Connect with us

Opinions

D.C. marriage law engages fewer than predicted

Projections far exceed number of weddings, local revenue and jobs

Published

on

When more than 100 same-sex couples lined up outside the H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on the morning of March 3, 2010, to apply for marriage licenses on the first day of implementation of the city’s Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment of 2009, celebration filled the air – and D.C. small business Hello Cupcake distributed a box of cupcakes to each couple.

Emblematic of efforts by wedding-related businesses to launch affinity marketing efforts and sales solicitations targeting this new market at the initiation of marriage equality in the nation’s capital, the local confectionery had coordinated the promotional giveaway with gay D.C. Council member David Catania (I-At-Large), who helped distribute the complimentary treats that morning outside the courthouse.

Catania had been the lead sponsor of the long awaited, strategically delayed and carefully constructed legislation, co-sponsored and first approved in one of two required votes by 10 of his 12 Council colleagues two years ago this week.

Council testimony and media reports during consideration of the modern marriage bill touted extraordinary local economic benefits to come once gay and lesbian couples were permitted to marry in Washington.

Unfortunately, although no commercial benefit was — or should be — required to justify the expansion of the civil right to marry, those projections have proven overstated and the level of anticipated revenue for local businesses has not materialized.

The shortfall is due to both unrealistic economic forecasting by some marriage equality advocates and a notably lower number of same-sex marriages performed in the District than projected.

The most widely ballyhooed and referenced analysis was provided by the Williams Institute, a privately financed think tank focusing on sexual orientation law and public policy at the UCLA School of Law that has released similar reports for a number of states and is the national media go-to source on the subject. D.C. Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi also issued a report with similar findings.

The group’s report indicated that extending marriage to same-sex couples would boost the District’s economy by more than $52.2 million over three years and generate increases in local government tax and fee revenues by $5.4 million and create approximately 700 new jobs.

The Institute’s financial projections were based on 14,432 same-sex couples marrying in D.C. in the first three years – including 1,882 resident couples and 12,550 couples from surrounding jurisdictions and the rest of the country. District CFO Gandhi had suggested as many as 21,000 lesbian and gay couples might marry in the city.

During the first year of the new law, a reported 6,600 licenses for all couples were issued. Although D.C. does not distinguish between same-sex and heterosexual marriages, only 3,100 licenses were issued during the prior year and in recent history the number of marriage licenses varied by only 100 or less from year to year. Consequently, the introduction of same-sex marriage in D.C. appears to have more than doubled the number of marriage licenses issued during the first year of the expanded law.

However, the resulting estimated number of same-sex couples married in D.C. during the initial 12 months represents only approximately 60 percent of the Institute’s projected total of nearly 5,500 in the first year.

Based on a requested special statistical summary provided this week by the Governmental and Public Relations office of D.C. Courts for the subsequent partial year current period, the number of same-sex marriages will likely decline to slightly more than 2,500 during the second year. As the “pent-up demand” of local and regional gay and lesbian couples desiring to marry is fulfilled, a more significant decline is anticipated for the third year.

As a result, the total number of same-sex couples expected to marry during the first three years of the law will likely represent little more than half the number predicted.

The projections for revenue to be accrued by both local businesses and the District government are also overstated, based on an estimated average wedding expenditure for D.C. gay and lesbian resident couples of nearly $10,000, with non-resident couples spending less. Although the study assumed that local same-sex couples would spend only 25 percent of the recession-adjusted $38,180 average spent by D.C. opposite-sex couples, this cost figure is not common practice or a realistic financial assessment of many same-sex weddings.

The projected creation of 700 new local jobs is the more unsupportable advance claim, resulting from political theoreticians crunching abstract, and oversized, numbers in a way foreign to experienced common-sense business owners. By comparison, each of the six large Walmart stores to soon open in the District will each employ only 300 workers.

The successful long-term political strategy undertaken by community leaders to ensure that D.C. would join the small number of states adopting marriage equality to date benefits everyone in both direct and indirect ways and is a contemporary cultural asset for the city, its business environment and employee talent attractiveness. Only the anticipated number of resulting marriages and the promise of significant direct revenues benefiting the local business community and the District’s tax coffers have proven to be the sole aspects of this historic achievement divorced from reality.

