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.
Michael,
I’m 34, and after being on the dating scene for about 12 years, I’m coming to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in a relationship.
I don’t love hanging out with the same person over and over again. I don’t feel all gooey when I’ve been with someone for a while. I run out of things to say, and also, it just gets boring.
I like my space. I don’t like having to share the bathroom or have someone next to me all night, especially when they want to go to sleep holding me. I know that sounds like heaven to a lot of people but it just feels intrusive to me.
It’s a pain to have to compromise what I want to do. When I want to go someplace on vacation, or try a restaurant, or get up early to go to the gym, or sleep in, I don’t want to have to run that by someone else and get their OK. Life’s short. I want to do what I want to do.
I feel like we are constantly bombarded with the message to date and find a mate, but I don’t really see the point. I don’t think I’m an introvert—I have a lot of friends—but I also like to spend time by myself and not be accountable to anyone.
When I think about marriage, it seems like a very old-fashioned concept, developed for straight people who want to have children. Historically you needed one person to work and another one to stay home and raise the kids. And you needed to stay together to give your kids two parents and a stable home. I get that.
But if I’m not having kids, what’s the point? I don’t need a husband to have sex. I can and do hook up all the time. It’s so easy to find someone online. And I get to have a lot more variety when I’m single than when I’m dating. Even though my relationships are always open, when I am dating someone, I always hook up a lot less, because I have to worry about the boyfriend’s feelings being hurt if I hook up “too much.”
I know I sound unromantic and maybe selfish but this is how I see it.
My friends are all about having a boyfriend. They think I’m being ridiculous. Can I get another opinion?
Michael replies:
You make great points. Relationships do require us to give up some of our independence. They can feel stifling at times. And when the excitement of a new partner fades, things will at times feel “boring” in all sorts of ways, including sex. You can choose to avoid all of this by remaining single.
But relationships also give us tremendous overlapping opportunities to grow, including:
Being pushed to develop a clear sense of self: When we must constantly decide what we are willing to do or not do as part of a couple; and when our partner inevitably and frequently has interests, values, and priorities that conflict with ours, then we are challenged, over and over, to decide what is most important to us and how we want to live our lives.
Frequent opportunities to build resilience: All those old issues from our past that get us upset or riled up? We have to work through them so that we can stay (pretty) calm rather than losing our minds when our buttons are pressed.
Improving our ability to have hard conversations – and without rancor: Unless we’re able to disagree, speak up, or confront when it’s important to do so, we are going to twist ourselves into a pretzel striving to accommodate the other person. And being able to engage in tough talks in a loving way is necessary if we want to have a loving relationship.
Becoming a more generous person: You wrote that you like to have things your way. But part of life, whether or not we are partnered, involves being thoughtful, considerate, and willing to put someone else first at times. Great relationships require us to do all of these things regularly—and many of us find that contributing to the happiness of someone we care about can increase our own happiness.
Besides these ongoing challenges, relationships give us the experience of someone knowing us deeply, and knowing someone deeply. There can be great comfort in going through life with someone with whom we have this intimate connection, along with ongoing shared experiences of trust, support, comfort, and love. Long-term companionship is also an adventure: Can we keep the relationship vibrant and fun as we both keep changing over time?
If you choose to remain single: Many people play their friendships on the easy setting, keeping things pleasant, on-the-surface, and non-confrontational; and cutting people off when things aren’t going well. Hanging in there to deal with the rough stuff can lead to deeper, longer friendships, and plenty of personal growth.
I do have a question for you: I am curious what sort of relationships you saw growing up, and what your own relationship experiences have been.
Intimate relationships aren’t for everyone, and you get to decide what is right for you. But if your negative view of relationships is influenced by having witnessed or experienced intrusive or just plain awful relationships, maybe you want to do some work (therapy, for example) to heal from this stuff, rather than letting your past limit your future. A healthy relationship means being part of a couple while also remaining a vibrant individual, not being stifled, bored, and losing your independence.
