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

ā€˜People couldnā€™t have been kinder... And not just my colleagues but lobbyists and staff,ā€™ 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. ā€” 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 didnā€™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 doesnā€™t conflict with the interests of his constituents, Murphy said. To the contrary, he said supporting marriage equality and non-discrimination for all peopleĀ 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.

ā€œThis bill is not about me or people my age. Iā€™m 62 years old and Iā€™m living my life,ā€ Murphy said of the marriage bill.

ā€œThis 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 ā€“ wonders ā€“ what their life can be like,ā€ he said.

ā€œAnd so this bill is about letting them know that they, too, can be whole. And I think thatā€™s why we have to do this. Itā€™s so much beyond 71 votes,ā€ he said, referring to the number of votes needed to pass a bill in the House of Delegates.

ā€œI think at this point people look at who Peter Murphy is and Peter Murphy is many things,ā€ he said.ā€ The fact that Iā€™m gay is not what Iā€™m finding people, at least to my face, are talking about. Iā€™ve had no push-back at all.ā€

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 Marylandā€™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 Countyā€™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 Murphyā€™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 didnā€™t know you were gay. You said you thought you had been open about your sexual orientation for quite a while.

Peter Murphy: Thatā€™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 thatā€™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. Itā€™s never been an issue. I have two daughters, grown daughters. Theyā€™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 Iā€™ve been. It was never an issue. Even with my ex-wife ā€“ weā€™re still very good friends. We celebrate holidays together. So itā€™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: Thatā€™s right. And I think itā€™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 ā€“ 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 itā€™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. Theyā€™re concerned most about if they can wake up every day safe, cared for ā€“ opportunities that they would never get.

And they didnā€™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 donā€™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 ā€“ any child ā€“ the opportunity to be cared for and to be loved and to belong.

Blade: You say you served on the countyā€™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 isnā€™t necessarily defined by blood when you look at a foster childā€™s care.

Blade: What prompted you to run for public office?

Murphy: I first ran for the County Commission. And I think itā€™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 Marylandā€¦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 wasnā€™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 donā€™t ā€“ itā€™s a three-member district. So you just run for one of those seats. And you run county wide. So I wasnā€™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: Thatā€™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:Ā  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. Iā€™ve been a teacher. Iā€™ve been a foster parent. Iā€™ve been involved in the schools of my children. Iā€™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 Iā€™m gay is not what Iā€™m finding people, at least to my face, are talking about. Iā€™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 Iā€™m the darling of the environmentalists. Iā€™ve heard that. But no one has ever said to me a thing about my sexual orientation.

But I think thatā€™s because I donā€™t judge. I work for everybody. When people call up here for help or call anywhere, I donā€™t ask them if they are Democrats or Republicans. I donā€™t care about that. They need help and thatā€™s my job to help government work for people. I think people appreciate the genuineness in that.

I think they appreciate that itā€™s about public service. I donā€™t have an agenda. Iā€™m not pushing anything of mine forward. If I wasnā€™t gay I would still support this bill because itā€™s the right thing to do. And itā€™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 doesnā€™t get any better than that. How else can you do it? It provides for all people. You canā€™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 donā€™t disagree with me because they think Iā€™m pushing an agenda, because I would vote for it because Iā€™m gay. They know Iā€™m voting for it because I think itā€™s the right thing to do and itā€™s fair. And I would do this no matter what. And I would do it no matter what on other things, too ā€“ 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 doesnā€™t. It doesnā€™t at all. It says that religious organizations and institutions can choose and continue as they are. I donā€™t agree with a lot of things they do. Itā€™s not how I would see things. But thatā€™s OK. Itā€™s not like Iā€™m saying to them you canā€™t do that. And government has no place in directing religious organizations about those things. If youā€™re a same-sex couple and you want to get married and you want to get married in your church but your church doesnā€™t permit it, they you have to find another church. Thatā€™s the way to do it. You donā€™t say the church needs to change. It will one day. Weā€™re at the curve. But right now thatā€™s not where it is. And letā€™s go to religion for one minute and talk about that and talk about children again. How can any religion say that itā€™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 donā€™t understand that. I donā€™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. Iā€™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.