Mark Lee is a local small business manager and long-time community business advocate. Reach him at [email protected].

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

He is 16 and sitting in a Cuban prison

Jonathan David Muir Burgos arrested after participating in anti-government protests

Published

on

Jonathan David Muir Burgos remains in a Cuban jail. (Graphic by Ignacio Estrada Cepero)

Jonathan David Muir Burgos is 16-years-old, and that fact alone should force the world to stop and pay attention. He is not an armed criminal, nor a violent extremist, nor someone accused of harming others. He is a Cuban teenager who ended up behind bars after joining recent protests in the city of Morón, in the province of Ciego de Ávila, demonstrations born out of exhaustion, desperation, and the growing collapse of daily life across the island.

Those protests did not emerge from privilege or political theater. They erupted after prolonged blackouts, food shortages, lack of drinking water, unbearable heat, and a level of public frustration that continues to deepen inside Cuba. People took to the streets because ordinary life itself has become increasingly unbearable. Families are surviving for hours and sometimes days without electricity. Parents struggle to find food. Entire communities live trapped between scarcity and silence.

Jonathan became part of that reality.

And today, he is sitting inside a Cuban prison.

The World Health Organization defines adolescence as the stage between approximately 10 and 19 years of age, a period marked by emotional, psychological, and physical development. That matters deeply here because Jonathan is not simply a “young protester.” He is a minor. A teenager still navigating the fragile years in which identity, emotional stability, and personal growth are being formed.

Yet the Cuban government chose to place him inside a high-security prison alongside adults.

There is something profoundly disturbing about a political system willing to expose a 16-year-old boy to the psychological brutality of prison life simply because he exercised the right to protest. A prison is never only walls and bars. It is fear, humiliation, emotional pressure, intimidation, and uncertainty. For a teenager surrounded by adult inmates, those dangers become even more alarming.

The situation becomes even more serious because Jonathan reportedly suffers from severe dyshidrosis and has previously experienced dangerous bacterial infections affecting his health. His condition requires proper medical care, hygiene, and adequate treatment, precisely the kind of stability that is difficult to guarantee inside the Cuban prison system.

Behind this story there is also a family living through a kind of pain impossible to fully describe.

Jonathan is the son of a Cuban evangelical pastor. Behind the headlines there is a mother wondering how her child is sleeping at night inside a prison cell. There is a father trying to hold onto faith while imagining the emotional and physical risks his teenage son may be facing behind bars. Faith does not erase fear. Faith does not prevent parents from trembling when their child is imprisoned.

And this is where another painful contradiction emerges.

While a Cuban pastor watches his son remain incarcerated, there are still political and religious voices outside Cuba romanticizing the Cuban regime from a safe distance. There are people who speak passionately about justice while remaining silent about political prisoners, repression, censorship, and now even the imprisonment of adolescents.

That silence matters.

Because silence protects systems that normalize abuse.

For too long, parts of the international community have spoken about Cuba through ideological nostalgia while refusing to confront the human cost paid by ordinary Cubans. The reality is not romantic. The reality is families surviving in darkness, young people fleeing the country in massive numbers, parents struggling to feed their children, and now a 16-year-old boy sitting inside a prison after joining a protest born from desperation.

No government has the moral right to destroy the emotional and psychological well-being of a teenager for exercising freedom of expression. No ideology should stand above human dignity. And no institution that claims to defend justice should remain indifferent while a child becomes a political prisoner.

Jonathan David Muir Burgos should not be in prison.

A 16-year-old boy should not have to pay for protest with his freedom. 

Continue Reading

Commentary

Celebrate Pride in Lost River, a slice of rural heaven

West Virginia LGBTQ getaway hosts events June 12-14

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“Country roads, take me home, to the place I belong, West Virginia …” Those immortal lyrics describe one of the best-kept secrets for LGBTQ Washingtonians: Lost River, W.Va.

Less than 2.5 hours from the D.C. metro area, Lost River, in Hardy County, W.Va., is a haven for LGBTQ Mountaineers and our nearby city neighbors. From queer-owned businesses and artwork to a vibrant community of LGBTQ residents, Lost River has been a destination for LGBTQ visitors seeking a mountain getaway for nearly 50 years. For some, our rural community has become home for those who want to trade city life for country living.

