Local
Council gives final approval to marriage bill

Same-sex marriage supporters rallied on Monday night in advance of the Council’s historic vote. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
In an action hailed as historic and groundbreaking, the D.C. City Council voted 11-2 this week to give final approval of a bill allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the nation’s capital.
Tuesday’s vote triggered a burst of applause from dozens of LGBT activists and same-sex couples who packed the Council chambers to watch the debate and final roll-call vote on the Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009.
“Today is the final step in a long march toward equality in the District of Columbia,” said Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who chairs the committee that shepherded the bill through the Council.
Alisha Mills, president of the local same-sex marriage advocacy group Campaign for All Families, called the Council’s action “a historic day for the District of Columbia” and its lesbian and gay couples.
“Equality for all D.C. residents has prevailed,” she said. “The Council’s decision today embodies the true essence of leadership. Thanks to their bold work, all D.C. families will have the same protections, opportunities and obligations under the law.”
The bill next goes to Mayor Adrian Fenty, a long-time same-sex marriage supporter who has pledged to sign it. It then goes to Capitol Hill, where it must undergo a required 30 legislative day review by Congress.
Both Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate agree that an attempt by same-sex marriage opponents to overturn the legislation through a disapproval resolution is not expected to succeed in the Democratic controlled Congress. Most Capitol Hill observers expect the legislation to clear the congressional review and become law sometime in March.
But political observers in the District and on Capitol Hill say opponents would have a better shot at killing the bill next year by seeking to attach a repeal amendment to an appropriations bill, possibly the D.C. appropriations bill, which Congress must approve each year.
The city’s same-sex marriage law also is being targeted by a bill introduced earlier this year that would ban same-same marriage in the city. The bill, known as the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act, currently has 61 co-sponsors in the House. It has yet to be introduced in the Senate. Most Capitol Hill observers say it has little or no chance of passing any time soon under a Democratic controlled Congress.
But Brian Brown, executive director of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, issued a statement after the Council vote vowing that gay marriage opponents will “win” in their efforts to overturn the law.
“The media would have you believe this fight is over,” Brown said in the statement. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Among other things, Brown predicted gay marriage opponents would prevail in a pending court case to force the District to hold a voter referendum calling for banning same-sex marriage in the city, a referendum that he said voters would pass.
If the city’s same-sex marriage bill clears its congressional review and withstands efforts to challenge it through a referendum, D.C. would join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire as a U.S. jurisdiction that allows same-sex marriages to be performed within its borders.
Gay Council members David Catania (I-At Large), author of the D.C. same-sex marriage bill, and Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) noted that the Council’s action culminated 40 years of advocacy work in the city by LGBT activists and their straight allies.
“It’s very easy for someone like me to be overcome by the emotion of this action,” said Graham, who was involved in gay activism as head of D.C.’s Whitman-Walker Clinic before winning election to the Council.
Graham called passage of the same-sex marriage bill “the final prize” in the quest for full LGBT equality in the city, although he added that efforts to push for non-discrimination policies would continue.
Gay activist Bob Summersgill, who has coordinated efforts to expand the city’s domestic partnership law and to push for same-sex marriage, said he was hopeful that gay-supportive congressional allies, including Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), would beat back attempts to overturn the law through the appropriations process.
“This was the next big step that we had,” Summersgill said of the Council’s approval of the same-sex marriage bill.
“But now we’re done with the easy part of getting marriage in D.C.,” he said. “We’ve had the ability to get this through the Council for about a decade. The real challenge now is for the Congress not to act, not to hurt us in the 30 days, when no one thinks they will, and the appropriations time, where we’re less sure.”
Same-sex marriage opponents are currently waging a court fight to challenge a decision by the city’s Board of Elections & Ethics against allowing a voter referendum or initiative on the marriage bill. The board ruled that the city’s election law doesn’t allow voter initiatives or referenda if the outcome of such a ballot measure would result in discrimination barred by the city’s Human Rights Act.
The board ruled twice that a ballot measure on the marriage bill would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Same-sex marriage opponents have challenged that ruling in D.C. Superior Court and have vowed to take their legal action to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the lower courts.
