Local
Md. gay delegate speaks out on marriage, family
Murphy became seventh out lawmaker in state legislature

‘People couldn’t have been kinder... And not just my colleagues but lobbyists and staff,’ Maryland Del. Peter Murphy said about the reaction to his coming out last year in a Blade interview. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — When Maryland Del. Peter Murphy (D-Charles County) publicly confirmed that he is gay in an interview last year with the Washington Blade, he became the seventh out member of the legislature, the most of any state in the country.
His disclosure came while the legislature was considering a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and shortly after the State Senate approved the bill. The measure died a short time later when supporters determined they didn’t have the votes to pass it in the House of Delegates and chose to send it back to committee.
Murphy says he would have voted for it then and plans to vote for it this year when the bill is expected to come before lawmakers again.
In an interview with the Blade this week at his legislative office in Annapolis, Murphy said his long record of support for family-related policies and his role as the father of two daughters, a grandfather, and former foster parent speak volumes to his philosophy as a lawmaker and as a person.
That background and his longstanding roots in Charles County have made it clear that his strong support for same-sex marriage and a transgender rights bill doesn’t conflict with the interests of his constituents, Murphy said. To the contrary, he said supporting marriage equality and non-discrimination for all people is a plus for his district and all sections of the state, especially LGBT residents and their families who often must grapple with issues of discrimination.
“This bill is not about me or people my age. I’m 62 years old and I’m living my life,” Murphy said of the marriage bill.
“This bill is for every young person that struggles every day with his or her sexuality, goes to bed every night and cries, goes to school scared to death and wonders – wonders – what their life can be like,” he said.
“And so this bill is about letting them know that they, too, can be whole. And I think that’s why we have to do this. It’s so much beyond 71 votes,” he said, referring to the number of votes needed to pass a bill in the House of Delegates.
“I think at this point people look at who Peter Murphy is and Peter Murphy is many things,” he said.” The fact that I’m gay is not what I’m finding people, at least to my face, are talking about. I’ve had no push-back at all.”
Among other things, Murphy talked about how he believes his varied career as a microbiologist, middle school science and math teacher, business owner, counselor and mediator have helped prepare him for his current job as a state delegate.
He won election to his first term in office in 2006 and was re-elected in 2010 as the delegate representing Maryland’s 28th legislative district, which covers most of Charles County, a swath of southern Maryland bordering the Chesapeake Bay and dominated by rural towns and small cities. Unlike rural areas in other parts of the country, Charles County’s voters are solidly Democratic, although political observers say the district leans to the conservative side on social issues.
Murphy said that although his position in support of gay marriage and a pending transgender non-discrimination bill have been widely reported, his opposition to legalizing slot machines in the county and his strong environmental positions appear to have attracted far more interest in his district.
Following is a transcript of Murphy’s interview on Tuesday with the Washington Blade:
Washington Blade: After we ran our story last year about you being gay you told a Maryland newspaper, the Gazette, that you were surprised that some of your colleagues came up to you and said they didn’t know you were gay. You said you thought you had been open about your sexual orientation for quite a while.
Peter Murphy: That’s exactly right.
Blade: Can you tell about what time in your life or what point in your career you chose to be open about your sexual orientation?
Murphy: I can tell you exactly the time. I ran for office in 2002 for county commissioner. I lost that race. But after that race the Blade actually ran a small piece in the paper that said something along the lines of an openly gay candidate named Peter Murphy lost the race. So it was nothing we ever hid or denied.
We were never going to not claim that if you will. So that was it. I had partners. They would come with me to events and stuff like that. Certainly my family knew. So I just presumed that people would know that. I think that because I was married and had children it may well be that sometimes people see that first. But that’s just a guess.
Blade: Were you out to your family before the 2002 election campaign?
Murphy: Yes, back when I divorced. So I was out probably in 1999 roughly.
Blade: Was your family OK with it?
Murphy: Oh yes. It’s never been an issue. I have two daughters, grown daughters. They’ve always participated fully in my campaigns. And we celebrate all of the holidays together. So it has everything to do with the kind of father I’ve been. It was never an issue. Even with my ex-wife – we’re still very good friends. We celebrate holidays together. So it’s just never been an issue.
Blade: That sounds like a real success story. Sometimes we hear about cases where things turn out differently.
Murphy: That’s right. And I think it’s really a matter in my case I can honestly say that the people who are most important to me are the people that are the most accepting.
Blade: Many of the opponents say same-sex marriage is harmful to the family and harmful to children. How do you respond to that?
Murphy: I think there are a couple of things. You need to just look at our state and that there are somewhere been 9,000 and 10,000 children in foster care, and not one of those children comes from a gay family. So when you look at the family structure and you look at children – I was a foster parent as well. And I was on the Foster Care Review Board for 10 years in Charles County.
