. House of Delegates primary in Alexandria
PHOTOS: Mr. Mid-Atlantic Leather 2026
McBride, other US lawmakers travel to Denmark