(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)
Autos
Wagons ho! High-class, head-turning haulers
Automakers still offer a few good traditional station wagons
As a teenager, one of the first cars I drove — and fell in love with — was our family’s hulking full-size wagon. It stretched over 19 feet in length and weighed a whopping 5,300 pounds. That’s three feet longer and 1,000 heavier than, say, a Ford Explorer today.
But this Leviathan felt safe and practical, especially when tootling around town with my crew or traveling solo cross-country. Of course, this hauler was also an eco-disaster.
Luckily, that’s not the case today. And even though the number of traditional station wagons keeps shrinking, automakers are still offering a few gems.
VOLVO V60 CROSS COUNTRY
$54,000
MPG: 23 city/31 highway
0 to 60 mph: 6.6 seconds
Cargo space: 51 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Elegant design. Composed handling. Top safety features.
CONS: So-so power. Modest rear legroom. Only two trim levels.
The 2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country doesn’t cry for attention — and that’s the point. This is the automotive equivalent of Kristen Stewart, a celebrity who’s confident in her own skin and sees no need to post about it.
Under the hood, there’s a four-cylinder turbo engine paired with a mild-hybrid system, producing 247 horsepower. You won’t outrun other drivers, but there is a sense of calm authority when accelerating. The standard all-wheel drive and 8.1 inches of ground clearance mean this wagon is ready for dirt roads, bad weather or a spontaneous weekend jaunt.
And inside? Scandinavian minimalism at its finest. Clean lines. Gorgeous materials. Google-based infotainment that mostly works — though occasionally the system could be a bit faster, at least for my taste. The ride is smooth, composed and quiet, even if acceleration feels more “measured sip” than “espresso shot.”
But here’s the twist: After more than a decade, this is the final Volvo wagon in the U.S. Its farewell tour ends in 2026. That alone gives it collector-car status.
MERCEDES-AMG E53 WAGON

$95,000
MPG: 21 city/25 highway
0 to 60 mph: 3.4 seconds
Cargo space: 64.6 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Supercar vibe. Hybrid versatility. Stunning interior.
CONS: Some fussy controls. Can feel heavy when cornering.
If the Volvo V60 Cross Country is subtle, the 2026 Mercedes-AMG E53 Wagon is a screamer. It’s like being at a Lil Nas X concert: flashy, high energy, and full of shock and awe.
This performance wagon — a plug-in hybrid, no less — pushes well over 500 horsepower (and in some configurations over 600 horsepower), launching from 0 to 60 mph as fast as a $300,000 Aston Martin supercar.
Yes, deep down, this is still a wagon. But you also can do a Costco run in something that could embarrass sports cars at a stoplight. That duality is delicious.
Inside, Mercedes leans all the way in. The high-tech Superscreen setup stretches across the dash. Ambient lighting glows like a curated art installation. The 4D surround-sound audio literally pulses through the seats. It’s immersive. Borderline excessive. And entirely the point.
Rear-axle steering helps mask the size of this car, but there’s no hiding the weight — it’s a big, powerful machine. Still, this hauler handles far better than physics suggests it should.
PORSCHE TAYCAN CROSS TURISMO

$121,000
Range: 265 miles
0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Cargo space: 41 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)
PROS: Lightning fast. Space-age design. EV smoothness.
CONS: Very pricey. Options add up quickly. Limited rear visibility.
The Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo completely rewrites the wagon formula. Fully electric. Shockingly fast. Designed like it belongs in the Louvre.
Performance is instant. Depending on trim level, you’re looking at 0-to-60 mph in less than 3 seconds. No exuberant engine noise — just that smooth, purring EV surge.
Handling? Pure Porsche. Low center of gravity thanks to the battery-pack placement. Precision that makes winding roads feel like choreography. And then — hello — there’s also a Gravel Mode for light off-road use.
Inside, the style is restrained but high-tech. Digital displays dominate, including a 10.3-inch passenger side touchscreen. Yet the layout feels intentional rather than overwhelming. Build quality is exceptional. Options, including leather-free materials and an active-leveling system for hard cornering, are endless — and expensive.
