Connect with us

Local

Md. gay delegate speaks out on marriage, family

Murphy became seventh out lawmaker in state legislature

Published

on

Peter Murphy, gay news, gay politics dc

‘People couldn’t have been kinder... And not just my colleagues but lobbyists and staff,’ Maryland Del. Peter Murphy said about the reaction to his coming out last year in a Blade interview. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — When Maryland Del. Peter Murphy (D-Charles County) publicly confirmed that he is gay in an interview last year with the Washington Blade, he became the seventh out member of the legislature, the most of any state in the country.

His disclosure came while the legislature was considering a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and shortly after the State Senate approved the bill. The measure died a short time later when supporters determined they didn’t have the votes to pass it in the House of Delegates and chose to send it back to committee.

Murphy says he would have voted for it then and plans to vote for it this year when the bill is expected to come before lawmakers again.

In an interview with the Blade this week at his legislative office in Annapolis, Murphy said his long record of support for family-related policies and his role as the father of two daughters, a grandfather, and former foster parent speak volumes to his philosophy as a lawmaker and as a person.

That background and his longstanding roots in Charles County have made it clear that his strong support for same-sex marriage and a transgender rights bill doesn’t conflict with the interests of his constituents, Murphy said. To the contrary, he said supporting marriage equality and non-discrimination for all people is a plus for his district and all sections of the state, especially LGBT residents and their families who often must grapple with issues of discrimination.

“This bill is not about me or people my age. I’m 62 years old and I’m living my life,” Murphy said of the marriage bill.

“This bill is for every young person that struggles every day with his or her sexuality, goes to bed every night and cries, goes to school scared to death and wonders – wonders – what their life can be like,” he said.

“And so this bill is about letting them know that they, too, can be whole. And I think that’s why we have to do this. It’s so much beyond 71 votes,” he said, referring to the number of votes needed to pass a bill in the House of Delegates.

“I think at this point people look at who Peter Murphy is and Peter Murphy is many things,” he said.” The fact that I’m gay is not what I’m finding people, at least to my face, are talking about. I’ve had no push-back at all.”

Among other things, Murphy talked about how he believes his varied career as a microbiologist, middle school science and math teacher, business owner, counselor and mediator have helped prepare him for his current job as a state delegate.

He won election to his first term in office in 2006 and was re-elected in 2010 as the delegate representing Maryland’s 28th legislative district, which covers most of Charles County, a swath of southern Maryland bordering the Chesapeake Bay and dominated by rural towns and small cities. Unlike rural areas in other parts of the country, Charles County’s voters are solidly Democratic, although political observers say the district leans to the conservative side on social issues.

Murphy said that although his position in support of gay marriage and a pending transgender non-discrimination bill have been widely reported, his opposition to legalizing slot machines in the county and his strong environmental positions appear to have attracted far more interest in his district.

Following is a transcript of Murphy’s interview on Tuesday with the Washington Blade:

Washington Blade: After we ran our story last year about you being gay you told a Maryland newspaper, the Gazette, that you were surprised that some of your colleagues came up to you and said they didn’t know you were gay. You said you thought you had been open about your sexual orientation for quite a while.

Peter Murphy: That’s exactly right.

Blade: Can you tell about what time in your life or what point in your career you chose to be open about your sexual orientation?

Murphy: I can tell you exactly the time. I ran for office in 2002 for county commissioner. I lost that race. But after that race the Blade actually ran a small piece in the paper that said something along the lines of an openly gay candidate named Peter Murphy lost the race. So it was nothing we ever hid or denied.

We were never going to not claim that if you will. So that was it. I had partners. They would come with me to events and stuff like that. Certainly my family knew. So I just presumed that people would know that. I think that because I was married and had children it may well be that sometimes people see that first. But that’s just a guess.

Blade: Were you out to your family before the 2002 election campaign?

Murphy: Yes, back when I divorced. So I was out probably in 1999 roughly.

Blade: Was your family OK with it?

Murphy: Oh yes. It’s never been an issue. I have two daughters, grown daughters. They’ve always participated fully in my campaigns. And we celebrate all of the holidays together. So it has everything to do with the kind of father I’ve been. It was never an issue. Even with my ex-wife – we’re still very good friends. We celebrate holidays together. So it’s just never been an issue.

Blade: That sounds like a real success story. Sometimes we hear about cases where things turn out differently.

Murphy: That’s right. And I think it’s really a matter in my case I can honestly say that the people who are most important to me are the people that are the most accepting.

Blade: Many of the opponents say same-sex marriage is harmful to the family and harmful to children. How do you respond to that?

Murphy: I think there are a couple of things. You need to just look at our state and that there are somewhere been 9,000 and 10,000 children in foster care, and not one of those children comes from a gay family. So when you look at the family structure and you look at children – I was a foster parent as well. And I was on the Foster Care Review Board for 10 years in Charles County.