Meanwhile, Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., and a leader in the fight to oppose same-sex marriage in the District, told the D.C. Agenda that he and his supporters would file papers next week for yet another referendum to overturn the marriage bill approved Tuesday.
As such, the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics would once again be asked to rule on whether such a referendum is allowed. Most legal observers believe the board will turn down Jackson’s application for a referendum, just as it has for Jackson’s two similar requests earlier this year.
The first attempt at a referendum was aimed at a bill the Council approved in May that allows the city to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. That measure became law in July after it cleared its congressional review.
The recognition measure allows same-sex couples in D.C. to travel to other states to marry and to return to the District with full marriage rights under D.C. law. Activists viewed the recognition law as a trial run for the full same-sex marriage bill approved Tuesday, which allows same-sex couples to marry in the city.
But same-sex couples that marry in D.C., just like their counterparts in other states that have legalized same-sex marriage, cannot obtain any of the more than 1,000 federal rights and benefits associated with marriage, such as Social Security survivor benefits. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bans same-sex couples from receiving federal marital benefits and rights.
Gay advocacy groups are urging Congress to repeal DOMA. Democratic lawmakers supportive of LGBT rights have said, however, that they don’t have the votes to pass a DOMA repeal measure in the immediate future.
Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) and Council member Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) were the only members of the 13-member Council to vote against the same-sex marriage bill Tuesday.
Both said they support LGBT rights in all other areas but could not back same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs and strong opposition to the legislation from their constituents.
During the Council debate, Catania called on the LGBT community not to judge Barry and Alexander solely on the gay marriage vote, saying both have strong pro-LGBT records on all other issues.
“They are not the typical individuals that you would find casting votes against the GLBT community,” Catania said.
“That doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed [in their vote],” he said. “But I don’t want their entire service within the GLBT community to be judged by this one vote. I don’t think that’s fair. They are my friends, and they’re decent. This is simply a difference of opinion.”
District of Columbia
Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case
Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive
A D.C. Superior Court judge on April 30 reinstated an anti-stalking order requested by the Capital Pride Alliance against local gay activist Darren Pasha based on allegations that Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk the organization’s staff, board members, and volunteers.
The reinstated order by Judge Robert D. Okun followed an April 17 court hearing in which he rescinded a similar order he initially approved in February on grounds that more evidence was needed to substantiate the need for the order.
At the time he rescinded the earlier order he scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 29 at which three Capital Pride staff members testified in support of the anti-stalking order. But Okun discontinued the hearing after Pasha, who was representing himself without an attorney, announced he was willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.
The judge said Pasha’s decision to accept a restraining order made it no longer necessary to continue the evidentiary hearing. He then asked Capital Pride and Pasha to submit their suggested revisions for the order which they submitted a short time later.
The case began when Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a civil complaint on Oct. 27, 2025, against Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers. It includes a 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by unidentified witnesses.
Pasha, who has represented himself without an attorney, has argued in multiple court filings and motions that the stalking allegations are untrue. In his initial court response to the complaint, he said it appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith, who has since resigned from the board.
Similar to his earlier anti-stalking order against Pasha, Okun’s reissued order on April 30 states, a “Temporary Anti-Stalking Order is GRANTED, effective immediately and remaining in effect until further order of the Court or final disposition of this matter.”
It adds, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communication, or any other means.”
Unlike the earlier order, which did not identify the “protected persons” by name, the latest order includes a list of 34 people, 13 of whom are Capital Pride staff members or volunteers, including CEO Ryan Bos and Chief Operating Officer June Crenshaw. The other 21 people listed are identified as Capital Pride board members, including board chair Anna Jinkerson.
Possibly because Pasha addressed this in his suggested version of the order, the judge’s revised order says Pasha is allowed to visit the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, where the Capital Pride office is located, if he gives the community center a 24 hour advance notice that he will be visiting the center, which hosts many events unrelated to Capital Pride. The earlier order required him to stay at least 100 feet away from the Capital Pride office.
The new order also prohibits Pasha from attending 21 named events that Capital Pride Alliance either organizes itself or with partner organizations that were scheduled to take place from April 30 through June 21. The order says he is allowed to attend the two largest events, the June 20 Pride Parade and the June 21 Pride Festival and Concert, in which 500,000 or more people are expected to attend.
