Living
Orange wins race for at-large Council seat
Mara, Weaver capture ‘gay’ precincts
Democrat Vincent Orange won the race for an at-large D.C. Council seat in the city’s special election on Tuesday, defeating eight rivals, including interim Democratic Council member Sekou Biddle, who received the backing of most LGBT leaders.
In a development that suggests rank-and-file LGBT voters may have rejected the advice of gay leaders, Biddle lost by lopsided margins to pro-gay Republican Patrick Mara in seven of the city’s 14 precincts identified as having high concentrations of LGBT residents.
Pro-gay Democratic candidate Bryan Weaver trounced Biddle in another five of those precincts in neighborhoods in Ward 1, which is Weaver’s home base. Orange won in the remaining two precincts — in Anacostia and the Southwest Waterfront — which are believed to have a significant number of black LGBT residents.
Gay activist Bob Summersgill, a former president of the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, said the small voter turnout in the election of slightly more than 12 percent of the city’s registered voters makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the LGBT vote.
“With a dismally low turnout, I don’t think there was a gay bloc of voters,” he said. “Most of the candidates were lackluster on our issues and were closely grouped in the mediocre range.”
Summersgill was referring to GLAA’s ratings of the candidates.
Robert Turner, president of Log Cabin Republicans of D.C., which endorsed Mara, disagreed with Summersgill’s assessment. He said Mara’s strong showing in precincts with high concentrations of LGBT residents show that they are not permanently tied to Democratic candidates.
“When presented with a viable alternative, our community is not monolithic,” he said.
Final but unofficial returns released Tuesday night by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics show Orange receiving 28 percent of the vote. Mara came in second with 26 percent. Biddle came in third with 20 percent, with Weaver coming in fourth place with 13 percent.
Democrat Joshua Lopez, who also expressed strong support on LGBT issues, received 7 percent. The remaining four candidates — Democrats Tom Brown and Dorothy Douglas; Statehood Green Party candidate Alan Page; and independent Arkan Haile — received a combined total of less than 5 percent.
Orange, who came out against same-sex marriage when he ran for mayor in 2006, reversed his position on the issue last year, saying he now supports the city’s marriage equality law. He pointed to what he called his strong pro-LGBT record during his tenure as a Ward 5 Council member from 1997 to 2007 on LGBT issues other than marriage equality.
In the weeks leading up to the election, Orange campaigned in many of the city’s gay bars. He received applause when he spoke earlier this month to a crowd attending a drag show at the Southwest gay nightclub Ziegfeld’s. Last week he hosted a meet-and-greet reception at the gay sports bar Nellie’s on U Street, N.W.
A number of LGBT activists backed his candidacy, including veteran gay Democratic and Ward 8 civic activist Phil Pannell, who was trailing in his own race on Tuesday for a Ward 8 school board seat.
Biddle received the endorsement of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, the city’s largest LGBT political group, and was backed by most of the city’s prominent LGBT activist leaders. He spoke out in support of LGBT-related issues in the city’s public schools during his tenure as a Ward 4 school board member.
He also received endorsements from Mayor Vincent Gray, Council Chair Kwame Brown, and seven other Council members, including gay Council member David Catania (I-At-Large).
Some political observers said Biddle, who had the reputation of a good-government reformist and progressive candidate, suffered when Gray and Brown came under scrutiny over allegations of cronyism and abuse of government perks.
Gray became embroiled over allegations that a few of his high-level appointees hired family members to high-paying city jobs and that one of his top officials hired a former mayoral candidate to a high paying city job as a quid pro quo for helping Gray in the mayoral race.
Brown came under criticism for arranging for the city to purchase two “fully loaded” Lincoln SUVs for his use as Council chair. He later announced he would seek to return the vehicles after expressions of outrage poured in from constituents and media commentators.
With that as a backdrop, many voters – both gay and straight – may have perceived Biddle as the candidate of the entrenched political establishment at a time when city residents were becoming impatient with “business as usual” by city government leaders, according to City Hall observers.
In January, the D.C. Democratic State Committee voted to appoint Biddle as the interim at-large Council member to temporarily hold the seat vacated by Democrat Kwame Brown, who won election last November as Council chair.
Lateefah Williams, president of the Stein Club, said she doesn’t believe “rank and file” LGBT voters rejected the recommendations of the LGBT activist leaders who backed Biddle.
“The turnout in this election was too low to use it as a barometer to assess the impact of the endorsement of LGBT activists, including the Stein Club,” she said. “In the last Democratic primary, which for D.C.’s purposes is the election, eight of the nine Stein-endorsed candidates prevailed. So that indicates that the unique circumstances surrounding this race had a huge impact on the results.”