Range varies by model. But as with any EV, your lifestyle (and charging access) matters.
Overall, this is a wagon that looks and behaves like one helluva class act.
Advice
My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact
Now my father is ill and I don’t know what to do
Dear Michael,
I stopped talking to my family last year because they all voted for Trump. It’s not like they didn’t know whom they were voting for — they’d already had four years of seeing him in action.
I decided that I couldn’t remain in contact with people whom I felt wanted to take away my rights as a gay man. That is what they essentially did by voting for Trump.
They had come to my wedding in 2012, they had welcomed my husband and me into their homes for the holidays for our entire relationship, so I couldn’t believe how little they actually cared about me and my community. I was profoundly hurt.
They’ve reached out but I have been too angry at their hypocrisy to engage in more than a perfunctory way. I miss them, sure, but as I’ve watched our community be attacked, I just get so angry that I don’t want to talk. I certainly don’t want to hear them justify bigotry and hatred.
Now one of my siblings has reached out to let me know that my father’s health is rapidly declining. I’m wondering if I should rethink my decision and reach out to him, maybe even visit, before he dies.
But then I think of ICE’s attack on our country and the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall and I don’t want to talk to people who support what is happening to vulnerable, marginalized people and the LGBTQ community.
My father was a good father to me. Even when I first came out to him, he was loving and supportive. I can’t square his behavior personally toward me with his support of this regime. The hypocrisy makes me so angry. How could he purport to love me and then vote against my freedoms?
I would love some suggestions about how to square my two opposing viewpoints.
Michael replies:
Many years ago, a great mentor taught me that the one thing you can count on in a relationship is learning to tolerate disappointment: Both being a disappointment, and being disappointed in the other person. This is true for love relationships and it’s also true for other significant relationships. All of us are different in some major ways and so we are bound at times to disappoint our loved ones in major ways, and to be disappointed by them in major ways.
That is why I’m not a fan of purity tests. To expect that someone must think like you (much less vote like you) in order for you to have a relationship with them is unrealistic, impractical, and sometimes damaging.
Of course, a person may hold some beliefs that give you reason not to want to have any connection to them. But is that the case here?
From your description, your family has always been loving and supportive of you as a gay man. That is no small thing. They seem to care about you enough to have continued to reach out, even though you have stopped talking to them.
Perhaps they had some other reasons for voting as they did, other than to roll back LGBTQ rights and to attack immigrants.
Instead of wondering how they could be so hypocritical, how about talking with them and striving to understand their choices? I don’t know what they will say, and you may hear different answers from your various family members. But at least you will get some clarity, rather than presuming that they made their voting choices from a place of malice. Then you will be in a better position to decide if you want a relationship going forward.
Another point to consider: Very few things are set in stone. Even if your family made their voting choices based on holding positions that you neither like nor respect, they may be open to shifting their views over time. One way to perhaps influence their thinking is by engaging with them, sharing your thoughts, and asking them to consider the possible consequences of their actions. If you choose to re-engage with them, two points to consider:
First, don’t expect that you will change their minds. You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the results.
Second, they are more likely to consider your points if you do not approach them from a judgmental, self-righteous stance.
Many years ago, when I was newly a vegetarian, I was eager to challenge and “educate” friends who weren’t following my dietary ideas. Guess what? It didn’t work. Then I got some great advice: A great way to influence others to consider eating fewer animals was to serve them delicious vegetarian food.
The same point is true here. We can’t beat people over the head to agree with us. But if we approach them with some kindness, rather than with the certainty that we hold the moral high ground, we may help them see a bigger picture.
And sometimes, we too may see a bigger picture.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
-
District of Columbia4 days agoSecond trans member announces plans to resign from Capital Pride board
-
State Department5 days agoState Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
-
National5 days agoI’m telling the scared little girl I once was it’s okay to feel free
-
Opinions5 days agoROSENSTEIN: Chavous for Democratic D.C. Council-at-Large

