D.C. police announced on Feb. 9 that they had arrested two days earlier on Feb. 7 a Germantown, Md., man on a charge of simple assault with a hate crime designation after the man allegedly assaulted a gay man at 14^th and Q Streets, N.W., while using “homophobic slurs.”

But D.C. Superior Court records show that prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes D.C. violent crime cases, charged the arrested man only with simple assault without a hate crime designation.

In response to a request by the Washington Blade for the reason why the hate crime designation was dropped, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office provided this response: “We continue to investigate this matter and make no mistake: should the evidence call for further charges, we will not hesitate to charge them.” 

In a statement announcing the arrest in this case, D.C. police stated, “On Saturday, February 7, 2026, at approximately 7:45 p.m. the victim and suspect were in the 1500 block of 14^th Street, Northwest. The suspect requested a ‘high five’ from the victim. The victim declined and continued walking,” the statement says.

“The suspect assaulted the victim and used homophobic slurs,” the police statement continues. “The suspect was apprehended by responding officers.”

It adds that 26-year-old Dean Edmundson of Germantown, Md. “was arrested and charged with Simple Assault (Hate/Bias).” The statement also adds, “A designation as a hate crime by MPD does not mean that prosecutors will prosecute it as a hate crime.”

Under D.C.’s Bias Related Crime Act of 1989, penalties for crimes motivated by prejudice against individuals based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and homelessness can be enhanced by a court upon conviction by one and a half times greater than the penalty of the underlying crime.

Prosecutors in the past both in D.C. and other states have said they sometimes decide not to include a hate crime designation in assault cases if they don’t think the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction by a jury. In some instances, prosecutors have said they were concerned that a skeptical jury might decide to find a defendant not guilty of the underlying assault charge if they did not believe a motive of hate was involved.

A more detailed arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in Superior Court appears to support the charge of a hate crime designation.

“The victim stated that they refused to High-Five Defendant Edmondson, which, upon that happening, Defendant Edmondson started walking behind both the victim and witness, calling the victim, “bald, ugly, and gay,” the arrest affidavit states.

“The victim stated that upon being called that, Defendant Edmundson pushed the victim with both hands, shoving them, causing the victim to feel the force of the push,” the affidavit continues. “The victim stated that they felt offended and that they were also gay,” it says.

Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.

During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.

“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”

The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.

While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.

Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.

In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.

Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.

“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”

“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”

When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.

“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”

Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”

“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”

“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.

“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”

Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.

“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”

Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.

“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”

Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.

“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”

Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.

“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”

The Philippines Supreme Court in a landmark ruling said same-sex couples can co-own property under the country’s Family Code.

The Philippine News Agency on Tuesday notes the court issued its ruling in the case of two women who bought a house in Quezon City, a suburb of Manila, the Filipino capital, before they broke up.

The two women, according to the Philippine News Agency, “agreed to sell the property” after they ended their relationship, “and the registered owner — the respondent — signed a document acknowledging that the other partner paid for half of the purchase and renovations.” The Philippine News Agency notes “the registered owner” later “refused to sell the property and withdrew her earlier acknowledgment of co-ownership, prompting the other partner to file a complaint.”

A Regional Trial Court and the Philippines Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court in a 14-page ruling it issued on Feb. 5 overturned the decisions. The Supreme Court published its decision on Tuesday.

“Considering that there is co-ownership between petitioner and respondent, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned,” said the Supreme Court in its ruling, according to the Philippine News Agency. “Having rightful interest over the subject property, petitioner has the right to demand the division of the subject property.”

The predominantly Catholic country’s Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.” It also states in Article 148 that “in cases of cohabitation” outside of marriage, “only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.”

“In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal,” it reads.

The BBC reported the Supreme Court ruling states this provision “applies to all forms of co-habitation,” regardless of the couple’s gender. A Supreme Court press release indicates the decision notes lawmakers and the Filipino government “must address same-sex couples’ rights, as courts alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns.”

“This court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” it reads. “With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments, especially the Congress must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms.”

LGBT Pilipinas, a Filipino advocacy group, welcomed the ruling.

“This ruling marks a monumental step forward in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ families and relationships in the country,” it said in a statement.

LGBT Pilipinas added the ruling “lays a crucial legal foundation for broader recognition of same-sex relationships and strengthens the push for comprehensive anti-discrimination protections.”

“This is a win not only for the LGBTQ+ community, but for fairness and justice in Philippine society as a whole,” said the group.