Like other activists commenting on Tuesday’s election, Williams said Biddle most likely was “a casualty of the prevailing sentiment against many of our locally elected officials.”
Biddle, Orange, Weaver and Mara each spoke out in support of LGBT and AIDS-related issues during the campaign. So did most of the other five candidates in the race; no one spoke against LGBT rights.
Similar to the city’s Democratic primary election last year in which Gray defeated former Mayor Adrian Fenty, voters in Tuesday’s special D.C. Council election appear to have divided along racial lines.
Mara, who is white, won by a significant margin in the majority white Wards 2, 3 and 6. Weaver, who is also white, won by a large margin in Ward 1, in which whites have a slight majority.
Orange, who is black, won by lopsided margins in majority black Wards 4, 5, 7, and 8.
All but one of the LGBT-oriented precincts are in majority white Wards 1, 2 and 6. Activists familiar with demographic trends in the city’s LGBT community point out that black LGBT residents tend to be dispersed throughout the city as well as within the majority black wards, making it difficult to accurately determine how they vote.
Precinct 112 in Anacostia is believed to have a high concentration of black gays living in various high-rise apartment buildings. Precinct 127, located in the Southwest Waterfront neighborhood, is believed to have a significant number of black LGBT professionals, many of whom reportedly work in nearby federal government offices.
Orange won Precinct 112 with 58 percent of the vote, with Biddle coming in second with just 17 percent. Mara received 4 percent and Weaver received 2 percent.
The vote breakdown in Precinct 127 was closer, with Orange winning with 31 percent and Biddle finishing second with 27 percent. Mara finished third in the precinct with 21 percent and Weaver received 10 percent.
Following is the vote breakdown of the leading four candidates in the race in other precincts with high concentrations of LGBT residents. Percentages are rounded:
• Precinct 14 (Dupont Circle): Mara, 50 percent; Weaver, 21 percent; Biddle, 18 percent; Orange, 4 percent.
• Precinct 15 (Dupont Circle): Mara, 39 percent; Weaver 25 percent; 21 percent; Orange, 5 percent.
• Precinct 16 (Logan Circle): Mara, 46 percent; Weaver 18 percent; Biddle, 14 percent; Orange, 8 percent.
• Precinct 17 (Logan Circle): Mara, 41 percent; Biddle, 19 percent; Weaver, 18 percent; Orange, 13 percent.
• Precinct 18 (Shaw): Mara, 25 percent (94 votes); Orange, 25 percent (91 votes); Weaver, 23 percent; Biddle, 16 percent.
• Precinct 22 (14th and U Street, N.W. corridor): Weaver, 33 percent; Mara, 32 percent; Biddle, 19 percent; Orange, 10 percent.
• Precinct 23 (U Street-Columbia Heights): Weaver, 35 percent; Mara, 20 percent; Biddle, 15 percent; Orange, 12 percent.
• Precinct 24 (Adams Morgan): Weaver, 43 percent; Mara, 21 percent; Biddle, 17 percent; Orange, 11 percent.
• Precinct 25 (Adams Morgan): Weaver, 41 percent; Mara, 33 percent; Biddle, 15 percent; Orange, 4 percent.
• Precinct 36 (Columbia Heights): Weaver, 36 percent; Mara, 18 percent (69 votes); Orange, 18 percent (69 votes); Biddle, 14 percent.
• Precinct 89 (Capitol Hill): Mara, 55 percent; Biddle, 16 percent (104 votes); Weaver, 16 percent, 103 votes); Lopez, 7 percent; Orange, 4 percent.
• Precinct 90 (Capitol Hill): Mara, 45 percent; Lopez, 18 percent (55 votes); Weaver, 18 percent (53 votes); Biddle, 14 percent; Orange, 5 percent.
Real Estate
‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’
Real estate agents must adapt, learn how to manage from within
“Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast” was a phrase often repeated in many of my management courses from the University of Illinois. The concept was discussed at length – how the best laid plans can sometimes be supported or derailed by the culture of the people involved in whichever project to be implemented. Whether it be a project to implement new software, roll out a new product or service, or just reaching a sales target, the way the team involved works together can indeed affect the outcome.
Perhaps this is just another way to say, “teamwork makes the dream work!” Most teams usually have someone who is designated as a leader. The leader can try to lead through authority and control or can alternatively try to lead through influence and encouraging a more collective framework for solving problems.