It says Pasha is also allowed to attend the June 15 Pride At The Pier event organized by the Washington Blade.
But for those three events the order says he is restricted from entering “ticketed and controlled access areas.”
At the April 29 court hearing, Okun also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the civil complaint case brought by Capital Pride without going to trial.
District of Columbia
Both sides propose revised orders in Capital Pride stalking case
Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive
An evidentiary hearing in D.C. Superior Court on April 29 in which the Capital Pride Alliance presented three of four planned witnesses to testify in support of its civil complaint that D.C. gay activist Darren Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk its staff, board members, and volunteers ended abruptly at the direction of the judge.
Judge Robert D. Okun announced from the bench that the hearing, which was intended provide Capital Pride an opportunity to present evidence in support of its request to reinstate an anti-stalking order against Pasha that the judge temporarily rescinded on April 17, was no longer needed because Pasha stated at the hearing that he is willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.
Pasha made that statement after two Capital Pride witnesses — June Crenshaw and Vincenzo Volpe — each testified in support of the stalking allegations against Pasha for over an hour under questioning from Capital Pride attorney Nick Harrison and under cross-examination from Pasha, who is representing himself without an attorney.
After Capital Pride’s third witness, Tifany Royster, testified for just a few minutes, and after the judge called a recess for lunch and to attend to an unrelated case, Pasha announced that after obtaining legal advice he determined that he was unsuited to continue cross-examining the witnesses. He said he would be willing to accept a significantly less restrictive temporary restraining order.
Okun then ruled that the evidentiary hearing was no longer needed and directed Capital Pride and Pasha to submit to him their version of a revised stay away order. He said he would use their proposed revisions to help him develop his own order, which he would issue after deliberating over the matter.
He also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the case without going to trial. He then adjourned the hearing at 3:50 p.m.
The online Superior Court docket for the case stated after the hearing ended that the judge would issue “a new modified Temporary Protective Order,” but it did not say when it would be issued.
Shortly before the April 29 hearing began at 11 a.m., Harrison filed a “Draft Temporary Anti-Stalking Order” that included a list of 34 “Protected Persons” that Harrison said during the hearing were affiliated with Capital Pride Alliance as staff and board members, volunteers, and others associated with the group.
The proposed order stated, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communications, or any other means.”
The proposal represented a significant change from Capital Pride’s initial civil complaint against Pasha filed in February that Pasha claimed called for him to stay away at least 200 yards from all Capital pride staff, board members, and volunteers without naming them. Okun granted that stay away request in February but reduced the stay away distance to 100 feet.
Capital Pride attorney Harrison disputes Pasha’s interpretation of the order, saying the 100-foot stay-away was for events, not for individual Capital Pride staff, volunteers, or board members. He said the order prohibited Pasha from engaging in any way with the Capital Pride staffers, volunteers or board members.
But the proposed order Capital Pride at first submitted at the April 29 hearing also called for Pasha to stay away from and to not attend as many as 25 Capital Pride events scheduled to take place this year from April 30 through June 21 and for him to say away from the Capital Pride office located at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W., which is the building in which it shares with the DC LGBTQ Community Center.
At the April 29 hearing, at Pasha’s request, Okun called on Capital Pride to consider allowing Pasha to attend at least the two largest events — the Capital Pride Parade and Festival — which draw over 500,000 participants.
Harrison said in a follow-up message to the judge following the hearing that Capital Pride would allow Pasha to attend those two events and one other as long as he stays away from “ticketed and controlled access areas.”
At an April 17 status hearing Okun rescinded the earlier stay away order at Pasha’s request, among other things, on grounds that it was too vague and didn’t provide Pasha with sufficient specific information on who to stay away from. It was at that hearing that Okun scheduled the April 29 evidentiary hearing, saying it would give Capital Pride a chance to provide sufficient evidence to justify an anti-stalking order and Pasha an opportunity to challenge the evidence.
In his own response to the initial civil complaint filed in February and in subsequent court filings, Pasha has strongly denied he engaged in stalking and has alleged that the complaint was a form of retaliation against him over a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith.