If you are going to talk about families and you are going to talk about children it’s important to look at it from their perspective. Children simply want to be loved, they want to belong. They want to be safe. They want to be cared for. And that has nothing to do with gender or race, sexual orientation, your socio-economic status. Those are all arbitrary things. Those are not what matters to children.

And so if you dare look at it from that perspective, then they have no argument. And there is no argument. Family is defined by the individual and that unit, whatever that is. I can tell you that I know many gay couples have adopted children that nobody else will take. And so those kids are not concerned about if they have two fathers or two mothers. They’re concerned most about if they can wake up every day safe, cared for – opportunities that they would never get.

And they didn’t come from gay couples. Those children came from straight couples who rejected them or who did whatever they did to those kids. So it is a non-argument. I don’t really understand how people who really care about family and commitment and those kinds of things and make people whole would ever deny any child – any child – the opportunity to be cared for and to be loved and to belong.

Blade: You say you served on the county’s foster care commission. What are some of the reasons that children are taken from their natural parents and placed into foster homes?

Murphy: Sexual abuse, neglect. I can tell you some of the most horrendous stories that will make you weep about what people will do to their children. And so what happens is then they will have to live with someone else who will provide for them those very basic things and stop what their own family was doing. You know, family isn’t necessarily defined by blood when you look at a foster child’s care.

Blade: What prompted you to run for public office?

Murphy: I first ran for the County Commission. And I think it’s important for people to know that in my case I believe that the only reason to run for office is for public service. I had been on the Planning Commission. I had been in many, many things involved in the county. I saw it as some things I would like to do differently. A lot of it had to do with social services and social justice issues. A lot of it had to do with land issues and the environment and education. Those things are real important to me. I lost that race.

So after I lost that race I had an amazing opportunity to work for Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.). He hired me as his field director for Southern Maryland…I will make this very clear to him as well. If Sen. Sarbanes decided to run again in 2006 I would have gladly stayed with him and continued to work for him.

So when he said he wasn’t going to run I asked him how he felt about me running for delegate. And he encouraged me to do that. It just meant that there was now an opportunity to kind of continue his work but on a much smaller scale.

Blade: Was it an open seat? Did you challenge someone?

Murphy: Well you don’t – it’s a three-member district. So you just run for one of those seats. And you run county wide. So I wasn’t going against any one person. I simply wanted one of those seats.

Blade: The election returns show that you came in third place but you won because the top three vote getters win the seats.

Murphy: That’s exactly right.

Blade: And then in the next election in 2010 you moved up a notch. You finished second. You were a good amount ahead of the Republican challengers.

Murphy: Oh yes. Charles County is very heavily Democrat.

Blade: How do you think your constituents feel on the same-sex marriage issue? Have you been asked about it at meetings in the district?

Murphy: I have never been asked about it.

Blade: Really?

Murphy:  No. And this is what gives me such encouragement and excitement about the momentum that this issue has. I have been in the county now since 1976 teaching. I’ve been a teacher. I’ve been a foster parent. I’ve been involved in the schools of my children. I’ve been on numerous boards. And then I worked for Sen. Sarbanes. And you know I think at this point people look at who Peter Murphy is and Peter Murphy is many things.

The fact that I’m gay is not what I’m finding people, at least to my face, are talking about. I’ve had no push back at all. But I get more pushback about the fact that they call me a tree hugger. I hear people say that to my face. Or they say I’m the darling of the environmentalists. I’ve heard that. But no one has ever said to me a thing about my sexual orientation.

But I think that’s because I don’t judge. I work for everybody. When people call up here for help or call anywhere, I don’t ask them if they are Democrats or Republicans. I don’t care about that. They need help and that’s my job to help government work for people. I think people appreciate the genuineness in that.

I think they appreciate that it’s about public service. I don’t have an agenda. I’m not pushing anything of mine forward. If I wasn’t gay I would still support this bill because it’s the right thing to do. And it’s the right thing to do because it provides the same rights and privileges under the law for all people in this state as well as it provides for the religions to the freedom to do what they want to do. It doesn’t get any better than that. How else can you do it? It provides for all people. You can’t do it any better than that. So I think around this particular issue if anybody has an issue with it they may not agree with me because they have their own feelings around marriage. But they don’t disagree with me because they think I’m pushing an agenda, because I would vote for it because I’m gay. They know I’m voting for it because I think it’s the right thing to do and it’s fair. And I would do this no matter what. And I would do it no matter what on other things, too – for our foster children or for any other equal rights. You cannot, in my estimation or my belief; I just see no justification or argument for denying people the same rights.

Blade: What the opponents have said is it infringes on their religious faith.

Murphy: It doesn’t. It doesn’t at all. It says that religious organizations and institutions can choose and continue as they are. I don’t agree with a lot of things they do. It’s not how I would see things. But that’s OK. It’s not like I’m saying to them you can’t do that. And government has no place in directing religious organizations about those things. If you’re a same-sex couple and you want to get married and you want to get married in your church but your church doesn’t permit it, they you have to find another church. That’s the way to do it. You don’t say the church needs to change. It will one day. We’re at the curve. But right now that’s not where it is. And let’s go to religion for one minute and talk about that and talk about children again. How can any religion say that it’s OK to deny children a loving, caring, secure place to belong? How can any religion say that and do that in their name? I don’t understand that. I don’t get that. But they can still do it. They can choose to place children or not.