ā€¦ I think part of it is if you talk about family and if thatā€™s a value that you hold, whether itā€™s individually, whether itā€™s an institution or whatever, then youā€™ve got to talk about love, youā€™ve got to talk about commitment, youā€™ve got to talk about those kinds of things. And I think people think about that and say thatā€™s really what defines it. So does it matter that itā€™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 ā€“ and you participated in the debate ā€“ 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 ā€“ I was just getting a sense, but I wasnā€™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 donā€™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 itā€™s the right thing to do. And so if thereā€™s a mechanism thatā€™s going to point fingers to highlight or spotlight people that could make them uncomfortable, Iā€™m not for that. Iā€™m not for blaming people. Iā€™m not for doing those kinds of things. In the long run it doesnā€™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 didnā€™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 Iā€™m here? So I counted them up and said well thereā€™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. Thatā€™s all I said.

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

Murphy: People were very generous, they were kind.

Blade: Doesnā€™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 donā€™t know. I think that with any group there are subgroups ā€“ African-American religious or non-African American religious. I really donā€™t know. To be honest with youā€¦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. Thatā€™s really what they care about. Iā€™m not so egocentric to think that they really care a lot about Peter Murphyā€™s sexual orientation. Itā€™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: Whatā€™s your sense now of what the legislature will do with the marriage bill this year? Do you sense thereā€™s enough support now in the House of Delegates?

Murphy: I think that weā€™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. Iā€™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 thatā€™s probably where we are right now. And I donā€™t know exactly where the numbers are. But I think thatā€™s kind of where we are. Weā€™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 Iā€™ve heard that in the last session and that was brought up to me by a group of people who said if we donā€™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 donā€™t rent your halls. If we do it we do it in a hotel. So itā€™s not very likely that youā€™re going to find us even wanting your facilities.

So I said I donā€™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 ā€“ if you want ā€“ religious business people who understand that their business depends on consumers. And I havenā€™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, thatā€™s going to trump anything that any religious organization says that they donā€™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. Iā€™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 shouldnā€™t go up for a referendum. So Iā€™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 donā€™t know. Thatā€™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 donā€™t know. I donā€™t know how much work has been done on that. Thatā€™s a bill thatā€™s a little harder to understand. A lot of people really donā€™t know what it means. They have to be educated. I think once people get a better idea of what that is weā€™ll see a different thing. But itā€™s not easy.

People would say things on the floor like, well, if youā€™re sitting across from them how do you know if itā€™s a man or a woman. Itā€™s almost adolescent like in the way people approach this because they kind of giggle about it. Itā€™s like when people are exploring something they are not familiar with itā€™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 didnā€™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 couldnā€™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 ā€“ this is why this [marriage equality] bill is so important. Itā€™s why we have to be out there. Itā€™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 ā€“ 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. Iā€™m 62 years old and Iā€™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 ā€“ wonders ā€“ what their life can be like. And so this bill is about letting them know that they, too, can be whole. And I think thatā€™s why we have to do this. Itā€™s so much beyond 71 votes. Itā€™s to send a message that adults are getting it right and making a world ā€“ we talk about this all the time. What are we going to leave our kids? I hear this all the time ā€“ children are our future. Well if theyā€™re our future, letā€™s leave them a future. Letā€™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 thatā€™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, itā€™s lost in every state where it came before the voters. The head of the same-sex marriage advocacy group said he isnā€™t sure advocates for the bill in Maryland have the resources or a plan to defeat a referendum.

Murphy: Well I donā€™t know the answer to that. But I do know itā€™s not an excuse not to do it. We do it. And if it goes to referendum and itā€™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 Iā€™ve been saying, if weā€™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 donā€™t lose. But weā€™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 donā€™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 doesnā€™t give the attention that the other things deserve. So Iā€™m hoping weā€™ll get it started soon.

Blade: Does the LGBT caucus meet ā€“ 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 didnā€™t even know that there was a caucusā€¦So Iā€™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 havenā€™t made any plans to be honest with you.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Many LGBTQ residents escaping D.C. for inauguration weekend

Some fear queer spaces could be targeted by MAGA crowd

Published

on

Donald Trump at his first inauguration in 2017. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Donald Trump will be sworn in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol as the 47th president on Monday, becoming the second person in history to ever return to the Oval Office after losing an election. As fencing and roadblocks begin to pop up in preparation for a weekend of Trump supporters gallivanting on the National Mall and across the capital, many LGBTQ people in Washington have made plans to leave the District. 

Nick Gomez, a 27-year-old music director for iHeartRadio and host of PRIDE Radio told the Washington Blade he will leave the city for northern Maryland with a group of kickball team members. Gomez explained that this weekend being both a federal holiday (Martin Luther King Jr. Day) and a weekend when he didnā€™t want to remain in Washington, it made sense to join some friends on a trip.  