Like its initial complaint filed in February, Capital Pride filed a multipage document at the start of the April 29 hearing with written testimony from staff members and volunteers who allege that Pasha did engage in stalking, harassment, and intimidating behavior toward them and others.
Like Capital Pride, Pasha following the April 29 hearing, filed his own proposed version of the stay away order with significantly less restrictions than the Capital Pride proposal. Among other things, it calls for him to restrict his contact with Capital Pride CEO Ryan Bos and Crenshaw but says it “does not by its terms restrict the defendant’s communications with any other person, entity, governmental body, or media outlet.”
“Darren Pasha sent multiple messages to us and to the court after the proceedings asking for further modifications — which we are not accepting or responding to,” Harrison told the Blade in response to a request for further comment on Judge’s request for each side to submit proposed revisions of the stay away order.
“We appreciate the court’s time and careful attention to the evidence presented today,” Harrison told the Washington Blade in a written statement after the hearing. “This process was about bringing forward the experiences of individuals who reported a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress,” he said.
“Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to ensuring that our events and community spaces are safe, welcoming, and free from harassment and we will continue to take appropriate steps to support and protect our community,” his statement says.
“I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing. “I’m just waiting to see what will happen next. But I want to reiterate this goes back to when someone treats you wrong you speak up,” he said. “Even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up and raised concerns.”
He added, “I will just be confident that in the next couple of months the truth will come out. But for now, I am happy with the progress that we have made regarding this.”
This story will be updated when the judge issues his revised stay away order.
Rehoboth Beach
Rehoboth’s Blue Moon sold; new owners to preserve LGBTQ legacy
‘They don’t want to change a thing’
The iconic Blue Moon restaurant and bar in Rehoboth Beach, Del., has been sold to new owners who have pledged to keep it an LGBTQ-affirming space, according to longtime owner Tim Ragan.
Ragan and his partner Randy Haney sold the Blue Moon to Dale Lomas and Mike Subrick, owners of Atlantic Liquors on Route 1.
“They don’t want to change a thing,” Ragan said. “They’re local people, they live here. Dale worked his first job at Dolle’s.”
Ragan and Haney did not sell the business, only the real estate. The deal includes a 10-year lease with renewal options under which Ragan and Haney will continue to operate the Moon. He noted that the couple could opt to sell the business at any time.
“It’s going really well so I’m not in any hurry,” Ragan told the Blade. “It’s hard to run a business and manage a property that’s 120 years old — now someone else has to fix the air conditioning. Our responsibility will be to run the business.”
Ragan offered reassurances that the Moon will continue to be a gay-friendly destination.
“Dale’s comment was that Rehoboth has been good to us and we just want to give back. The Moon is part of Rehoboth’s history and we want to preserve that.”
He said there are no immediate changes planned for the structure, apart from a new roof in the atrium that was damaged in a hail storm. Ragan noted that the property comes with several apartment rental licenses that they have never exercised and the new owners may decide to rent those out.
The Blue Moon business, at 35 Baltimore Ave., dates to 1981 and is an integral part of Rehoboth’s LGBTQ community, hosting countless entertainment events, drag shows, and more over 45 years. Local residents have celebrated birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, and other special occasions in the acclaimed restaurant.
The two buildings associated with the sale were 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 were listed for $4.5 million. The bar and restaurant business were being sold separately.
But then, earlier this year, the Blue Moon real estate listing turned up on the Sussex County Sheriff’s Office auction site. The auction was slated for Tuesday, April 21 but hours before the sale, the listing changed to “active under contract” indicating that a buyer had been found but the sale was not yet final.
Ragan said the issue was the parties couldn’t resolve how much was owed due to a disagreement with the bank. “We didn’t owe $3 million,” he said. “We said we’re not paying any more until we sell.”
The sale contract was written five months ago. It took three attorneys to get a payoff amount agreed to by the bank, he added.
“No one wanted to buy both things. We now have a longterm lease. We couldn’t be happier.”
-
The White House4 days agoFrom red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
Federal Government3 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
Theater5 days agoWorld premiere of ‘Everything, Devoured’ oozes queer energy
-
News3 days agoLGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