If you are going to talk about families and you are going to talk about children it’s important to look at it from their perspective. Children simply want to be loved, they want to belong. They want to be safe. They want to be cared for. And that has nothing to do with gender or race, sexual orientation, your socio-economic status. Those are all arbitrary things. Those are not what matters to children.
And so if you dare look at it from that perspective, then they have no argument. And there is no argument. Family is defined by the individual and that unit, whatever that is. I can tell you that I know many gay couples have adopted children that nobody else will take. And so those kids are not concerned about if they have two fathers or two mothers. They’re concerned most about if they can wake up every day safe, cared for – opportunities that they would never get.
And they didn’t come from gay couples. Those children came from straight couples who rejected them or who did whatever they did to those kids. So it is a non-argument. I don’t really understand how people who really care about family and commitment and those kinds of things and make people whole would ever deny any child – any child – the opportunity to be cared for and to be loved and to belong.
Blade: You say you served on the county’s foster care commission. What are some of the reasons that children are taken from their natural parents and placed into foster homes?
Murphy: Sexual abuse, neglect. I can tell you some of the most horrendous stories that will make you weep about what people will do to their children. And so what happens is then they will have to live with someone else who will provide for them those very basic things and stop what their own family was doing. You know, family isn’t necessarily defined by blood when you look at a foster child’s care.
Blade: What prompted you to run for public office?
Murphy: I first ran for the County Commission. And I think it’s important for people to know that in my case I believe that the only reason to run for office is for public service. I had been on the Planning Commission. I had been in many, many things involved in the county. I saw it as some things I would like to do differently. A lot of it had to do with social services and social justice issues. A lot of it had to do with land issues and the environment and education. Those things are real important to me. I lost that race.
So after I lost that race I had an amazing opportunity to work for Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.). He hired me as his field director for Southern Maryland…I will make this very clear to him as well. If Sen. Sarbanes decided to run again in 2006 I would have gladly stayed with him and continued to work for him.
So when he said he wasn’t going to run I asked him how he felt about me running for delegate. And he encouraged me to do that. It just meant that there was now an opportunity to kind of continue his work but on a much smaller scale.
Blade: Was it an open seat? Did you challenge someone?
Murphy: Well you don’t – it’s a three-member district. So you just run for one of those seats. And you run county wide. So I wasn’t going against any one person. I simply wanted one of those seats.
Blade: The election returns show that you came in third place but you won because the top three vote getters win the seats.
Murphy: That’s exactly right.
Blade: And then in the next election in 2010 you moved up a notch. You finished second. You were a good amount ahead of the Republican challengers.
Murphy: Oh yes. Charles County is very heavily Democrat.
Blade: How do you think your constituents feel on the same-sex marriage issue? Have you been asked about it at meetings in the district?
Murphy: I have never been asked about it.
Blade: Really?
Murphy: No. And this is what gives me such encouragement and excitement about the momentum that this issue has. I have been in the county now since 1976 teaching. I’ve been a teacher. I’ve been a foster parent. I’ve been involved in the schools of my children. I’ve been on numerous boards. And then I worked for Sen. Sarbanes. And you know I think at this point people look at who Peter Murphy is and Peter Murphy is many things.
The fact that I’m gay is not what I’m finding people, at least to my face, are talking about. I’ve had no push back at all. But I get more pushback about the fact that they call me a tree hugger. I hear people say that to my face. Or they say I’m the darling of the environmentalists. I’ve heard that. But no one has ever said to me a thing about my sexual orientation.
But I think that’s because I don’t judge. I work for everybody. When people call up here for help or call anywhere, I don’t ask them if they are Democrats or Republicans. I don’t care about that. They need help and that’s my job to help government work for people. I think people appreciate the genuineness in that.
I think they appreciate that it’s about public service. I don’t have an agenda. I’m not pushing anything of mine forward. If I wasn’t gay I would still support this bill because it’s the right thing to do. And it’s the right thing to do because it provides the same rights and privileges under the law for all people in this state as well as it provides for the religions to the freedom to do what they want to do. It doesn’t get any better than that. How else can you do it? It provides for all people. You can’t do it any better than that. So I think around this particular issue if anybody has an issue with it they may not agree with me because they have their own feelings around marriage. But they don’t disagree with me because they think I’m pushing an agenda, because I would vote for it because I’m gay. They know I’m voting for it because I think it’s the right thing to do and it’s fair. And I would do this no matter what. And I would do it no matter what on other things, too – for our foster children or for any other equal rights. You cannot, in my estimation or my belief; I just see no justification or argument for denying people the same rights.
Blade: What the opponents have said is it infringes on their religious faith.