ā€œI thought that it was a small group, but it’s actually a very large group of us looking at the group chat now,ā€ Gomez said. ā€œWe’re getting a little cabin out in northern Maryland.ā€ He said 27 members of his LGBTQ Stonewall Kickball team are planning to ride out the inauguration away from Trump supporters and MAGA hats.  

ā€œNormally a little kickball team cabin weekend happens every year, but we did coordinate it to happen on inauguration weekend this year ā€” decidedly after Nov. 5 is when we booked the Airbnb,ā€ he said. 

Gomezā€™s choice to leave Washington was not a snap judgment though. For a while he contemplated what to do and if he should leave the city at all.

ā€œI’ve thought about this a lot, actually,ā€ he said. ā€œI was thinking, ā€˜What is it going to be like to live in this city while the administration is active outside of just inauguration weekend?ā€™ There was a part of me that’s like, ā€˜I don’t need to be caught up in all that. I know that that’s probably not going to be good for me. And it very well could turn into a fucking hellscape out here.ā€™ But there was another part of me that’s like, ā€˜Well, why am I going to leave? Because this is my city. I’m the one who lives here!ā€™ And that kind of went into thinking about the inauguration weekend.ā€

Gomez understood this would not be like any previous inauguration, given the inflammatory president-elect and his largely anti-LGBTQ followers.

ā€œThe difference about inauguration weekend is that this inauguration is happening on the 20th, but there’s also that rally happening on the 19th,ā€ he said. ā€œAnything that we can get caught up in on the 19th is just simply not going to be beneficial for queer people in the city, or the city itself.ā€

The twice-impeached president-elect is planning to hold a ā€œvictory rallyā€ for 20,000 supporters the day before he is sworn in. This will mark the first time Trump will speak to a crowd in Washington since Jan. 6, 2021, when groups of his supporters stormed the Capitol in hopes of overturning the fair election of Joe Biden. Trump’s fans, and their inclination to venture toward violent behavior, Gomez explains, is a large reason for why he chose to leave Washington for the weekend.

ā€œThere are going to be so many people from out of town here, people from around the country here whose only objective is to support this man. We know what that looks like when people support this man in a physical sense. If they’re going to do that for two days, I don’t need to be here for that. I also don’t need to validate their presence by welcoming them to my city.ā€

He understands that some LGBTQ community members may feel that is the exact reason to stay in Washington.

ā€œMaybe there are some differing opinions on that,ā€ Gomez added. ā€œMaybe people think, ā€˜You know what, I’m going to sit here and stand my groundā€™ and like, ā€˜This is my city no matter what.ā€™ I just think that there is a smarter way to stand my ground in my city than subjecting myself to whatever chaos is going to be here on those two days.ā€

ā€œIt’s more of a refusal to leave on my part,ā€ said Luke Stowell, 22, the queer assistant director of music at the Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church who is hunkering down in the District this weekend. ā€œI live here. I pay rent here. I’m not going anywhere, just because 650,000 Republicans are coming. This is my home.ā€

Stowell explained that he is on the side of staying in Washington for the inauguration, if nothing else to be a voice of resistance against the Trump regime.  

ā€œI almost wish that there wasn’t such a desire for exodus,ā€ they added. ā€œI wish that there were a little bit more of a ā€˜Hey, like, No, we’re actually going to stand our ground.ā€™ I appreciate the defiance, but I see it more as a defense of this territory. It’s obviously, as we know, a hugely liberal territory.ā€

Stowell has debated shifting his daily routine ahead of Sundayā€™s MAGA rally to avoid the Gallery-Place/Capital One Arena area. 

ā€œThey’re saying that there’s a big rally before the inauguration down at Capital One Arena, and that’s actually where my Planet Fitness is,ā€ they said. ā€œI’m very interested to see if I try to go to the gym on Sunday, will it even be open? Will it be overrun with MAGgots? Otherwise on Monday, I have choir. I have things to do on Monday. My life doesn’t really stop just because the inauguration is happening. Some people don’t even have time off for the MLK Day holiday. It seems so crazy that those are on the same day, but yeah, I’ll be around.ā€

Sam Parker, a 30-year-old managing strategist at a political consulting firm, chose to use this weekend to escape from the city and to get closer to his partner after experiencing the first Trump inauguration from a very close distance.

