Local
Md. gay delegate speaks out on marriage, family
Murphy became seventh out lawmaker in state legislature

‘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.
Virginia
Repealing marriage amendment among Va. House Democrats’ 2026 legislative priorities
Voters approved Marshall-Newman Amendment in 2006
Democrats in the Virginia House of Delegates on Monday announced passage of a resolution that seeks to repeal a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is among their 2026 legislative priorities.
State Del. Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) has introduced the resolution in the chamber. State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) is the sponsor of an identical proposal in the state Senate.
Both men are gay.
Voters approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment in 2006.
Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Virginia since 2014. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin last year signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.
A resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment passed in the General Assembly in 2021. The resolution passed again this year.
Two successive legislatures must approve the resolution before it can go to the ballot.
Democrats on Election Day increased their majority in the House of Delegates. Their three statewide candidates — Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger, Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi, and Attorney General-elect Jay Jones — will take office in January.
“Virginians elected the largest House Democratic Majority in nearly four decades because they trust us to fight for them and deliver real results,” said House Speaker Don Scott (D-Portsmouth) on Monday in a press release that announced his party’s legislative priorities. “These first bills honor that trust. Our agenda is focused on lowering costs, lifting wages, expanding opportunity, protecting Virginians rights, and ensuring fair representation as Donald Trump pushes Republican legislatures across the country to manipulate congressional maps for partisan gain. House Democrats are ready to meet this moment and deliver the progress Virginians expect.”
District of Columbia
D.C. LGBTQ bars ‘hanging in there’ amid tough economy
Shakers to close; others struggling in wake of gov’t shutdown, rising prices
The owners of several of D.C.’s at least 24 LGBTQ bars, some of which also operate as restaurants or cafes, say they are being negatively impacted by the same forces impacting most other D.C. bars and restaurants at this time.
Among the lead issues impacting them have been the deployment by President Donald Trump of National Guard troops on city streets, the nearly two-month long federal government shutdown that just ended, and skyrocketing prices for food and other supplies brought about by the Trump administration’s controversial tariff program.
The Trump administration’s decision to lay off thousands of federal workers shortly after Trump took office in January also appears to have resulted in a decline in the number of people going out to restaurants and bars, including LGBTQ restaurants and bars, according to some of the owners who spoke to the Washington Blade.
Observers of LGBTQ nightlife businesses have pointed out that although nationwide the number of LGBTQ or “gay bars” has declined significantly since 1980, the number of LGBTQ bars in D.C. has increased from just six in 1980 to at least 24 so far in 2025.
If the popular Annie’s Paramount Steak House near Dupont Circle, Mr. Henry’s restaurant, bar and Jazz music performance site on Capitol Hill, and the Red Bear Brewing Company bar, restaurant and music performance site in Northeast near Capitol Hill – each of which have a mixed but large LGBTQ clientele — are included in the D.C. gay bar list, the total number climbs to 27.
As if that were not enough, yet another D.C. gay bar, Rush, was scheduled to open on Nov. 21 at 2001 14th Street, N.W. at the intersection of 14th and U streets, near the location of 10 other LGBTQ bars in the U Street nightlife corridor. That will bring the number of LGBTQ-identified bars to 28.
Among the first of the LGBTQ bar owners to publicly disclose the economic hardships impacting their establishment was David Perruzza, who owns the gay bar and café Pitchers and its adjoining lesbian bar A League of Her Own in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood.
In an Oct. 10 Facebook post, Perruzza said he was facing “probably the worst economy I have seen in a while and everyone in D.C. is dealing with the Trump drama.”
He added, “I have 47 people I am responsible for, and I don’t know how to survive in this climate. If I have ever sponsored you or your organization, now is the time to show the love. Not only for me but other bars. I went out tonight and it was depressing. If you want queer bars, we all need your help.”
Asked on Nov. 10 how things were going one month after he posted his Facebook message, Perruzza told the Blade business was still bad.
“I’m not going to sugarcoat it,” he said. “Again, we’re busy. The bar’s busy, but people aren’t buying drinks.” He added, “No, they’re coming in and drinking water and dancing. They’re not buying drinks.”
Like most of the city’s bars, including LGBTQ bars, Perruzza said he provides water jugs and plastic cups for patrons to access drinking water by themselves as needed or desired.
