District of Columbia
GLAA announces ratings for D.C. Council candidates
Janeese Lewis George, Robert White, Nate Fleming receive highest marks
GLAA D.C., formerly known as the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, announced on May 13 that it has awarded its highest ratings for D.C. Council candidates running in the city’s June 4 primary election to incumbent Council members Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) and Robert White (D-At-Large) and to Ward 7 Democratic candidate Nate Fleming.
On a rating scale of +10, the highest possible rating, to -10, the lowest rating, GLAA awarded ratings of +9.5 to Lewis George, + 9 to Robert White, and +8.5 to Fleming.
Fleming is one of 10 candidates running in the Democratic primary for the Ward 7 Council seat, which is being vacated by incumbent Council member and former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, who is not running for re-election. In addition to Fleming, GLAA issued ratings for seven other Ward 7 Democratic contenders who, like Fleming, returned a required GLAA candidate questionnaire.
The remaining two Ward 7 candidates were not rated under a GLAA policy adopted this year of not rating candidates that did not return the questionnaire, the responses to which GLAA uses to determine its ratings, according to GLAA President Tyrone Hanley. A statement accompanying the GLAA ratings shows that it rated 13 D.C. Council candidates – all Democrats — out of a total of 18 Council candidates on the June 4 primary ballot.
Ballot information released by the D.C. Board of Elections shows that only one Republican candidate and one Statehood Green Party candidate is running this year for a D.C. Council seat. GOP activist Nate Derenge is running for the Ward 8 seat held by incumbent Democrat Trayon White and Statehood Green Party candidate Darryl Moch is running for the At-Large Council seat held by Robert White.
GLAA shows in its ratings statement that neither Trayon White nor Derenge nor Moch returned the questionnaire, preventing them from being rated. However, one of two Democratic candidates running against Tryon White in the primary — Salim Aldofo — did return the questionnaire and received a rating of +5.5. The other Democratic candidate, Rahman Branch, did not return the questionnaire and was not rated. Trayon White has been a supporter on LGBTQ issues while serving on the Council.
GLAA President Hanley said GLAA this year decided to limit its ratings to candidates of all political parties running for D.C. Council seats. In addition to candidates running for an At-Large Council seat and Council seats in Wards 4, 7, and 8, the June 4 primary ballot includes candidates running for the D.C. Congressional Delegate seat, the Shadow U.S. House seat, and the Shadow U.S. Senate seat. GLAA chose not to issue ratings for those races, according to Hanley. He said during mayoral election years, GLAA rates all candidates for mayor.
The Capital Stonewall Democrats, D.C’s largest local LGBTQ political organization, was scheduled to release its endorsements of D.C. Council candidates and candidates for all other local D.C. races, including Congressional Delegate and Senate and House “shadow” races, at a May 21 endorsement event. The Blade will report on those endorsements in an upcoming story.
Like in all past years beginning in the early 1970s when GLAA began rating candidates in local D.C elections, the group has not rated federal candidates, including those running for U.S. president. Thus, it issued no rating this year for President Joe Biden and two lesser-known Democratic challengers appearing on the D.C. presidential primary ballot on June 4 – Marianne Williamson and Armando Perez-Serrato.
In the At-Large Council race, GLAA gave Robert White’s sole Democratic challenger, Rodney Red Grant, who returned the questionnaire, a rating of +3.5.
“The ratings are based solely on the issues and may not be interpreted as endorsements,” GLAA says in its statement accompanying the ratings. The statement says the ratings are based on the candidates’ response to the questionnaire, the questions for which GLAA says reflect the group’s positions on a wide range of issues as stated in a document it calls “A Loving Community: GLAA Policy Brief 2024.” It sends a link to that document to all candidates to whom it sends them the questionnaire and urges the candidate to seek out the brief “for guidance and clarification” in responding to the questions. GLAA says the ratings are also based on the candidates’ record on the issues GLAA deems of importance, including LGBTQ issues.
Like its questionnaire in recent years, this year’s nine-question questionnaire asks the candidates whether they would support mostly non-LGBTQ specific issues supported by GLAA, some of which are controversial. One of the questions asks the candidates, “Do you support enacting legislation to decriminalize sex work for adults, including the selling and purchasing of sex and third-party involvement not involving fraud, violence, and coercion?”
Another question asks if the candidates would support decriminalizing illegal drug use by supporting “removing the criminal penalties for drug possession for personal use and increasing investments in health services.” Other questions ask whether candidates would address “concentrated wealth in the District by raising revenue through taxing the most wealthy residents,” would they support funding for “harm reduction and overdose prevention services to save lives,” and would they support a Green New Deal for Housing bill pending before the D.C. Council that would “Socialize Our Housing” to address putting in place city subsidized housing for those in need.