ā€œMy boyfriend and I are going to Philly for the weekend, all the way until Tuesday to avoid the inauguration, and to get out for the three-day weekend,ā€ Parker said. ā€œIt’s definitely largely predicated on the fact that I lived in Foggy Bottom the last time he was inaugurated.ā€

Parker has since moved away from any of the neighborhoods that will be fully locked down during the inauguration but would rather just avoid any repeated feeling of being locked down as he was eight years ago.

ā€œIt was entirely in the shutdown zone ā€” there were armored cars on the street. It was inescapable. My current neighborhood is probably a little lessā€¦ omnipresent. ā€¦ But I’ve kind of gotten over the idea that there’s some kind of ā€˜noble aimā€™ being witness to all this stuff, and that it’s kind of better for my mental health to just get out of town. Also, politics aside, it feels like the town gets kind of locked down for an inauguration. It is kind of nice to use some Amtrak points and go somewhere else. Have a less stressful weekend.ā€

Justin Westley, a 28-year-old fundraising professional for an environmental NGO, is also using this weekend as an opportunity to grow closer to their boyfriend, Matt. Matt, who works for the federal government, requested anonymity due to concerns about potential repercussions for speaking out against the incoming administration, but wholeheartedly agreed about wanting to leave the city ahead of Trumpā€™s arrival. 

ā€œWe’re going to Boston this weekend,ā€ Westley said. ā€œWe’re visiting Mattā€™s sister, who lives up there. Weā€™re going to stay and visit for a while, and this just seemed like a good opportunity. It’s very practical, because we were wanting to see Matt’s sister anyway. ā€¦ I know most of our friends are either doing cabin trips or small weekend getaways anyway. We probably would have left regardless. I do think going to Massachusetts, a very blue state, and Boston, a very blue city, will be nice to not have to worry at all about interacting with those people [Trump supporters] on the day-to-day.ā€

ā€œYeah,ā€ Matt agreed. ā€œVisiting a city that has voted primarily blue the past several elections offers a political comfort. But also, there’s a fun aspect of exploring a new city. Justin’s never been there. And then there’s comfort there ā€” visiting a family member. That’s also just kind of like a safety net.ā€

Matt added that he has already seen law enforcement begin taking precautions in the District ahead of Mondayā€™s events, solidifying the choice to leave ahead of whatever the weekend holds.

ā€œI actually live pretty close to the White House, in the general Logan Circle area, and they’ve been testing drones,ā€ Matt said. ā€œI remember seeing the news articles that they’re going to be testing them throughout the week, leading up to the inauguration. I haven’t been down near the actual mall, but the traffic patterns have already changed, just walking around the neighborhood. And the transportation agency has released what streets are going to be closed and navigating the area around my apartment is just going to be a nightmare.ā€

This caused Westley to reflect on where he, and the city, was four years ago. 

ā€œIā€™ve just been thinking back to Jan. 6 ā€” the disrespect, the terrorism, the white supremacy, but also just the disrespect toward the people who live here,ā€ Westley said. ā€œFour years later, after all of that, these people are going to be coming back under the presumption of ā€˜Welcome to the city!ā€™ For the first Trump administration, I lived in Nashville and in Pittsburgh. Those are both red and like purple states, respectively. The cities themselves truly did feel likeā€¦ not being in a bubble, but like, a true insulated community where I wasn’t on edge about seeing Trump supporters ā€” like MAGAs in the streets necessarilyā€¦There is just going to be a lot more Trump supporters [in Washington], and that just makes me feel a lot less secure.ā€ 

Despite feeling less secure this time around, Westley echoed Parkerā€™s earlier sentiment on the importance of prioritizing his mental health while navigating this weekend, and the next four years.  

ā€œWhile I can’t control being around staffers in the streets for the next four years, I can control when I’m around the sort of enthusiastic supporter that would be coming to the inauguration,ā€ Westley said. ā€œRemoving myself from the situation felt like the healthiest thing for me, especially thinking about the next four years and for the energy that I’ll have to devote to protecting the people I love, the people close to me, as well as the community more broadly. I want to make sure that I’m starting that from a place of safety and resilience and not fear.ā€

Stephen Hayes, 37, a non-profit fundraising professional, will use the long holiday weekend to celebrate his wedding anniversary and avoid unnecessary political conflict with people who may not support him and his husband.

ā€œI had already planned on going out of town this weekend,ā€ Hayes told the Blade. ā€œIt’s my husband and my 11th wedding anniversary. We got married in New York and we return every year for our anniversary. Our anniversary happens to fall in the middle of the week, so we’re going the weekend prior.ā€

Hayes initially was more hopeful the country would go in a different direction than a second Trump presidency and kept that in mind when originally planning his anniversary weekend.