Murphy: It doesn’t. It doesn’t at all. It says that religious organizations and institutions can choose and continue as they are. I don’t agree with a lot of things they do. It’s not how I would see things. But that’s OK. It’s not like I’m saying to them you can’t do that. And government has no place in directing religious organizations about those things. If you’re a same-sex couple and you want to get married and you want to get married in your church but your church doesn’t permit it, they you have to find another church. That’s the way to do it. You don’t say the church needs to change. It will one day. We’re at the curve. But right now that’s not where it is. And let’s go to religion for one minute and talk about that and talk about children again. How can any religion say that it’s OK to deny children a loving, caring, secure place to belong? How can any religion say that and do that in their name? I don’t understand that. I don’t get that. But they can still do it. They can choose to place children or not.
Blade: Is Peter Murphy an Irish Catholic?
Murphy: I am Catholic. I was born Catholic, baptized Catholic, grew up Catholic. I’m not actively practicing the religion now. My daughters went to Catholic schools, elementary school. My older daughter went to its high school. But I will say that was a real conscious decision between my wife at the time and myself about where they would go. But the Catholic school where our daughters went to was so warm. It was the priest and the nuns that were there in that environment was such a safe, wonderful environment for them to be in. And we would never put them in a situation that I thought they would be taught things that I found to be distasteful.
… I think part of it is if you talk about family and if that’s a value that you hold, whether it’s individually, whether it’s an institution or whatever, then you’ve got to talk about love, you’ve got to talk about commitment, you’ve got to talk about those kinds of things. And I think people think about that and say that’s really what defines it. So does it matter that it’s two men or two women? I think people are getting more away from that and more away from this idea of what it is.
Blade: As you know, after the House of Delegates debated the marriage bill last year – and you participated in the debate – the bill was pulled from the floor. Did you get advance warning on that? Were you part of the discussion over whether the bill should be pulled or a vote taken?
Murphy: No, I was not. I was not around any formal discussions on any of that stuff. But we were getting a sense that people either were falling off or they were going to – I was just getting a sense, but I wasn’t involved in any discussion.
Blade: Do you think that was the right thing to do? Some people wanted a vote to take place to see where the members stood on the bill.
Murphy: Well you know I don’t think so because when you do that then it gets into blame and it gets to pointing fingers at people. This should not be, frankly, a bill that you have to coerce anybody into voting for. People should do it because it is the right thing to do, not because they are worried about getting re-elected or not getting re-elected or someone at their church is upset with them. You do this because it’s the right thing to do. And so if there’s a mechanism that’s going to point fingers to highlight or spotlight people that could make them uncomfortable, I’m not for that. I’m not for blaming people. I’m not for doing those kinds of things. In the long run it doesn’t get us anywhere.
Blade: Can you say what you said during the debate on the bill? It was something about your own situation?
Murphy: No I didn’t actually. It was the sponsor of the bill, Del. Barnes, did a wonderful introduction. I was so touched. It was well done. It was sensitive. It was right. But he talked about his six colleagues in the House. He kept talking about six colleagues. And I thought, well, this is disingenuous. How could I possibly sit here knowing that I’m here? So I counted them up and said well there’s no Peter Murphy on that. So I just simply got up and I thanked him and I said I just want to correct you. There are seven members in this House. That’s all I said.
Blade: I recall that there was applause after you said that.
Murphy: People were very generous, they were kind.
Blade: Doesn’t your district have a significant number of African-American residents?
Murphy: Yes.
Blade: Are they mostly Democrats?
Murphy: Yea.
Blade: Do you have a sense of where they may stand on the marriage issue?
Murphy: I don’t know. I think that with any group there are subgroups – African-American religious or non-African American religious. I really don’t know. To be honest with you…people care about their everyday lives. They care about jobs. They care about do they have a job. They care about do they have a home. They want to make sure their kids are getting schooling. That’s really what they care about. I’m not so egocentric to think that they really care a lot about Peter Murphy’s sexual orientation. It’s like, so what, I just want to make sure my kids are healthy. I want to make sure my kids have a good education. And they should do that. And my job is to use government to make sure that those things are there for them.
Blade: What’s your sense now of what the legislature will do with the marriage bill this year? Do you sense there’s enough support now in the House of Delegates?
Murphy: I think that we’re very close. I think some people want to make sure this bill really does what it says it does. And it says it does two things. I’ll give the very short version. It provides equal rights to all citizens and it protects religions to be able to teach their doctrine as they choose. And I think that’s probably where we are right now. And I don’t know exactly where the numbers are. But I think that’s kind of where we are. We’ve got a fairly large number in the House that does understand this.