One of the questions that might be considered LGBTQ specific asks whether candidates would support sufficient funding for the D.C. Office of Human Rights to ensure the office has enough staff members to adequately enforce the city’s nondiscrimination laws and to end a discrimination case backlog that the office sometimes encounters.
Some activists have criticized GLAA for not including more LGBTQ-specific questions in its questionnaire. Others have defended the questionnaire on grounds that D.C. long ago has passed a full range of LGBTQ supportive laws and most if not, all serious candidates running in D.C. for public office for the past 20 years or more have expressed strong support for LGBTQ equality. They argue that LGBTQ voters, while weighing the depth of support candidates have on LGBTQ issues, most of the time base their vote on a candidate’s record and position on non-LGBTQ issues when all candidates in a specific race are LGBTQ supportive.
Hanley told the Washington Blade GLAA believes the current questionnaire addresses the issues of importance to the largest number of LGBTQ D.C. residents.
“My response is that we care about whatever issues are impacting queer and trans people,” Hanley said. “We can’t isolate the challenges we are experiencing as queer and trans people to things that are specifically related to our identity as queer and trans people because they are all interconnected,” he said.
“So, how will I tell a Black trans woman we care about her not being discriminated against at her job for being trans, for being Black, or for being a woman, but we don’t care that she doesn’t have housing? Hanley asked. “To me, that seems like a very inhumane way of thinking about human beings because we are whole human beings,” he said, some of whom, he added, face a wide range of issues such as homelessness, drug issues, and “struggling to make ends meet.”
The GLAA statement that accompanies its ratings, which is posted on its website, includes links to each of the candidates’ questionnaire responses as well as an explanation of why it gave its specific rating to each of the candidates. In its explanation section GLAA says all the candidates expressed overall support for the LGBTQ community and expressed support for the concerns related to the issues raised by the questions even if they were not at this time ready to back some of the issues like decriminalization of sex work.
Following are the GLAA ratings given to 12 Democratic D.C. Council candidates and one “unknown” candidate that Hanley says submitted their questionnaire but did not reveal their identity on the questionnaire:
DC Council At-Large
Robert White: +9
Rodney Red Grant: +3.5
DC Council Ward 4
Janeese Lewis George: +9.5
DC Council Ward 7
Ebony-Rose Thompson: +4.5
Ebony Payne: +5
Kelvin Brown: +2.5
Nate Fleming: +8.5
Roscoe Grant Jr.: +3.5
Veda Rasheed: +5
Villareal VJ Johnson II: +4
Wendell Felder: +2
DC Council Ward 8
Salim Aldofo: +5.5
Unknown: +2
The full GLAA ratings, a breakdown of the ratings based on a GLAA rating criteria, the candidate questionnaire response, and GLAA’s explanation for each of its candidate ratings can be accessed at the GLAA website.
District of Columbia
Blade welcomes fall intern
Alexis McLean is student at University of North Florida
The Washington Blade this week welcomed Alexis McLean as its fall intern.
Alexis is studying political science at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Fla. She is interning with the Blade as part of a continued partnership with the Washington Center.
“I am looking forward to spending my time in the fall with the Washington Blade, as this is a new experience for me,” said Alexis. “I have not experienced any journalist jobs in the past so this would be my first time, and I am excited to better my writing and communications skills with this internship.”
Alexis’s internship with the Blade ends in early December.
District of Columbia
‘People don’t see me. They see a trend’
New popularity of all things Asian warps view of multiple cultures
As I was growing up, my parents often shared stories about how they were bullied when they were my age, just for being Asian. My mom is Cambodian and my dad is “Wasian,” Chinese and white. Students teased them for their looks, their homemade lunches, and treated their traditional holidays as jokes.
I once asked my mom when I was little if she could pack me dumpling leftovers for lunch. “Yes,” she said with a surprised look, adding, “I would have never wanted to bring dumplings to school when I was your age because I would always get bullied for them. I’m glad times have changed.”
At the time, I was confused. Whenever I brought a homemade Asian dish to school for lunch, I was happy to hear intriguing and curious questions from the other kids. It felt good to have my meal be popular and different from the Lunchables everyone else had.
Though times have changed, racism still continues. It just has a new face. Today, social media pretends to flatter our cultures in an insincere way trying to gain popularity just for clicks. Think anything from K-pop to Japan’s surge in international tourism. Even Starbucks has added drinks with the flavor of ube yam, native to the Philippines, onto its menu.