ā€œI had originally planned to return in time for the inauguration, because I was hopefully optimistic that things would go the other way. But once we learned that they didn’t go the way that I’d like, I changed my plans to extend my stay in New York through the inauguration and return the following day, hopefully avoiding most of the people who will be here in town for the event.ā€

This trip, Hayes recalls, seems to be very similar to his holiday weekend during Trumpā€™s first inauguration two terms ago. 

ā€œIt’s kind of funny because eight years ago I was in New York during some of the first protests [against Trump] with the ā€˜pussy hat/pink hatā€™ protests that took place in New York,ā€ he said. ā€œI wasn’t planning to be there during the inauguration, and I wasn’t yet a D.C. resident, but now it will be interesting to be in New York City again for the inauguration.ā€ 

ā€œIt feels like there’s a lot of unknown right now,ā€ Hayes added. ā€œPersonally, I kind of have my guard up. The people coming to town might not be as friendly as your average visitor so I would just be hyper vigilant. Be aware of what’s going on around you. I want to say that queer spaces are safe spaces, but they might be a targeted place. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but the pessimist in me says be prepared.ā€

ā€œIt is super easy to feel really helpless and we’re all allowed to feel helpless, but eventually something has to come of that helplessness,ā€ Gomez added. ā€œI have no doubt that the queer community in this city will do that, and something will come out of it. But I think if there’s anything that I would want to share just from my personal experience over the last however many weeks, it’s that helplessness is OK, and it will not last forever. There’s an entire city of people around you that are there to lean on.ā€

Trumpā€™s inauguration happens Monday, Jan. 20 at noon on the Capitol steps. If youā€™re staying in town, Metro has released information regarding the change in transportation schedules ahead of the three-day weekend. 

ā€œMetro is prepared to move customers for Inauguration Day with additional train service and earlier hours,ā€ WAMATA announced. ā€œPer the request of the United States Secret Service and the United States Capitol Police, Metrorail will open at 4 a.m. on Monday, Jan. 20 to accommodate the crowds. Five stations will be closed, and trains will bypass these stations for security reasons from Sunday, Jan. 19 at 8 p.m. until 5 a.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 21: McPherson Square (Blue, Orange, Silver lines),  Federal Triangle (Blue, Orange, Silver lines), Smithsonian (Blue, Orange, Silver lines),  Mt. Vernon Sq.-Convention Center (Green, Yellow lines),  Archives-Navy Memorial (Green, Yellow lines).ā€

For more information on public transportation in Washington ahead of the holiday weekend, visit inauguration.dc.gov/ or wmata.com/service/inauguration-2025. 

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. police demoted gay captain for taking parental leave: Lawsuit

Department accused of engaging in ā€˜effort to harass, retaliateā€™

Published

on

D.C. Police Captain Paul Hrebenak (right) embraces his husband, James Frasere, and the couple's son. (Courtesy photo)

A gay police captain on Dec. 31 filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department of illegally demoting him and subjecting him to harassment and retaliation for taking parental leave to care for his newborn son.

The 16-page lawsuit filed by Capt. Paul Hrebenak charges that police officials violated the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act, a similar D.C. family leave law, and the U.S. Constitutionā€™s Equal Protection Clause by refusing to allow him to return to his position as director of the departmentā€™s School Safety Division upon his return from parental leave.

The lawsuit states that he received full permission to take parental leave from his supervisor. Hrebenakā€™s attorney, Scott Lempert, with the D.C.-based legal group Center for Employment Justice, said Hrebenakā€™s transfer to another police division against his wishes, which was a far less desirable job, was the equivalent of a demotion, even though it has the same pay grade as his earlier job.

D.C. police spokesperson Thomas Lynch said police will have no comment at this time on the lawsuit. He pointed to a longstanding D.C. police policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

Casey Simmons, a spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents and defends D.C. government agencies against lawsuits, said the Attorney Generalā€™s Office also does not comment on ongoing litigation. ā€œSo, no comment from us at this time,ā€ she told the Blade. 

Hrebenakā€™s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, states that ā€œstraightā€ police officers have routinely taken similar family and parental leave to care for newborn children and have not been subjected to the unfair and illegal treatment to which it claims Hrebenak was subjected.

The lawsuit states that Hrebenak has served with distinction as an officer and later as captain since he first joined the force in July 2007. It says after receiving ā€œoutstanding reviews and promotionsā€ he was promoted to captain in November 2020 and assigned to the School Safety Division in September 2022.