Because Lost River welcomes all, we celebrate Pride each year in our slice of heaven.

Lost River Pride Weekend will be held June 12–14, the weekend prior to Capital Pride. If you haven’t been, our Pride is a little different from the urban Pride events most people are used to. In Lost River, forget the multinational corporate sponsors. Instead, think about local talent, grassroots community organizations, and our version of patriotism on full display. Most of all, we welcome people from all walks of life to live authentically as themselves, regardless of where they come from, how they think, or how they love. We truly welcome everyone.

Coincidentally, Lost River Pride Weekend is being held on President Trump’s birthday weekend, including a variety of traffic-jamming events in the D.C. area and the upcoming fight on the White House lawn. Why not come visit Lost River for the day or the weekend (we have some wonderful places to stay) and get a taste of West Virginia living?

While our town has only about 500 people at any given time, we swell to over twice that during Pride weekend. Friday evening includes an intimate cabaret at the Inn at Lost River (whose general store is on the National Register of Historic Places). Our centerpiece, the Lost River Pride Festival, is hosted on Saturday at the local farmers market, followed by an afternoon drag pool performance and an evening performance by the world-renowned Tom Goss at the Guesthouse Lost River. Finally, we finish the weekend with a closing brunch at the Inn to reaffirm our Pride. In between events and throughout the weekend, visitors and locals indulge in local art, restaurants, and more.

We recognize that West Virginia isn’t always seen as welcoming to LGBTQ people. State law does not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and cultural stereotypes remain persistent. Additionally, trans girls are prohibited from participating in sports of their affirmed gender in schools. In a state considered one of the most conservative, it can be difficult to see progress.

However, our community exists to prove that progress is possible. In fact, due to the work of statewide groups such as Fairness WV, 21 municipalities have passed local ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, covering more than 13 percent of the West Virginian population. Last year, Lost River Pride sponsored the first-ever equal cash prize for the nonbinary category of the Lost River Classic, a local bike race held annually. There is hope in every corner of our community.

Recently, Lost River Pride was the only West Virginia contingent in the 2025 World Pride Parade, which was held during Capital Pride Weekend. I will always remember our rugged truck coming down 14th Street to a sea of diverse, friendly faces, while waving our state flag and hearing many voices singing “Country Roads” in every remix available (trust me, there are many).

Lost River Pride is one of only a handful of Pride organizations in West Virginia and one of the few structured as a nonprofit. We sponsor the only LGBTQ scholarship in Eastern West Virginia for a graduating senior from a local high school. Moreover, we provide monthly community programming and make frequent donations to local allied nonprofits, including the fire department, food pantry, and schools.

I encourage you to attend Lost River Pride Weekend, especially this year’s Lost River Pride Festival on Saturday, June 13, from 12-4 p.m., at the Lost River Farmers Market (1089 Mill Gap Road, Lost City, W.Va. 26810). Feel free to reach us at [email protected] or visit our website at lostriverpride.org for more information.


Tim Savoy is president of the board of directors of Lost River Pride.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Protection should mean protection

Disbelief as court modifies protective order against Pasha

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk/Bigstock)

There is a particular kind of disbelief that Black queer women know intimately. It is not always explicit. It shows up in hesitation, in “both sides” framing, and in systems that require us to prove, again and again, that we are worthy of safety. 

We see that disbelief happening now with the temporary protection order (TPO) involving an individual, D. Pasha. He is accused of repeatedly harassing staff, board members, and volunteers at the Capital Pride Alliance, which led the organization to ask the court for protection. 

The Capital Pride Alliance did not seek this order lightly. They spent over a year documenting his harassment, and several witnesses gave almost two hours of testimony about a pattern of behavior that caused real fear. The organization also spent months working out how to legally protect its staff, volunteers, board, and contractors from this individual. 

At first, the Court agreed and issued a stay-away order that included CPA’s office and other locations, setting a clear boundary to protect staff, volunteers, and community members. 

But that protection did not last. 