Blade: Is Peter Murphy an Irish Catholic?

Murphy: I am Catholic. I was born Catholic, baptized Catholic, grew up Catholic. I’m not actively practicing the religion now. My daughters went to Catholic schools, elementary school. My older daughter went to its high school. But I will say that was a real conscious decision between my wife at the time and myself about where they would go. But the Catholic school where our daughters went to was so warm. It was the priest and the nuns that were there in that environment was such a safe, wonderful environment for them to be in. And we would never put them in a situation that I thought they would be taught things that I found to be distasteful.

… I think part of it is if you talk about family and if that’s a value that you hold, whether it’s individually, whether it’s an institution or whatever, then you’ve got to talk about love, you’ve got to talk about commitment, you’ve got to talk about those kinds of things. And I think people think about that and say that’s really what defines it. So does it matter that it’s two men or two women? I think people are getting more away from that and more away from this idea of what it is.

Blade: As you know, after the House of Delegates debated the marriage bill last year – and you participated in the debate – the bill was pulled from the floor. Did you get advance warning on that? Were you part of the discussion over whether the bill should be pulled or a vote taken?

Murphy: No, I was not. I was not around any formal discussions on any of that stuff. But we were getting a sense that people either were falling off or they were going to – I was just getting a sense, but I wasn’t involved in any discussion.

Blade: Do you think that was the right thing to do? Some people wanted a vote to take place to see where the members stood on the bill.

Murphy: Well you know I don’t think so because when you do that then it gets into blame and it gets to pointing fingers at people. This should not be, frankly, a bill that you have to coerce anybody into voting for. People should do it because it is the right thing to do, not because they are worried about getting re-elected or not getting re-elected or someone at their church is upset with them. You do this because it’s the right thing to do. And so if there’s a mechanism that’s going to point fingers to highlight or spotlight people that could make them uncomfortable, I’m not for that. I’m not for blaming people. I’m not for doing those kinds of things. In the long run it doesn’t get us anywhere.

Blade: Can you say what you said during the debate on the bill? It was something about your own situation?

Murphy: No I didn’t actually. It was the sponsor of the bill, Del. Barnes, did a wonderful introduction. I was so touched. It was well done. It was sensitive. It was right. But he talked about his six colleagues in the House. He kept talking about six colleagues. And I thought, well, this is disingenuous. How could I possibly sit here knowing that I’m here? So I counted them up and said well there’s no Peter Murphy on that. So I just simply got up and I thanked him and I said I just want to correct you. There are seven members in this House. That’s all I said.

Blade: I recall that there was applause after you said that.

Murphy: People were very generous, they were kind.

Blade: Doesn’t your district have a significant number of African-American residents?

Murphy: Yes.

Blade: Are they mostly Democrats?

Murphy: Yea.

Blade: Do you have a sense of where they may stand on the marriage issue?

Murphy: I don’t know. I think that with any group there are subgroups – African-American religious or non-African American religious. I really don’t know. To be honest with you…people care about their everyday lives. They care about jobs. They care about do they have a job. They care about do they have a home. They want to make sure their kids are getting schooling. That’s really what they care about. I’m not so egocentric to think that they really care a lot about Peter Murphy’s sexual orientation. It’s like, so what, I just want to make sure my kids are healthy. I want to make sure my kids have a good education. And they should do that. And my job is to use government to make sure that those things are there for them.

Blade: What’s your sense now of what the legislature will do with the marriage bill this year? Do you sense there’s enough support now in the House of Delegates?

Murphy: I think that we’re very close. I think some people want to make sure this bill really does what it says it does. And it says it does two things. I’ll give the very short version. It provides equal rights to all citizens and it protects religions to be able to teach their doctrine as they choose. And I think that’s probably where we are right now. And I don’t know exactly where the numbers are. But I think that’s kind of where we are. We’ve got a fairly large number in the House that does understand this.

Blade: House Speaker Busch said there may be about 10 delegates who are sitting on the fence and having some concerns but possibly voting for it. In that regard, would you support what Gov. Cuomo reportedly did in New York. He agreed to expand the religious related exemptions in the bill that, among other things, would allow religious oriented businesses to refuse to offer services to gay and lesbian couples. Reports surfaced that expanding those exemptions enabled a few more legislators to vote for the bill that put it over the top.

Murphy: Well I’ve heard that in the last session and that was brought up to me by a group of people who said if we don’t agree with same-sex marriages why should we have to rent our hall to same-sex couples for their receptions. And I frankly said to them we don’t rent your halls. If we do it we do it in a hotel. So it’s not very likely that you’re going to find us even wanting your facilities.