Why does this matter when picking the right real estate agent or team to work with? Besides having a job as a salesperson for the brokerage, the real estate agent is contractually bound to act on their client’s behalf. The buyer broker agreement is in place so that the agent and the client can work together as a team in communications regarding offer strategy, during negotiations, implementing marketing plans, as well as selecting which renovations or upgrades to choose before selling a property. After the property goes under contract, the job isn’t “done”. There is still work to do.
At this point, the agents then turn into a project manager of sorts – coordinating communications between the lending team, the title attorneys, the other client’s agents, any governmental agencies that could be involved in down payment assistance or helping to clear a property for a sale, and often times groups like a condo board, a home inspector, or contractors when arranging repairs and estimates before a final walk through.
In short, the agent takes on somewhat of a “leadership role” in the transaction and ensures that all the ducks stay in a row until the project is complete. That agent will hopefully be very fluid and forthcoming with their information, copying the required parties on all communications and creating a “paper trail” of who said what or didn’t offer to fix A, B, or C, so that all the minutiae of the contract can be addressed and fulfilled before the settlement date. The agent often must wear many hats and quickly learn the communication styles of an entire new set of people in a short period. One person may not return calls for a week after being contacted. Another person may go on vacation at the beginning of the process and not return emails for two weeks. Another person may wish to have daily updates of the progress of the process.
In this way – an agent quickly learns in each transaction that “culture can eat strategy for breakfast.” Because the agent must adapt to a wide variety of communication styles, learn how to “manage from within”, build support for closing the project by the due date, and somehow keep all the interested parties invested, engaged, and responsive.
Who you work with matters when picking the right person to represent you in your next transaction – so, just remember that “teamwork makes the dream work!”
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with RLAH. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Dear Michael,
I’ve been dating Mark for three years, living together for two, and I’m not sure he’s for me. We get along great but I’m questioning how attracted I am to him.
I was never crazy about him physically but he was such a sweet and smart guy that I wanted to date him.
Sex was never mind-blowing and the longer we’ve been together the more this is bothering me. I wonder if I could find someone who appeals to me more, physically.
On the plus side, I like him a lot. He has good values, shares my religious faith, which is hard to find in another gay guy, is responsible and has a good work ethic. Also, I just have fun with him and he’s always interested to hear what’s on my mind. He’s an all-around decent guy.
As I’m writing this, I’m thinking that he seems great and that I’m a fool for even questioning our relationship. But all my friends are always talking about the amazing sex they are having, and then I think I’m missing out on a key part of life because my sex life is comparatively lackluster.
I don’t want to settle. But how likely am I to find another guy who is as all-around a good catch as Mark, but with more sexual chemistry?
Michael replies:
I don’t think the right approach is to wonder about your chances for of finding someone better. Anyone you find will have things you aren’t crazy about.
For example, you might find someone whom you’re wildly attracted to sexually, but they’ll bore you or annoy you, or have values you don’t respect.
I understand that you aren’t wildly sexually attracted to Mark. The truth is that it’s extremely unlikely that you would remain wildly sexually attracted to anyone for that long. People tend to get used to each other over time. Sex can remain great, but more from closeness and love than heat and sizzle.
I work with people all the time who wonder if there is someone “better” out there. And I tell them, they’re never going to get through all the possibilities before they die. Instead, how about thinking if the guy you are with is someone you’d like to go with on this journey through life?
Mark’s attributes that you mention sound wonderful to me. After more than 30 years working with folks on relationships, and being in my own 30+ year relationship, I have learned a thing or two about what creates a relationship that is satisfying and good. A decent, kind guy with admirable values is an excellent start.
The question is, can you live with your sex life not being on an orgasmically hot mind-blowing level? I hope the answer is yes, because sex with anyone you pick is not likely to stay in that sort of realm for long.
Another point to consider: I don’t think you should get too caught up in what your friends are telling you. They may be having amazing sex, but are they all having it with the same long-term partner? As I mentioned, long-term sex can be great, but the excitement tends to be replaced by caring connection over time.
I’ll generalize here for a moment: Because so many gay men have many sexual partners, the kind of sex you have with someone new, whom you’re tremendously attracted to, tends to be glorified among gay men as the gold standard of sex. But it’s not realistic for sex with a long-term partner.
This glorification is a big problem: It leaves gay men who are not having torrid sex with lots of guys feeling like there is something wrong with the sex they are having, that they are missing out on something super fantastic. Just like you are feeling.
If you want a lifetime of ongoing hot sex, I don’t think you should be looking for a relationship. If you are willing to accept sex being a not-always fantastic, but perhaps consistently loving, often good, and occasionally great part of life with a kind decent guy, then Mark might just be the right partner for you after all.