After the order was issued, Pasha spoke with a reporter from the Washington Blade and learned that CPA shares office space with the DC LGBTQ Center. It is important to note that he didn’t know this detail before. He then sought an emergency hearing, claiming he needed access to “vital services” from the CPA and DC LGBTQ Center shared offices.  

The Court granted it, allowing access with a 24-hour notice to CPA. According to the Court, the modification was based on Mr. Pasha’s claim that denying him entry to the DC Center would prevent him from accessing essential support services provided there. Although CPA objected and highlighted the lack of recent service usage and the availability of alternatives, the Court determined that his stated need for services warranted an exception to the stay-away order. 

Let’s be clear about what this means. 

There is no record of him accessing services or being at the DC LGBTQ Center in over a year. Numerous organizations across DC provide the same services he cited: food, clothing, computers, Wi-Fi, without placing him in proximity to the people who testified against him. 

And yet, the Court modified the order to allow exactly that. 

Then it escalated. Following the modification, he sent more than 20 emails and text messages in attempts to gain access to our office space, triggering another emergency hearing. At that second emergency hearing, the court maintained its previous decision, allowing Mr. Pasha continued access to the location. 

This is not a technicality. This is a failure of real protection. 

The outcome was shaped not just in the courtroom, but in how it was presented afterward. 

Recent coverage centered the acceptance of a less restrictive order, while giving the person at the center of this case a platform to define the narrative in his own words. He was described as an LGBTQ activist, quoted at length, and presented with his name, voice, and image, including statements like “I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” “even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up,” and that “the truth will come out.” 

That framing does not exist in a vacuum. It omits important context about the pattern of conduct that led to this case, including the history and the events that followed the Court’s initial order. It also gives weight to claims about access to services that are not reflected in actual usage. 

At the same time, the hours of testimony describing a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress are reduced to a small part of the story. The individuals who came forward are largely unnamed, unseen, and unheard. The record that was built in court is condensed, while his narrative is expanded. 

When one side is given visibility, voice, and narrative, and the other is reduced to summary, that is not balance. It is distortion. 

We also need to be honest about who is being asked to bear the consequences of that failure. 

Two Black queer women testified. They followed the process. They showed up, told the truth, and trusted the system to do what it is designed to do: protect them. 

Instead, the system created a pathway back to proximity, back to fear. 

That is not a neutral outcome. It is a choice about whose safety matters most and whose safety can be compromised. 

This is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader pattern in how systems fail Black women, survivors, and LGBTQ+ people, especially at the intersections of those identities. 

According to the Human Rights Campaign, data shows that over 60% of bisexual women and more than 40% of lesbian women experience physical violence or stalking.  

Violence does not start with homicide. It starts with being dismissed, with being minimized, and with systems that do not act fairly or quickly when harm is reported. 

It starts when people question the credibility of Black queer women. 

When access is granted to those who cause fear, instead of protection being fully extended to those who experience it. 

And it continues when we treat these outcomes as unfortunate, rather than unacceptable. 

Capital Pride Alliance believes in access. We invest in it. We help sustain the very services being cited in this case. But access cannot come at the expense of safety, especially when alternatives exist, and risk is known. 

The question here is not complicated: what does protection actually mean, and who deserves it? 

If a court acknowledges harm but still allows proximity, is that protection? 

If Black queer women testify and are still placed within reach of the person they testified against, what message does that send? 

We cannot keep calling these systems fair if they keep putting the same people at risk. 

Courts need to think about safety in a broader sense, one that reflects real life rather than just following procedures. This means looking at not only direct threats, but also ongoing harassment, intimidation, and the real fear survivors feel when they must share space with someone who has harmed them. 

Real changes could include ensuring stay-away orders are enforced even in shared spaces, working with community groups to offer alternative ways to access services, and asking survivors about their safety needs before changing protection orders. Courts should also get training on the experiences of Black queer women and LGBTQ+ survivors, so their voices and realities are at the center of decisions. 

Our community needs to work toward real safety and protection. Because visibility without safety is not liberation. Protection that can be so easily undone is not protection at all. 

May 28 is LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day.  

#SeenAndBelieved is a call to action: recognize the harm, trust survivors, and create systems that truly protect them. 


June Crenshaw is COO of the Capital Pride Alliance.

Continue Reading

Popular