So I said I don’t think you have to worry about that. I think on the other hand, though, maybe the church may not want to do that. But there are plenty of – if you want – religious business people who understand that their business depends on consumers. And I haven’t looked at the latest numbers. But I believe that since New York did that there was a lot of money spent by same-sex couples in New York for cakes and receptions and caterers and stuff like that. You know what, that’s going to trump anything that any religious organization says that they don’t want to rent their hall.

Blade: There is talk now that if it passes in the legislature the opponents have the resources to bring it to the voters in a referendum. What do you think will happen with a referendum?

Murphy: I think it will pass. I’m so against any bill ever that deals with civil rights to be put to referendum. Can you imagine if the voting rights bill and those kinds of things had been put to a referendum? Where would we even be in this country today, in some states in this country? Can you imagine? Things like that absolutely shouldn’t go up for a referendum. So I’m against any kind of civil rights bill going to that. But if it goes, I think it will pass.

Blade: When you say pass, do you mean the law will be overturned?

Murphy: No, I think it will stay.

Blade: How do you think the vote will come down in Charles County?

Murphy: Well, I don’t know. That’s a good question. I would hope that it would hold. We have a very large Democratic population.

Blade: What about the Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act, which would protect transgender people from discrimination. As you know, it passed in the House of Delegates but was pulled from the Senate last year. Does that have a chance of passing this year?

Murphy: I don’t know. I don’t know how much work has been done on that. That’s a bill that’s a little harder to understand. A lot of people really don’t know what it means. They have to be educated. I think once people get a better idea of what that is we’ll see a different thing. But it’s not easy.

People would say things on the floor like, well, if you’re sitting across from them how do you know if it’s a man or a woman. It’s almost adolescent like in the way people approach this because they kind of giggle about it. It’s like when people are exploring something they are not familiar with it’s a little out of their comfort zone. And I sensed that when I listened to the debate on the floor.

Blade: Did you get any criticism in your district on the transgender bill, which you voted for?

Murphy: No, I didn’t hear anything.

Blade: How were you received among your colleagues after the Blade ran its story on you being gay last year?

Murphy: Oh, people couldn’t have been kinder… And not just my colleagues but people who are up here a lot, lobbyists and staff. People that were staff would come up to me and hug me and thank me for saying it. And you know what? It came through more than anything – this is why this [marriage equality] bill is so important. It’s why we have to be out there. It’s because the number of people who came up to me to say my nephew is gay, my cousin is gay. And it was almost like an affirmation to them. It is like somebody else – I love my nephew, I love my cousin, I love my daughter or whatever. And I need to know that there are people that are working to make their lives better.

And that is why we have to pass this bill. This bill is not about me or people my age. I’m 62 years old and I’m living my life. This bill is for every young person that struggles every day with his or her sexuality, goes to bed every night and cries, goes to school scared to death and wonders – wonders – what their life can be like. And so this bill is about letting them know that they, too, can be whole. And I think that’s why we have to do this. It’s so much beyond 71 votes. It’s to send a message that adults are getting it right and making a world – we talk about this all the time. What are we going to leave our kids? I hear this all the time – children are our future. Well if they’re our future, let’s leave them a future. Let’s leave them something so that these kids who suffer from this every day can look at that and say I can fall in love. I can have a partner. I can belong to somebody. And I think that’s why we need to do it.

Blade: Does that mean you will do some speaking out if the bill goes to a referendum. As you know, it’s lost in every state where it came before the voters. The head of the same-sex marriage advocacy group said he isn’t sure advocates for the bill in Maryland have the resources or a plan to defeat a referendum.

Murphy: Well I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know it’s not an excuse not to do it. We do it. And if it goes to referendum and it’s not upheld, so be it. Then we move ahead again in another way. But I would never not do it considering it could fail — never. I think we have to keep putting it out there and keep talking about it. And again, as I’ve been saying, if we’re doing this for young people and people that are just starting their lives, even if it fails they can still look at it and say there are people out there that think I matter. If that helps them to live a better life and to live their life openly and wholly and honestly and with integrity, we just don’t lose. But we’ve got our eye on not letting that happen.

Blade: Do you know what the timing will be for the bill to come up this year?

Murphy: No, I don’t know the timing. My sense is they would rather do this sooner rather than later. It takes a lot of time and I appreciate that it gets a lot of attention. I also know that there is a lot of other business that needs to be done up here. We have a very heavy agenda for this session. And it all deserves attention. So for any one thing, no matter what it is, to take away the attention from the other things, then it doesn’t give the attention that the other things deserve. So I’m hoping we’ll get it started soon.

Blade: Does the LGBT caucus meet – the seven of you? Do you keep in touch?

Murphy: We keep in touch. Obviously any group that is like-minded, no matter what it is, you talk to each other. You get together and so forth. Before last year I didn’t even know that there was a caucus…So I’m relatively new to the caucus.

Blade: Have you decided to run for re-election in 2014?

Murphy: That really is a long way off. You know, anything can happen. So I really haven’t made any plans to be honest with you.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Both sides propose revised orders in Capital Pride stalking case

Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive

Published

on

Darren Pasha (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

An evidentiary hearing in D.C. Superior Court on April 29 in which the Capital Pride Alliance presented three of four planned witnesses to testify in support of its civil complaint that D.C. gay activist Darren Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk its staff, board members, and volunteers ended abruptly at the direction of the judge.

Judge Robert D. Okun announced from the bench that the hearing, which was intended provide Capital Pride an opportunity to present evidence in support of its request to reinstate an anti-stalking order against Pasha that the judge temporarily rescinded on April 17, was no longer needed because Pasha stated at the hearing that he is willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Pasha made that statement after two Capital Pride witnesses — June Crenshaw and Vincenzo Volpe — each testified in support of the stalking allegations against Pasha for over an hour under questioning from Capital Pride attorney Nick Harrison and under cross-examination from Pasha, who is representing himself without an attorney.

After Capital Pride’s third witness, Tifany Royster, testified for just a few minutes, and after the judge called a recess for lunch and to attend to an unrelated case, Pasha announced that after obtaining legal advice he determined that he was unsuited to continue cross-examining the witnesses. He said he would be willing to accept a significantly less restrictive temporary restraining order.

Okun then ruled that the evidentiary hearing was no longer needed and directed Capital Pride and Pasha to submit to him their version of a revised stay away order. He said he would use their proposed revisions to help him develop his own order, which he would issue after deliberating over the matter.

He also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the case without going to trial. He then adjourned the hearing at 3:50 p.m.

The online Superior Court docket for the case stated after the hearing ended that the judge would issue “a new modified Temporary Protective Order,” but it did not say when it would be issued.   

Shortly before the April 29 hearing began at 11 a.m., Harrison filed a “Draft Temporary Anti-Stalking Order” that included a list of 34 “Protected Persons” that Harrison said during the hearing were affiliated with Capital Pride Alliance as staff and board members, volunteers, and others associated with the group.

The proposed order stated, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communications, or any other means.”

The proposal represented a significant change from Capital Pride’s initial civil complaint against Pasha filed in February that Pasha claimed called for him to stay away at least 200 yards from all Capital pride staff, board members, and volunteers without naming them. Okun granted that stay away request in February but reduced the stay away distance to 100 feet.

Capital Pride attorney Harrison disputes Pasha’s interpretation of the order, saying the 100-foot stay-away was for events, not for individual Capital Pride staff, volunteers, or board members. He said the order prohibited Pasha from engaging in any way with the Capital Pride staffers, volunteers or board members.

But the proposed order Capital Pride at first submitted at the April 29 hearing  also called for Pasha to stay away from and to not attend as many as 25 Capital Pride events scheduled to take place this year from April 30 through June 21 and for him to say away from the Capital Pride office located at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W., which is the building in which it shares with the DC LGBTQ Community Center.

At the April 29 hearing, at Pasha’s request, Okun called on Capital Pride to consider allowing Pasha to attend at least the two largest events — the Capital Pride Parade and Festival — which draw over 500,000 participants.

Harrison said in a follow-up message to the judge following the hearing that Capital Pride would allow Pasha to attend those two events and one other as long as he stays away from “ticketed and controlled access areas.”

At an April 17 status hearing Okun rescinded the earlier stay away order at Pasha’s request, among other things, on grounds that it was too vague and didn’t provide Pasha with sufficient specific information on who to stay away from. It was at that hearing that Okun scheduled the April 29 evidentiary hearing, saying it would give Capital Pride a chance to provide sufficient evidence to justify an anti-stalking order and Pasha an opportunity to challenge the evidence.  

In his own response to the initial civil complaint filed in February and in subsequent court filings, Pasha has strongly denied he engaged in stalking and has alleged that the complaint was a form of retaliation against him over a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith.

Like its initial complaint filed in February, Capital Pride filed a multipage document at the start of the April 29 hearing with written testimony from staff members and volunteers who allege that Pasha did engage in stalking, harassment, and intimidating behavior toward them and others.

Like Capital Pride, Pasha following the April 29 hearing, filed his own proposed version of the stay away order with significantly less restrictions than the Capital Pride proposal. Among other things, it calls for him to restrict his contact with Capital Pride CEO Ryan Bos and Crenshaw but says it “does not by its terms restrict the defendant’s communications with any other person, entity, governmental body, or media outlet.”

“Darren Pasha sent multiple messages to us and to the court after the proceedings asking for further modifications — which we are not accepting or responding to,” Harrison told the Blade in response to a request for further comment on Judge’s request for each side to submit proposed revisions of the stay away order.

“We appreciate the court’s time and careful attention to the evidence presented today,” Harrison told the Washington Blade in a written statement after the hearing. “This process was about bringing forward the experiences of individuals who reported a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress,” he said.

“Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to ensuring that our events and community spaces are safe, welcoming, and free from harassment and we will continue to take appropriate steps to support and protect our community,” his statement says.

“I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing.  “I’m just waiting to see what will happen next. But I want to reiterate this goes back to when someone treats you wrong you speak up,” he said. “Even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up and raised concerns.”

He added, “I will just be confident that in the next couple of months the truth will come out. But for now, I am happy with the progress that we have made regarding this.”

This story will be updated when the judge issues his revised stay away order.

Continue Reading

Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth’s Blue Moon sold; new owners to preserve LGBTQ legacy

‘They don’t want to change a thing’

Published

on

The Blue Moon in Rehoboth Beach was sold. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The iconic Blue Moon restaurant and bar in Rehoboth Beach, Del., has been sold to new owners who have pledged to keep it an LGBTQ-affirming space, according to longtime owner Tim Ragan.

Ragan and his partner Randy Haney sold the Blue Moon to Dale Lomas and Mike Subrick, owners of Atlantic Liquors on Route 1. 

“They don’t want to change a thing,” Ragan said. “They’re local people, they live here. Dale worked his first job at Dolle’s.”

Ragan and Haney did not sell the business, only the real estate. The deal includes a 10-year lease with renewal options under which Ragan and Haney will continue to operate the Moon. He noted that the couple could opt to sell the business at any time.

“It’s going really well so I’m not in any hurry,” Ragan told the Blade. “It’s hard to run a business and manage a property that’s 120 years old — now someone else has to fix the air conditioning. Our responsibility will be to run the business.”

Ragan offered reassurances that the Moon will continue to be a gay-friendly destination.

“Dale’s comment was that Rehoboth has been good to us and we just want to give back. The Moon is part of Rehoboth’s history and we want to preserve that.”

He said there are no immediate changes planned for the structure, apart from a new roof in the atrium that was damaged in a hail storm. Ragan noted that the property comes with several apartment rental licenses that they have never exercised and the new owners may decide to rent those out.

The Blue Moon business, at 35 Baltimore Ave., dates to 1981 and is an integral part of Rehoboth’s LGBTQ community, hosting countless entertainment events, drag shows, and more over 45 years. Local residents have celebrated birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, and other special occasions in the acclaimed restaurant. 

The two buildings associated with the sale were 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 were listed for $4.5 million. The bar and restaurant business were being sold separately. 

But then, earlier this year, the Blue Moon real estate listing turned up on the Sussex County Sheriff’s Office auction site. The auction was slated for Tuesday, April 21 but hours before the sale, the listing changed to “active under contract” indicating that a buyer had been found but the sale was not yet final.

Ragan said the issue was the parties couldn’t resolve how much was owed due to a disagreement with the bank. “We didn’t owe $3 million,” he said. “We said we’re not paying any more until we sell.” 

The sale contract was written five months ago. It took three attorneys to get a payoff amount agreed to by the bank, he added.

“No one wanted to buy both things. We now have a longterm lease. We couldn’t be happier.”

Continue Reading

Delaware

Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash

The Blade sat down with the Delaware Congresswoman to discuss her first year in office as her team gears up for the midterms

Published

on

Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Delaware is widely known for its firsts. It’s the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the first to join the Union, and the first to decide that no sales tax would be levied on its citizens.  

Another historic first to come from Delaware is Sarah McBride. McBride is the first and only transgender member of Congress. The Blade sat down for an exclusive interview with the congresswoman to discuss a wide array of topics — from the Trump administration’s attacks on transgender service members to her current obsession with the reality TV show “The Traitors” — as well as her legislative work, which has already made her one of the busier members of her freshman class.

Her office in the Longworth House Office Building reflects the nuances of her political identity: deeply serious policymaking paired with an unmistakable sense of personality. Photographs of McBride with friends, family, and political heroes line the walls. A windowsill is filled with crystals. A “Bridgerton” pillow sits on her office couch — small artifacts that soften the institutional weight of Capitol Hill without diminishing it.

When asked how she was feeling more than a year into her first term, McBride acknowledged the climate she was elected into — marked by what she described as toxicity and division under Trump-era politics — but explained that she remains energized by the work ahead.

“I am more energized and motivated now than I was a year and a half ago,” said McBride from her Longworth office. “I’m also more hopeful than I was when I first started here. It was a couple of weeks before Donald Trump was sworn in – the chaos, the cruelty, and the fear was pretty pronounced.”

That sense of hope, she made clear, is not necessarily shaped by the noise inside Congress—including attacks from colleagues like Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas)— but instead by what she sees from the constituents she represents back home.

“I have seen the goodness of my neighbors, the goodness of people across Delaware who remind me, day in and day out, that the division and the toxicity we see online are not actually representative of real life. That social media can impact real life, but it’s not representative of it, and that is, for me, incredibly comforting, and I think, a profound reminder that we can still have conversations across disagreement, we can still persuade people, and we can still grow our ranks.”

That belief — that persuasion is still possible — serves as the through line for how McBride views both her role in Congress and the broader political moment. It also frames her sharp criticism of the Trump-Vance administration, which she argues is rooted less in governance than in destruction.

“Donald Trump is not a conservative, he is not a traditional Republican. Trump wants to destroy. His billionaire donors want to destroy. They thrive in a culture of cynicism. They want to destroy our attention span and mine what little remains for parts. They want to destroy jobs and health care so they can consolidate power for themselves, and in this moment, they want to destroy the international moral order so that the strong can plunder the weak.”

Still, she argues, that approach may be backfiring politically, something she says has only strengthened her sense of optimism.

“We have seen public opinion turn against the cruelty and incompetence of this administration, we’ve seen outrage and rightful opposition. One of the things that I feared early on was that this administration’s momentum would only grow, but instead what we’ve seen is that the cult of personality has begun to break. A growing and very large majority of Americans oppose what they’re seeing from this administration, and that is hope inducing for me. But beyond all of that, I am more motivated because of the change that I’ve been able to witness here in this office and on behalf of my constituents.”

Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

That motivation is not abstract. It is measured in casework, legislative negotiations, and tangible dollars flowing back to Delaware. Alongside broader efforts, McBride co-sponsored the bipartisan “Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act” (H.R. 3339), which passed the House unanimously in 2025 while referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The legislation broadened access to investment opportunities by allowing individuals to qualify as accredited investors based on expertise rather than wealth alone.

“Our office has returned roughly $5 million to individual Delawareans and secured roughly $150 million in critical investments for Delaware. I’ve been able to introduce more bipartisan bills here in Congress than any other freshman, and we’ve been able to prevent every single anti-trans bill or major provision from becoming law. That is something that I don’t know that I would have believed was possible, but it’s been a byproduct of the strategy that we have undertaken. In short, what I’ve seen is that we can still win hearts and minds and that you can still deliver for people here in Congress.”

That emphasis on strategy over spectacle defines much of McBride’s approach to politics. It also informs how she navigates her identity as the first openly transgender member of Congress. While her presence carries symbolic weight, she resists the idea that symbolism alone is sufficient.

“No single person can be the voice of any one community, certainly not a community as diverse as the entirety of the LGBT community. I believe that part of my responsibility as a trans person who has the privilege of serving here is to guarantee that while I may be a first, I’m not the last. One of the reasons why anti-trans politics has been so successful is because the right wing has characterized trans people, and one of the greatest things that I can contribute is helping to diversify the public’s understanding of who trans people are. That does far more to change the public’s perception and political dynamics than anything else that I could do.”

Much of that work, she emphasized, happens away from cameras and headlines. It’s an approach that has at times drawn criticism from some LGBTQ advocates who favor more confrontational tactics, but one she frames as essential to long-term change.

“In a social media age, we perceive advocacy to look like one very loud thing, but a lot of my work is also behind the scenes. Speaking out and posting a clip is not the only way to advocate for people; in fact, it’s often the avenue of last resort if you actually want to deliver results. Despite a campaign that spent $200 million in anti-trans ads and an administration obsessed with trans people, not a single anti-trans bill or provision has become law. That’s not by coincidence, it’s by hard work and a strategic approach to defending the LGBTQ community.”

That same discipline carries into how she handles political attacks and public scrutiny.

“When you are a first, people will be out in force to try to bait you into fights to prove that people like you don’t belong. If you respond to provocations, they will turn you into a caricature and say you’re the aggressor. My job is to be a proud Delawarean and a damn good legislator, and the rest will follow from that. When you don’t take the bait, you protect your ability to deliver results.”

That approach has helped her build unlikely alliances across the aisle.

“I made it clear that I was willing to work with anyone if we could find common ground to help my constituents. As a byproduct, a number of my Republican colleagues came up to me and said welcome to Congress and let’s find opportunities to work together. That has resulted in me being able to introduce more bipartisan bills than any other freshman. We’ve been able to secure investments and pass legislation that opens up more capital to entrepreneurs from underrepresented backgrounds.”

Looking ahead to the midterms, McBride is both cautious and pragmatic.

“I feel cautiously optimistic that if the election were held today, that Democrats would win a majority in the House, but the problem is that the election is not held today. Republicans will be out in force with a boatload of money and will continue to try to use people like me as a political wedge issue. We have to meet all voters where they are and keep our eyes focused on the universal needs that our constituents have. It’s going to require us to have a big tent from our left to our right so that we can meet this moment.”

“We should not put anything by the Republicans; they will seek to suppress the vote and undermine the will of the people. That reinforces the need for us to win by such a margin that our win is too big to contest. It’s going to require us to reach voters who didn’t vote for us and compete in places we have written off. If the stakes are as high as we say they are, then we need all of the help that we can get.”

Her focus on long-term party-building is equally central to her vision — one that would be willing to take a leadership position on if given the chance.

“I’m really grateful that our leadership has offered me opportunities to have my voice heard and to represent the caucus. I am eager to find any opportunity to elevate the voices of my constituents and contribute. My background was in communications, and I believe our party can find new ways to communicate with voters. Our caucus is going to be the tip of the spear in helping to rebrand our party and build a governing majority.”

“We need to deliver universal child care, a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all who want it, and millions of new homes. Winning the next election is not the end; we have to continue building toward a durable majority. I’m eager to contribute to that vision in any way that my caucus sees fit. That includes potentially serving in leadership if that’s where I can be most helpful.”

Rep. Sarah McBride attends the joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025. (D-Del.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

On foreign policy, she is equally direct. The ongoing war with Iran was something she, as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is not only familiar with but completely opposed to.

“The war is illegal, but it’s also stupid, and it is a catastrophe for the United States. [The Trump administration] has not achieved any of their stated goals, and everything that has been destroyed can be rebuilt. Iran now has more leverage globally, including control of the Strait of Hormuz. This war raised costs, lost lives, and achieved what was already achieved a decade ago without any of that.”

That frustration echoes in what she hears from voters at home.

“Delawareans are pissed, and they’re pissed because this president promised he would end wars and lower costs. He has broken both of those promises, costs are higher and there are more wars. They are facing higher costs when they were already struggling, and they see that his policies have made that crisis worse. People across this country are angry that those promises were broken.”

Concerns about political violence and digital radicalization also weigh heavily on her. Last week’s attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is one instance of politically motivated violence continuing to fester and instill fear in the American political sphere.

“I was horrified when I heard that there were shots fired, and the rising tide of political violence is a cancer for our democracy. Social media is radicalizing people and fostering misinformation and conspiracy theories. When people see a world where everyone is either 100% with them or against them, they begin to believe persuasion is impossible. That is fertile ground for violent extremists and it is unsustainable for democracy.”

“Democracy requires faith in other people’s capacity to change, and when that belief is lost, peaceful politics breaks down. People are not as divided as the algorithms make it seem, and most people are good and decent. We can tap people’s better angels, but we have to be willing to be in conversation with them. You cannot tell me that change is impossible, I have seen it and lived it.”

That belief underpins her support for regulating social media platforms, though she is careful to stress that policy alone is insufficient. The congresswoman constantly faces threats, repulsive comments, and detestable words from people on her social media channels for her identity alone.

“There’s no question that we need regulation of social media platforms, social media is the 21st century big tobacco. Whether it’s liability, age limits, or transparency of algorithms, there are a host of solutions we need to pursue. But policy solutions alone will not solve this problem. We have to get offline and have conversations in person.”

“When we have conversations in person, we realize we have much more in common than we think. We are currently having political conversations in the most toxic place possible, online. That has to change if we want to sustain democracy. You will come away more hopeful when you engage with people face to face.”

U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) speaks at the 2025 HRC National Dinner. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Her LGBTQ priorities remain anchored in policy and humanism— something she references repeatedly.

“I helped draft the Equality Act and I would love to see it become law. In the nearer term, we should prioritize reversing the ban on transgender troops. These are decorated service members who have been fired for no other reason than their gender identity. They deserve to be treated with dignity and fairness and judged on their merits.”

She continued at length about the transgender service members removed under Executive Order 14183, emphasizing both their service and their erasure.

“These are individuals who are not just qualified, but more than qualified, who have been decorated service members, who have received promotions with unanimous and unqualified endorsement by their superior officers who have been fired from service to this country for no other reason than their gender identity. And I believe in this moment… there is no more effective representation of our community than the transgender service members who have put their lives on the line to serve this country and who have been treated with nothing but disrespect from this administration. They deserve to be treated with dignity and fairness and judged on their merits.”

Even in partisan fights, she returns to her guiding principle of discipline and restraint.

“Sometimes in politics you have to throw a punch with grace. Republicans initiated a mid-decade redistricting effort to gerrymander and pad their majority. They expected Democrats to fold, but those days are over. We fought back and we’re not going to let them steal elections in advance.”

When the conversation turns to how she maintains balance amid the chaos of national politics, McBride returns to unexpected sources of grounding — television, pop culture, and humor.

“I’ve watched every season of ‘The Traitors,’” she said.

When asked if she would ever take a trip to the Scottish Highlands to visit Alan Cumming’s castle, she said it would have to be after her work is done in Congress.

“If I was ever on ‘The Traitors,’ I would never be able to be a traitor. I would get too nervous and overwhelmed. I would have to be a faithful. But I think if there is a future where I am on that show, it will be after I’m in elected office.”

And through it all, she draws parallels between reality television and political life itself.

“If you want to understand how many in Congress work, the best tutorial is ‘The Real Housewives’ … There are people whose sole purpose is to get attention… If you throw wine back, they will just keep coming back for more … I’m not going to allow someone to get attention at my expense … I think all you need to understand is [Capitol Hill] is like an episode of ‘Real Housewives.’”

Still, for McBride, even amid the spectacle of Washington, the focus ultimately returns home.

“I am excited for beach season and I love Rehoboth and Baltimore Avenue,” she says. “It is the professional privilege of my lifetime to represent Delaware. I represent a district that is urban, suburban, and rural, and I get to see the full diversity of this country every day. Delaware shows that a different kind of politics is possible.”

U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading

Popular