Jo McDaniel, co-owner of As You Are, an LGBTQ bar and café in the Barracks Row section of Capitol Hill at 500 8th Street, S.E., which has a large lesbian clientele, said she, too, was hit hard by the National Guard deployment. She said National Guard troops carrying guns began walking up and down 8th Street in front of As You Are around the last week in August and have continued to do so.
“And then from the 7th [of September] they went from pistols to rifles,” McDaniel said. “Nothing has happened. They’ve just been walking back and forth. But now they have big guns. It’s pretty terrifying.”
She noted that the National Guard presence and the other issues, including the federal shutdown, caused a sharp drop in business that prompted her and her partner to launch a GoFundMe appeal in August, a link to which was still on the As You Are website as of Nov. 16.
“We’re reaching out to you, our community, our allies, and those who believe in safe spaces for marginalized folks to help us get past this challenge so we can all ensure AYA’s survival and continued impact in D.C. and the community at large,” a message on the GoFundMe site says.
Freddie Lutz, owner of Freddie’s Beach Bar, the LGBTQ bar and restaurant in the Crystal City section of Arlington, Va., just outside D.C., said the federal shutdown, rising costs, and even the deployment of National Guard troops in D.C. appears to have had a negative impact on businesses across the river from D.C., including Freddie’s.
“Freddie’s is doing OK but not as good,” he said. “We’re down a little bit. Let’s put it that way,” he added. “I just feel like with all the chaos going in this administration and everything that’s happening it’s like we just have to hang in there and everything will be alright eventually,” he told the Blade.
“But business is down a little bit, and we can use the support of the community just like David Perruzza has been saying,” Lutz said. He said the drop in businesses for at least some of the LGBTQ bars may also be caused by the large and growing number of LGBTQ bars in D.C.
“There are a lot of new gay bars, which are also impacting the rest of us,” he said. “I’m all for it. I want to support them. But it is taking away from some of us, I think.”
Mickey Neighbors is the owner of Sinners and Saints, an LGBTQ bar at 2309 18th Street, N.W. in Adams Morgan located a few doors away from Pitchers and A League of Her Own. He said his business has mostly rebounded from a slowdown caused by the National Guard deployment.
“At first, everyone was kind of scared,” he said. “But then it kind of blew over and there really aren’t that many other bars where the demographic people that come to mine really go to.” He described Sinners and Saints as catering to a younger “BIPOC” crowd, a term that refers to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.
“We had a downturn of business for a few weeks, but everything is back to normal,” he said.
Stephen Rutgers, co-owner of the LGBTQ bar Crush located at 2007 14th Street, N.W., a few doors down from where the new bar Rush is about to open, said Crush like most other bars was impacted by the National Guard deployment.
“Some bars are going to be fine,” he said. “We are trying to do some creative things to keep people coming in. But overall, everyone is seeing cutbacks, and I don’t think anyone is not seeing that,” he said.
Rutgers said Crush, which in recent weeks has had large crowds on weekends, said he was hopeful that his and other LGBTQ bars would fully rebound when the federal shutdown ends, which occurred the second week in November.
Among other things, Rutgers said a decline in the number of tourists coming to D.C. in response to the Trump administration’s policies has impacted all bars and restaurants, including LGBTQ bars. He said this, combined with the record number of LGBTQ bars now operating in D.C., is likely to result in fewer patrons going to at least some of them.
One of the D.C. LGBTQ bars that put in place a significant change in the way it operates in response to the developments impacting all bars is Spark Social House, a bar and café located on 14th Street, N.W. next door to Crush. In the past week, Spark Social House announced it was ending its status as the city’s only LGBTQ bar that did not serve alcoholic beverages and instead sold a wide range of alcohol-free cocktails.
Owner Nick Tsusaju told the Blade he and his associates made the difficult assessment that under the current economic environment in D.C., which is impacting all bars and restaurants, Spark Social would need to offer both alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages
“You can imagine that if the bars that are selling alcohol are struggling, we are struggling just like other small businesses with the same issues,” he said. “And I think that introducing alcohol is not really an abdication of our values.”
He noted that beginning in December, after Spark Social obtains its liquor license, “we’re introducing a one for one menu where every cocktail comes in two options, booze and boozeless.”
Ed Bailey, co-owner of the D.C. gay bars Trade and Number Nine located near the intersection of 14th and P Streets, N.W., told the Blade in September his two establishments were “ramping up for a busy fall after an unusual summer” impacted by the National Guard deployment.
His predictions of a busy fall appear to have come about at least on weekend nights, including Halloween night, where there were long lines of Trade’s mostly gay male clientele waiting to get into the bar.
Stephen Thompson, a bartender at the Fireplace, a longtime gay bar located at 2161 P Street, N.W., near Dupont Circle, said the National Guard presence and other issues impacting other bars have not negatively impacted the Fireplace.
“We are doing fine,” he said. “The National Guard has not hurt our business. The soldiers do walk by a few times a week, but we’ve been looking pretty good the last couple of months.”
One of the at least 10 LGBTQ bars in the U Street, N.W., entertainment corridor, Shakers, at 2014 9th Street, N.W., announced in a statement this week that it will close its doors on Nov. 23.
“After many, many difficult discussions, we ultimately decided it is time for Shakers to close its doors,” says the statement posted by Shakers owners Justin Parker and Daniel Honeycutt. “While we are in so many ways saddened, we are also looking forward to spending a bit more time with our three-year old son,” the statement says.
It also announces that the nearby gay bar Kiki, located around the corner on U Street, will acquire use of the Shakers building and “keep the space dedicated to our LGBTQ+ community.”
In his own statement on social media, Kiki owner Keaton Fedak said, “To now have two LGBTQ+ bars at 9th & U under the Kiki umbrella is a true full-circle moment – rooted in friendship, history, and the community that continues to grow here.”
The owners of several other D.C. LGBTQ bars couldn’t immediately be reached for comment or declined to comment for this story.
Edward Grandis, a D.C. attorney who has worked with some of the D.C. LGBTQ bars, said the COVID pandemic, which led to the temporary shutdown of all bars and restaurants, appears to have had a lasting impact on LGBTQ bars long after the pandemic subsided.
Among other things, Grandis said he has observed that happy hour sessions at most bars, including LGBTQ bars, have not returned to the level of patronage seen prior to the COVID pandemic. He notes that happy hour times, usually in late afternoon or early evening during weekdays, where bars offer reduced price drinks and some offer free drinks to attract large numbers of patrons, have not been drawing the crowds they did in past years.
“The COVID shutdown assisted the online social meeting sites,” Grandis said. “Bars were closed so guys turned to the internet for setting up parties and this has continued even though there are more bars,” he said in referring to the D.C. gay bars. According to Grandis, the gay men in the age range of their 20s and 30s appear to be the largest group that is no longer going to gay bars in large numbers compared to older generations.
“So, I think the trend started before what the feds are doing,” he said in referring to the National Guard presence and the federal shutdown. “And I think what we are witnessing right now is just sort of like another obstacle that people in the gay and entertainment community need to figure out how to attract the 20-year-olds and young 30s back to the bars.”
District of Columbia
High cost of living shuts essential workers out, threatens D.C.’s economic stability
City residents don’t always reflect those who keep it running
When Nic Kelly finishes her 6 a.m. shift as a manager at PetSmart, she walks to her bartending job at Alamo Drafthouse in Crystal City to serve cocktails, beers, and milkshakes for hundreds of guests.
Kelly, 26, doesn’t work a combined 60-65 hours per week to pocket extra cash –– she does it to barely make her almost $1,700 rent each month.
“I’m constantly working, and some days I work two jobs in the same day,” Kelly said. “But twice now I’ve had to borrow money from my mother just to make sure I pay my full rent.”
Yesim Sayin, D.C. Policy Center executive director, said this is unfortunately how the D.C. area is structured –– to keep essential workers, service employees, and lower-income people out and those with greater economic mobility in.
The DMV area’s high cost of living makes it near-impossible for employees who keep the area running to make a living, Sayin said. In 2022, only 36% of D.C.’s essential workers lived in the city, according to a D.C. Policy Center report. D.C. is also ranked 13th in the world for highest cost of living as of Nov. 7.