I feel that now when people see me, they don’t see me, they see a trend.
For years, Asian people have been portrayed as foreign or exotic. The new embrace of foods and fashion at first felt good. Asians have never been represented as much as they’ve deserved.
But this new popularity warps what non-Asians see. Instead of the blunt and direct racism my parents faced, everything now is a gray area, more discreetly hidden behind some TikTok video. It actually normalizes racism and stereotypes.
Whitewashing my culture
As a 15-year-old Asian American who lives in D.C., I’ve always been one of the few Asian kids in school; my high school today counts less than 2 percent of students as being of Asian descent. I remember always being called “that one Asian girl” or some slur a kid learned from their parents. Every time I search for something related to Asian culture, such as a recipe or maybe a holiday, it’s always the same thing: some white person whitewashing my culture.
Social media is the main culprit, of course. I realized this when I entered high school and got a phone and was introduced to the internet. That is when I realized how messed up the new stereotypes around Asians are.
One pattern I started to notice was people wanting to be Asian just because it was popular. It was hurtful, patronizing, and annoying. They made assumptions about our race and then only found us “cool” because we were trending. How can people go from hating us or finding us weird, to then only liking us because we’re popular?
There was a trend going around on TikTok called “race change to another” or RCTA. It is this trend of people manifesting certain physical traits to change their appearance in order to change races. According to journalist Emi Tran, writing then as an intern for NBC Digital, the trend started when a white woman wanted to be Japanese. The woman began posting TikTok videos of herself wishing for different features such as monolids. Tran wrote in that 2023 article that “the overwhelming majority of the RCTA community wants to be East Asian.”
People also look up to K-pop culture, idolizing the pop groups pulled together by big entertainment companies. Most people expect all Koreans to be K-pop fans. Korean friends are asked about K-pop all the time even though they are not into the South Korean music genre.
Although I am not South Korean — I am half Cambodian and Chinese — I still get asked, almost like I’m expected, “You’re really into this group, right?” or “Can you tell me how to pronounce this member’s name?”
I was asked even worse questions during COVID-19. Suddenly, discrimination and violence were increasing specifically toward Asians everywhere. Suddenly, almost everyone was blaming Chinese people for spreading and causing COVID-19.
I remember going to school for one of the last times before quarantine had started and hearing kids whisper, “Oh, she’s going to give us the Coronavirus.” President Donald Trump had publicly posted his opinions about the situation on social media, blaming China for the pandemic, even calling it the “Chinese Virus” or the “Wuhan Virus.” According to NPR, anti-Asian hate crimes in U.S. cities surged 149 percent that year.

The topic of Asians in the media has always been complicated. One moment people can hate us for being weird and different and the next we’re suddenly popular and cool for the same reasons.
I feel conflicted on whether I should feel happy that we’re being represented or angry that it’s all for the wrong reason and has the wrong effects.
Lily Brugman is a sophomore at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. She worked with YMG volunteer and Professor Emerita in journalism at American University Amy Eisman on this piece.
District of Columbia
Gay men linked to 2006 Wone murder failing to make lawsuit settlement payment
Stabbing death of D.C. attorney in house near Dupont Circle startled community
The wife of D.C. attorney Robert Wone, who was found stabbed to death on Aug. 2, 2006, in the Dupont Circle area home of three gay men, has filed a complaint in court accusing two of the men of failing to make the payments they promised to make to settle a $20 million wrongful death lawsuit the wife filed against them in 2008.
The court filings in D.C. Superior Court in May of this year by Katherine Wone provide new details of the lawsuit settlement related to a 20-year-old murder case that observers have compared to a murder mystery novel involving three gay men and the fatal stabbing of their friend whose wife insists was straight.
Court records and D.C. police reports show that Robert Wone was said to have arrived at the townhouse of his long-time college friend Joe Price after spending all day and part of the night working late at his downtown office at Radio Free Asia.
Price, a gay rights attorney at that time associated with the LGBTQ group Equality Virginia, and his partner Victor Zaborsky and their housemate Dylan Ward – who were also friends of Wone – said later that they invited Wone to spend the night in their guest bedroom so he wouldn’t have to drive home to Oakton, Va., where he and his wife lived, before having to return to work in D.C. the next morning.
Court records show that later that night D.C. police responded to a 911 emergency call made by Zaborsky to the gay men’s house at 1509 Swann Street, N.W. and found Wone stabbed to death on what appeared to be a neatly arranged bed.
The three men told police they were certain an intruder entered the house and stabbed Wone while they were asleep in their bedrooms. But homicide detectives reported that the crime scene appeared to have been cleaned up and possible evidence tampered with.
After the investigation dragged on for more than two years, prosecutors obtained an indictment against the three men on charges of obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and evidence tampering in connection with the Wone murder. No murder-related charges were brought, prompting legal observers to conclude that authorities didn’t have sufficient evidence to charge the men with murder.
But a detailed arrest affidavit filed and released at the time the charges were brought against the three gay men startled those who knew them and created a sensation in the surrounding community, especially the LGBTQ community.
Among other things, it said autopsy findings and physical evidence indicated that Wone had been restrained or immobilized by a paralytic drug before being stabbed. It said three stab wounds on Wone’s chest and abdomen were surgical in nature, with no indication that Wone moved or tried to defend himself while being stabbed.
In addition, the affidavit said the autopsy found needle marks on Wone’s body that were not made by emergency medical technicians that arrived on the scene and examined Wone.
At the advice of their attorneys, the three men chose to wave their right to a jury trial and requested that Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz preside over the trial and render the verdict. Following testimony by expert witnesses on both sides, after the men chose not to testify, and dramatic closing arguments by prosecutors and the defense attorneys, the judge found the men not guilty on all three charges.
In a lengthy written verdict, she read from the bench, Leibovitz said while she believed there was significant evidence implicating the defendants, there continued to be reasonable doubt on all charges against them. However, she said she did find that prosecutors established beyond probable cause that Wone was not murdered by an intruder who entered the house while the three men were asleep.
“Nevertheless, after lengthy analysis of the evidence, I conclude that the government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of obstruction of justice or evidence tampering,” Leibovitz said in delivering her verdict.
While greatly relieved by the not guilty verdict, Price, Zaborsky, and Ward were still facing a $20 million wrongful death lawsuit that Katherine Wone filed against them prior to their criminal trial. As the two sides prepared for a civil trial the defense team announced the three gay men would invoke their Fifth Amendment constitutional right to refuse to testify at the civil trial on grounds that their testimony could lead to self-incrimination.
Possibly because of that or other reasons, Katherine Wone announced that she and the three men had reached an out of court monetary settlement of the lawsuit, the terms of which would not be publicly disclosed.
In her recent court filings in May on behalf of the Estate of Robert Wone, which were filed against Price and Zaborsky but not against Ward, Katherine Wone charges the two men with failing to pay thousands of dollars as part of the settlement agreement. Separate complaints she filed against them disclose for the first time that Price had agreed to an $80,000 settlement amount in 2011 to be paid through monthly installments over the next 20 years.
The non-payment complaint filed against Zaborsky by Wone states that he had agreed to a settlement in 2011 of $66,000 also to be paid over 20 years in 240 monthly payments.
Although the initially filed $20 million lawsuit also named Dylan Ward as a defendant, court records do not show any complaint filing against Ward for nonpayment, leading some observers to speculate that Ward may have already paid the full sum of whatever amount Wone’s lawsuit sought from him.
The Washington Post has reported that court filings show that as of May 29 of this year, Price owed $56,893.75 and Zaborsky owed $31,753.75 in missed payments and bounced checks plus fees and interest.
The two complaints filed by Wone against the two men also state that the settlement agreement they signed allows the Wone estate to call for the “immediate” payment of the entire amount they agreed to pay if they default on their monthly payments.
Court records show that a “remote scheduling conference” before a debt collection judge was scheduled to take place in D.C. Superior Court on Sept. 22.
Price, Zaborsky, and Ward have declined to respond to press inquiries including inquiries from the Washington Blade regarding the criminal trial and lawsuit. The non-payment complaints filed by Katherine Wone show that Price’s current residence is in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. and Zaborsky now resides in Tamarac, Fla.
News of the latest complaints filed against Price and Zaborsky for nonpayment of the lawsuit settlement payments was first reported on Aug. 2 by the website called Who Murdered Robert Wone, which was created by four gay men shortly after Wone’s 2006 murder.
“We’re left to wonder if the threesome, or whoever remains of it now, will ever come clean on what they know and may have done,” Craig Brownstein, one of the men who created the website stated in the Aug. 2 posting. “The optimists will hope for a confession of some sort, an explanation, the pessimists are convinced they’ll take their secrets to the grave,” Brownstein wrote. “Time will tell.”
-
Out & About4 days agoBlade Foundation to host fundraiser in Rehoboth on Sept. 12
-
Books4 days agoNew book examines fashionista Audrey Smaltz’s fabulous life
-
Theater4 days agoActress takes on bisexual ‘Ma’ Rainey in new Round House production
-
Iceland3 days agoIceland implements gender-neutral blood donor rules