According to the lawsuit, the School Safety Division assignment allowed him to work a day shift, a needed shift for his recognized disability of Crohnā€™s Disease, which the lawsuit says is exacerbated by working late hours at night.

The lawsuit points out that Hrebenak disclosed he had Crohnā€™s Disease at the time he applied for his police job, and it was determined he could carry out his duties as an officer despite this ailment, which was listed as a disability.  

ā€œWhen my husband and I decided to have a child, and I used my allotted D.C. Paid Family Leave and Federal Family Leave, I was punished and removed from a preferred and sought after position as Director of the School Safety Division,ā€ Hrebenak told the Washington Blade in a statement.

ā€œMy hope is by filing this lawsuit I can hold MPD and the D.C. Government accountable,ā€ he wrote. ā€œI am the first gay male D.C. Police manager (Captain or Lieutenant) to take advantage of this benefit to welcome a child into the world,ā€ he states, adding, ā€œI want to take this action also so that fellow officers can enjoy their families without the fear of being unfairly treated.ā€

The lawsuit states that in addition to not being allowed to return to his job as director of the School Safety Division upon his return from leave, ā€œhe was also required to work the undesirable midnight shift, as a Watch Commander, requiring him to work from 8:00 p.m. to 4:30 a.m.ā€

Watch Commander positions are typically given to lieutenants or newly promoted captains, the lawsuit says, and not to more senior captains like Hrebenak.

ā€œPlaintiffā€™s removal as Director of MPDā€™s School Safety Division was a targeted, premeditated punishment for taking statutorily protected leave as a gay man,ā€ the lawsuit concludes. ā€œThere was no operational need by MPD to remove Plaintiff as Director of MPDā€™s School Safety Division, a position in which plaintiff very successfully served for years.ā€

The lawsuit identifies the police official who refused to allow Hrebenak to resume his job as director of the School Safety Division and reassigned him to the less desirable position on the midnight shift as Deputy Chief Andre Wright.

The Blade couldnā€™t immediately determine whether D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith, who has expressed strong support for the LGBTQ community and for LGBTQ people working on the police force, would have supported Wrightā€™s actions toward Hrebenak.

The lawsuit adds that Hrebenakā€™s transfer out of his earlier job to the night shift position ā€œwas humiliating and viewed as punishment and a demotion by Plaintiff and his co-workers.ā€

The lawsuit, which requests a trial by jury, says, ā€œDefendantā€™s actions were willful and in bad faith, causing Plaintiff to suffer lost wages and benefits, and severe physical, mental, and emotional anguish.ā€

It calls for his reinstatement as director of the Division of School Safety or assignment to a similar position and $4.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages, including interest, attorneyā€™s fees, and court related costs.    

Lempert, Hrebenakā€™s attorney, said it was too soon to determine whether U.S. District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss, who is presiding over the case, will require the two parties to enter negotiations to reach an out-of-court settlement.

In past cases in which LGBTQ people have filed lawsuits against D.C. government agencies on grounds of discrimination or improper treatment, local LGBTQ activists have called on the D.C. government to reach a fair and reasonable settlement to address the concerns raised by those filing the lawsuits.

Richard Rosendall, former president of the D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, said he believes the city is ā€œin the wrongā€ on this case and should agree to a settlement if the judge calls for settlement negotiations.

ā€œIf anyone should be demoted, it is whoever decided to punish Captain Hrebenak for exercising his parental rights,ā€ Rosendall told the Blade. ā€œEqual protection means nothing if it is subject to arbitrary suspension at a supervisorā€™s whim,ā€ he said.

ā€œAdditionally, the rule of law is undermined when those sworn to enforce it act as if they are a law unto themselves,ā€ Rosendall said.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Va. House approves resolution to repeal marriage amendment

Two successive legislatures must approve proposal before it goes to voters

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

The Virginia House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a resolution that seeks to repeal a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The resolution that state Del. Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) introduced by a 58-35 vote margin. State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) has proposed an identical measure in the Virginia Senate.

Ebbin and Sickles are both 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.

The General Assembly in 2021 approved a resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment. It must pass in two successive legislatures before it can go to the ballot.

The Senate Privileges and Elections Committee on Tuesday advanced Ebbin’s resolution by a 10-4 vote margin. The House on Tuesday also approved resolutions that would enshrine reproductive rights and restore formerly incarcerated peopleā€™s right to vote in the state constitution.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular