Local
O’Malley defends marriage bill at Md. House hearing
Dozens testify for and against Civil Marriage Protection Act

Gov. Martin O'Malley testifies before the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee in favor of the Civil Marriage Protection Act. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley remained firm in his support for a bill to legalize same-sex marriage Friday during a contentious joint hearing on the bill before two committees of the state’s House of Delegates.
After O’Malley and two prominent black ministers testified in support of the bill, the three were grilled with questions by two of the bill’s strongest opponents, Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) and Del. Neil Parrott (R-Washington County).
The two delegates disputed O’Malley’s claim that the bill would protect the religious rights of those who say same-sex marriage conflicts with their faith and asked the governor to support new language in the bill that would clear it for an immediate voter referendum.
“I think the people have already spoken in a real sense by sending each of you here to make the decision on this issue,” O’Malley said in response to the delegates’ calls for a referendum.
“It is not right or just that the children of gay couples should have lesser protections than the children of other families in our state,” he said in his testimony in support of the bill. “Nor would it be right to force religious institutions to conduct marriages that conflict with their own religious beliefs and teachings.”
He added, “This bill balances equal protection of individual civil marriage rights with the important protection of religious freedom for all.”
O’Malley and the two ministers who sat beside him at the witness table, Rev. Delman Coates, pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, Md., and Rev. Donte Hickman Sr., pastor of Southern Baptist Church in Baltimore, were the first three of dozens of witnesses expected to testify at the hearing.
The hearing, which was conducted jointly by the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee and Health and Government Operations Committee, began at 1:15 p.m. and lasted until close to 11 p.m.
Some witnesses opposing the bill expressed concern that House Speaker Michael Busch broke tradition by adding the Health and Government Operations panel to join the Judiciary Committee in overseeing the bill after determining that support for the bill in the Judiciary panel was waning and supporters may not have the votes in the committee to send it to the House floor.
Under House rules, the bill would be sent to the full House for a vote if one of the two committees votes to approve it.
Dwyer and Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County), one of the strongest opponents of same-sex marriage in the legislature, came to the witness table to testify as the first opposing witnesses at the hearing.
While speaking as a witness, Dwyer presented a documentary style video to the committee that alleged that legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts forced school children to undergo “indoctrination” in public schools on homosexuality.
The video included an interview of the father of an elementary school student who said he was arrested and jailed for staging a one-person protest against the school policy.
Same-sex marriage supporters in Massachusetts and Maryland have characterized as untrue claims that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to school curriculum changes. They say curricular changes to address issues of sexual orientation in Massachusetts were under consideration before same-sex marriage became legal in the state and would likely have been adopted even if Massachusetts didn’t legalize same-sex marriage.
Del. Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County), one of seven out gay members of the Maryland Legislature, disputed Dwyer and Parrott on the school curriculum question during the hearing, saying “not a syllable” could be found in the Civil Marriage Protection Act that would change school curricula.
Burns, in referring to O’Malley’s contention that the marriage bill protects religious freedom, called such a claim irrelevant, saying legal recognition of same-sex marriage would be a disaster for children, families and all people of faith in the state.
“I don’t want your protections,” he said. “I don’t need your protections. I don’t want the bill.”
Similar to a hearing held on the marriage bill on Jan. 31 by the State Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee, many of the same witnesses, including ministers and other clergy, testified on Friday and appeared to be evenly divided, with more than a dozen clergy members testifying on both sides of the issue.
“Regarding the rite of marriage, the practice of our local church is rooted in our understanding of the history and etymology of the term matrimony,” said Rev. Coats, who testified in favor of the bill at O’Malley’s side. “Therefore, wedding ceremonies witnessed and presided over at our church acknowledge the union of a man and a woman in a sacred ceremony,” he said.
“With that said, I am here today to express my full support of the proposed Civil Marriage Protection Act as proposed by the governor,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, I believe it is the obligation of the state to insure that all of her citizens are protected equally under the law.”
Hickman said, he too, believes the bill adequately distinguishes civil marriages from religious marriages.
“I believe that marriage is a God-ordained, spiritual and mystical union between a Christian man and a Christian woman,” he said. But he added, “I support the Civil Marriage Protection Act because it is civil and not religious. And as a matter of public policy and human rights it doesn’t threaten my religious convictions nor does it obligate me or my church to officiate or promulgate same-sex marriages.”
O’Malley appeared to respond with caution to Parrott’s repeated questions about whether a same-sex marriage bill in Maryland would lead to the teaching of homosexuality to elementary school students in the state’s public schools.
“In Massachusetts this same bill forced teachers to teach same-sex marriage to their students even when it violated their own religious beliefs,” Parrott told the governor. “Are you OK with that in this bill?”
“No, and I don’t believe that’s what this bill does,” O’Malley said.
“Historically, parents do not have the right to pull their kids out of classes when it violates their religious teachings regarding marriage and family,” Parrott said. “Actually some of them have gone to jail in Massachusetts. Are you OK with that consequence to this bill?”
“No, I’m not aware of that and that is not in this bill,” O’Malley replied. “There are specific, clear prohibitions against forcing any religion to change or teach things that are contrary to its religious beliefs.”
Parrott ended the exchange by asking O’Malley if he would be inclined to amend the bill to “specifically protect students, teachers and parents so that [homosexuality] is not taught in the school system.”
O’Malley replied, “I think that anything that reinforces the inalienable and indispensible right of the free exercise of religions and individual conscience is a good thing.”
The governor’s press spokesperson couldn’t be immediately reached to clarify whether O’Malley was suggesting he might support new language in the bill to ban the teaching of gay-related subjects in the state’s school system.
Rehoboth Beach
Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale but owners aim to keep it in gay-friendly hands
$4.5 million listing includes real estate; business sold separately
Gay gasps could be heard around the DMV earlier this week when a real estate listing for Rehoboth Beach’s iconic Blue Moon bar and restaurant hit social media.
Take a breath. The Moon is for sale but the longtime owners are not in a hurry and are committed to preserving its legacy as a gay-friendly space.
“We had no idea the interest this would create,” Tim Ragan, one of the owners, told the Blade this week. “I guess I was a little naive about that.”
Ragan explained that he and longtime partner Randy Haney are separating the real estate from the business. The two buildings associated with the sale are listed by Carrie Lingo at 35 Baltimore Ave., and include an apartment, the front restaurant (6,600 square feet with three floors and a basement), and a secondary building (roughly 1,800 square feet on two floors). They are listed for $4.5 million.
The bar and restaurant business is being sold separately; the price has not been publicly disclosed.
But Ragan, who has owned the Moon for 20 years, told the Blade nothing is imminent and that the Moon remains open through the holidays and is scheduled to reopen for the 2026 season on Feb. 10. He has already scheduled some 2026 entertainment.
“It’s time to look for the next people who can continue the history of the Moon and cultivate the next chapter,” Ragan said, noting that he turns 70 next year. “We’re not panicked; we separated the building from the business. Some buyers can’t afford both.”
He said there have been many inquiries and they’ve considered some offers but nothing is firm yet.
Given the Moon’s pioneering role in queering Rehoboth Beach since its debut 44 years ago in 1981, many LGBTQ visitors and residents are concerned about losing such an iconic queer space to redevelopment or chain ownership.
“That’s the No. 1 consideration,” Ragan said, “preserving a commitment to the gay community and honoring its history. The legacy needs to continue.” He added that they are not inclined to sell to one of the local restaurant chains.
You can view the real estate listing here.
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
Congratulations to Tristan Fitzpatrick on his new position as Digital Communications Manager with TerraPower. TerraPower creates technologies to provide safe, affordable, and abundant carbon-free energy. They devise ways to use heat and electricity to drive economic growth while decarbonizing industry.
Fitzpatrick’s most recent position was as Senior Communications Consultant with APCO in Washington, D.C. He led integrated communications campaigns at the fourth-largest public relations firm in the United States, increasing share of voice by 10 percent on average for clients in the climate, energy, health, manufacturing, and the technology. Prior to that he was a journalist and social media coordinator with Science Node in Bloomington, Ind.
Fitzpatrick earned his bachelor’s degree in journalism with a concentration in public relations, from Indiana University.
Congratulations also to the newly elected board of Q Street. Rob Curis, Abigail Harris, Yesenia Henninger, Stu Malec, and David Reid. Four of them reelected, and the new member is Harris.
Q Street is the nonprofit, nonpartisan, professional association of LGBTQ+ policy and political professionals, including lobbyists and public policy advocates. Founded in 2003 on the heels of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Lawrence v. Texas, when there was renewed hope for advancing the rights of the LGBTQ community in Washington. Q Street was formed to be the bridge between LGBTQ advocacy organizations, LGBTQ lobbyists on K Street, and colleagues and allies on Capitol Hill.
District of Columbia
New queer bar Rush beset by troubles; liquor license suspended
Staff claim they haven’t been paid, turn to GoFundMe as holidays approach
The D.C. Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 issued an order suspending the liquor license for the recently opened LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush on grounds that it failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.
Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 2001 14 Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker.
It describes itself on its website as offering “art-pop aesthetics, high-energy nights” in a space that “celebrates queer culture without holding back.” It includes a large dance floor and a lounge area with sofas and chairs.
Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, did not immediately respond to a phone message from the Washington Blade seeking his comment on the license suspension.
The ABC Board’s order states, “The basis for this Order is that a review of the Board’s official records by the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) has determined that the Respondent’s renewal payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”
The three-page order adds, “Notwithstanding ABCA’s efforts to notify the Respondent of the renewal payment check return, the Respondent failed to pay the license fee for the period of 2025 to 2026 for its Retailer’s Class CT license. Therefore, the Respondent’s license has been SUSPENDED until the Respondent pays the license fees and the $50.00 per day fine imposed by the Board for late payment.”
ABCA spokesperson Mary McNamara told the Blade that the check from Rush that was returned without payment was for $12,687, which she said was based on Rush’s decision to pay the license fee for four years. She said that for Rush to get its liquor license reinstated it must now pay $3,819 for a one-year license fee plus a $100 bounced check fee, a $750 late fee, and $230 transfer fee, at a total of $4,919 due.
Under D.C. law, bars, restaurants and other businesses that normally serve alcoholic beverages can remain open without a city liquor license as long as they do not sell or serve alcohol.
But D.C. drag performer John Marsh, who performs under the name Cake Pop and who is among the Rush employees, said Rush did not open on Wednesday, Dec. 17, the day the liquor board order was issued. He said that when it first opened, Rush limited its operating days from Wednesday through Sunday and was not open Mondays and Tuesdays.
Marsh also said none of the Rush employees received what was to be their first monthly salary payment on Dec. 15. He said approximately 20 employees set up a GoFundMe fundraising site to raise money to help sustain them during the holiday period after assuming they will not be paid.
He said he doubted that any of the employees would return to work in the unlikely case that Mosley would attempt to reopen Rush without serving liquor or if he were to pay the licensing fee to allow him to resume serving alcohol without having received their salary payment.
As if all that were not enough, Mosley would be facing yet another less serious problem related to the Rush policy of not accepting cash payments from customers and only accepting credit card payments. A D.C. law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2025, prohibits retail businesses such as restaurants and bars from not accepting cash payments.
A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, which is in charge of enforcing that law, couldn’t immediately be reached to determine what the penalty is for a violation of the law requiring that type of business to accept cash payments.
The employee GoFundMe site, which includes messages from several of the employees, can be accessed here.
Mosley on Thursday responded to the reports about his business with a statement on the Rush website.
He claims that employees were not paid because of a “tax-related mismatch between federal and District records” and that some performers were later paid. He offers a convoluted explanation as to why payroll wasn’t processed after the tax issue was resolved, claiming the bank issued paper checks.
“After contacting our payroll provider and bank, it was determined that electronic funds had been halted overnight,” according to the statement. “The only parties capable of doing so were the managers of the outside investment syndicate that agreed to handle our stabilization over the course of the initial three months in business.”
Mosley further said he has not left the D.C. area and denounced “rumors” spread by a former employee. He disputes the ABCA assertion that the Rush liquor license was suspended due to a “bounced check.” Mosley ends his post by insisting that Rush will reopen, though he did not provide a reopening date.