But for Sayin, there’s more work for policymakers to get done than simply acknowledging the high cost of living. Take a look at how current policies are impacting residents, and what long-term solutions could help the DMV thrive.
Feeling the high cost of living
D.C. has the highest unemployment rate in the country at 6.0% as of August. Sayin said the city’s high unemployment rate reflects a lack of geographic mobility in its population, meaning those who can’t find jobs can’t afford to look outside of the DMV area.
Though there are job training groups working to close the unemployment gap, securing a job –– let alone two –– rarely guarantees a comfortable lifestyle for essential and service employees.
A single-person household in D.C. with no children must make at least $25.98 an hour to support themselves, according to the Living Wage Calculator. That number jumps to $51.68 an hour for a single adult with one child. Minimum wage in D.C. is $17.95 an hour and $10 an hour for tipped employees.
Whether it’s utilizing free meals at the Alamo to save on groceries or borrowing money to make rent, every week could bring a different sacrifice for Kelly.
While Kelly lives and works a few minutes south of D.C., Sayin said the connectedness of the DMV means you don’t have to travel far to feel the withering effects of the area’s high cost of living.
“People don’t really care what flag adorns their skies,” Sayin said. “They’re looking for good housing, good schools, cheaper cost of living, and ease of transportation.”
For those that stay in the DMV area, those conditions are hard to come by. This can lead to people working multiple jobs or turning to gigs, such as Uber driving or selling on Etsy, to fill income gaps. Sayin said there are short-term benefits to securing these gigs alongside a primary job, such as helping people weather economic storms, avoid going on government assistance or racking up debt.
But she said the long-term implications of relying on gigs or other jobs can harm someone’s professional aspirations.
“You can spend three extra hours on your own profession every work week, or you can spend three hours driving Uber. One gives you cash, but the other gives you perhaps a different path in your professional life,” Sayin said. “And then 20 years from now, you could be making much more with those additional investments in yourself professionally.”
There’s a strong demand for work in D.C., but when the city starts suffering economically, those who live outside the area –– usually essential or remote workers –– will likely find work elsewhere. Sayin said this negatively impacts those employees’ quality of life, giving them less professional tenure and stability.
D.C.’s cost of living also centralizes power in the city, according to Sayin. When lower-wage employees are priced out, the residents who make up the city don’t always reflect the ones who keep it running.
“Ask your Amazon, Uber or FedEx driver where they live. They’re somewhere in Waldorf. They’re not here,” Sayin said.
Working toward an accessible D.C.
Build more. That’s what Sayin said when thinking of ways to solve D.C.’s affordability crisis.
But it’s not just about building more –– it’s about building smartly and utilizing the space of the city more strategically, Sayin said.
While D.C. has constructed lots of new housing over the years, Sayin noted that they were mostly built in a handful of neighborhoods tailored to middle and upper-class people such as The Wharf. Similarly, building trendy small units to house young professionals moving to the city take up prime real estate from struggling families that have much less geographic mobility, she said.
“The affordability problem is that today’s stock is yesterday’s construction,” Sayin said.
Solving these issues includes ushering in a modern perspective on outdated policies. Sayin cited a D.C. policy that places restrictions on childcare centers built on second floors. Since D.C. parents pay the highest rates in the country for childcare at $47,174 annually, she said loosening unnecessary restrictions could help fuel supply and lower costs for families.
Sayin said policymakers need to consider the economic challenges facing residents today, and whether the incentives and tradeoffs of living in D.C. are valuable enough to keep them in the city.
For Kelly, the incentives and tradeoffs of staying in the DMV area aren’t enough. She’s considered moving back in with her mom a few times given how much she has to work just to get by.
Aside from wanting higher compensation for the work she does –– she noted that businesses can’t operate without employees like her –– Kelly also questioned the value of the tradeoff of moving so close to the city.
“There’s no reason why I’m paying $1,700 for a little studio,” Kelly said. “You also have to pay for parking, utilities aren’t included and a lot of residents have to pay for amenities. We are just giving these property management companies so much money, and we’re not really seeing a whole lot of benefit from it.”
Sayin said placing value on the working people of the city will inject fresh life into D.C.’s economy. Without a valuable tradeoff for living in or around the city, there’s little keeping essential and service employees from staying and doing work taken for granted by policymakers.