(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and all PSYPACT states. He can be found at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)
Real Estate
Does Pride decor resemble Trump’s design aesthetic?
Glitter, gold, and rejecting the idea that a home should be understated
Interior design is often a balancing act between taste, personality, and restraint. Sometimes, however, restraint leaves the building entirely. Such is the case when the colorful exuberance of gay Pride-inspired decorating collides with the famously excessive decorating style associated with the current occupant of the White House. The result can be a fascinating study in maximalism, spectacle, and unapologetic visual overload.
Donald Trump’s personal decorating style has long been a subject of debate among designers and critics. Admirers see luxury and grandeur. Critics see something else: a dizzying display of gold leaf, marble, mirrors, crystal, and oversized furnishings that often crosses the line from elegant into what many designers would call tacky. More is rarely enough. If one chandelier sparkles, three are better. If a room has gold accents, why not make every available surface gold? (See Oval Office and ballroom rendition for details.)
In many ways, this excess shares common ground with certain Pride celebrations. Pride has never been about blending into the background. It celebrates visibility, self-expression, individuality, and joy. Rainbow colors, dramatic costumes, glitter, flamboyant artwork, and bold statements have long been part of Pride culture. Yet there is an important difference. Pride’s extravagance is often playful, self-aware, and rooted in personal expression, while Trump’s aesthetic has frequently been criticized for equating luxury with sheer quantity and visual intensity.
Combining these influences creates an interior that could best be described as “glamorous chaos.”
Imagine entering a living room in which gold-trimmed mirrors stretch from floor to ceiling. Crystal chandeliers hang above a bright rainbow velvet sectional. Marble floors gleam beneath metallic furniture that appears determined to reflect every available light source. Pride flags become framed artwork surrounded by ornate gold moldings. A room designed this way doesn’t whisper. It shouts.
Color is central to the concept. Pride-inspired interiors often embrace the full spectrum of colors. Trump’s style, meanwhile, traditionally favors cream, gold, black, and glossy finishes. Combining them means introducing vivid jewel tones against a backdrop of faux-palatial luxury. Emerald green chairs, ruby-red draperies, sapphire-blue accent walls, and gold-trimmed furniture can coexist in a way that feels deliberately theatrical.
The key word is theatrical.
Many professional designers spend years learning how to create visual balance. A Pride-meets-Trump interior intentionally ignores many of those rules. Pattern competes with pattern. Shine competes with shine. Artwork competes with furniture. The eye rarely gets a chance to rest. For some homeowners, that sounds exhausting. For others, it sounds like the perfect party.
Lighting offers another opportunity to embrace excess. Crystal chandeliers, mirrored lamps, illuminated shelves, and color-changing LED lighting can transform a room into something resembling a cross between a luxury hotel lobby and a Pride festival. The goal is not subtlety. The goal is spectacle.
A dining room inspired by this combination might feature a massive glass table, gold dining chairs, rainbow floral arrangements, mirrored walls, and enough crystal accessories to keep a polishing cloth busy year-round. Critics would call it gaudy. Fans would call it fabulous.
Artwork becomes particularly important. Pride-themed pieces featuring LGBTQ+ history, activism, and culture can provide meaning beneath the decorative excess. Without these personal and cultural elements, the room risks becoming little more than a collection of expensive looking, but not necessarily expensive, objects. Pride design can work best when it reflects identity and community rather than simply displaying color for color’s sake.
While normally a haven for restful sleep, bedrooms can take a similar approach. Plush velvet fabrics, oversized tufted headboards, metallic and mirrored finishes, colorful accent lighting, and dramatic artwork create a space that feels more like a boutique hotel suite than a traditional bedroom. Again, the challenge is avoiding the temptation to add one more decorative element to an already crowded visual landscape.
What makes this design combination interesting is that both aesthetics reject the idea that a home should be understated. Both embrace visibility. Both invite attention. Both encourage occupants to take up space unapologetically. Yet where Pride design often celebrates authenticity and self-expression, Trump’s decorating style is frequently criticized for prioritizing conspicuous luxury over cohesion and refinement.
The result is an interior style that many people would consider delightfully outrageous and others would consider a decorating nightmare. Either way, nobody is likely to forget it.
In the end, a Pride-inspired interpretation of Donald Trump’s famously over-the-top aesthetic would be colorful, glittering, excessive, and impossible to ignore. It would break nearly every rule of minimalist design while embracing the philosophy that if something is worth doing, it is worth overdoing. Whether one sees that as fabulous or tacky may depend entirely on how much gold leaf and rainbow velvet one can tolerate in a single room.
Valerie M. Blake is a licensed associate broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.