Blade: House Speaker Busch said there may be about 10 delegates who are sitting on the fence and having some concerns but possibly voting for it. In that regard, would you support what Gov. Cuomo reportedly did in New York. He agreed to expand the religious related exemptions in the bill that, among other things, would allow religious oriented businesses to refuse to offer services to gay and lesbian couples. Reports surfaced that expanding those exemptions enabled a few more legislators to vote for the bill that put it over the top.
Murphy: Well I’ve heard that in the last session and that was brought up to me by a group of people who said if we don’t agree with same-sex marriages why should we have to rent our hall to same-sex couples for their receptions. And I frankly said to them we don’t rent your halls. If we do it we do it in a hotel. So it’s not very likely that you’re going to find us even wanting your facilities.
So I said I don’t think you have to worry about that. I think on the other hand, though, maybe the church may not want to do that. But there are plenty of – if you want – religious business people who understand that their business depends on consumers. And I haven’t looked at the latest numbers. But I believe that since New York did that there was a lot of money spent by same-sex couples in New York for cakes and receptions and caterers and stuff like that. You know what, that’s going to trump anything that any religious organization says that they don’t want to rent their hall.
Blade: There is talk now that if it passes in the legislature the opponents have the resources to bring it to the voters in a referendum. What do you think will happen with a referendum?
Murphy: I think it will pass. I’m so against any bill ever that deals with civil rights to be put to referendum. Can you imagine if the voting rights bill and those kinds of things had been put to a referendum? Where would we even be in this country today, in some states in this country? Can you imagine? Things like that absolutely shouldn’t go up for a referendum. So I’m against any kind of civil rights bill going to that. But if it goes, I think it will pass.
Blade: When you say pass, do you mean the law will be overturned?
Murphy: No, I think it will stay.
Blade: How do you think the vote will come down in Charles County?
Murphy: Well, I don’t know. That’s a good question. I would hope that it would hold. We have a very large Democratic population.
Blade: What about the Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act, which would protect transgender people from discrimination. As you know, it passed in the House of Delegates but was pulled from the Senate last year. Does that have a chance of passing this year?
Murphy: I don’t know. I don’t know how much work has been done on that. That’s a bill that’s a little harder to understand. A lot of people really don’t know what it means. They have to be educated. I think once people get a better idea of what that is we’ll see a different thing. But it’s not easy.
People would say things on the floor like, well, if you’re sitting across from them how do you know if it’s a man or a woman. It’s almost adolescent like in the way people approach this because they kind of giggle about it. It’s like when people are exploring something they are not familiar with it’s a little out of their comfort zone. And I sensed that when I listened to the debate on the floor.
Blade: Did you get any criticism in your district on the transgender bill, which you voted for?
Murphy: No, I didn’t hear anything.
Blade: How were you received among your colleagues after the Blade ran its story on you being gay last year?
Murphy: Oh, people couldn’t have been kinder… And not just my colleagues but people who are up here a lot, lobbyists and staff. People that were staff would come up to me and hug me and thank me for saying it. And you know what? It came through more than anything – this is why this [marriage equality] bill is so important. It’s why we have to be out there. It’s because the number of people who came up to me to say my nephew is gay, my cousin is gay. And it was almost like an affirmation to them. It is like somebody else – I love my nephew, I love my cousin, I love my daughter or whatever. And I need to know that there are people that are working to make their lives better.
And that is why we have to pass this bill. This bill is not about me or people my age. I’m 62 years old and I’m living my life. This bill is for every young person that struggles every day with his or her sexuality, goes to bed every night and cries, goes to school scared to death and wonders – wonders – what their life can be like. And so this bill is about letting them know that they, too, can be whole. And I think that’s why we have to do this. It’s so much beyond 71 votes. It’s to send a message that adults are getting it right and making a world – we talk about this all the time. What are we going to leave our kids? I hear this all the time – children are our future. Well if they’re our future, let’s leave them a future. Let’s leave them something so that these kids who suffer from this every day can look at that and say I can fall in love. I can have a partner. I can belong to somebody. And I think that’s why we need to do it.
Blade: Does that mean you will do some speaking out if the bill goes to a referendum. As you know, it’s lost in every state where it came before the voters. The head of the same-sex marriage advocacy group said he isn’t sure advocates for the bill in Maryland have the resources or a plan to defeat a referendum.
Murphy: Well I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know it’s not an excuse not to do it. We do it. And if it goes to referendum and it’s not upheld, so be it. Then we move ahead again in another way. But I would never not do it considering it could fail — never. I think we have to keep putting it out there and keep talking about it. And again, as I’ve been saying, if we’re doing this for young people and people that are just starting their lives, even if it fails they can still look at it and say there are people out there that think I matter. If that helps them to live a better life and to live their life openly and wholly and honestly and with integrity, we just don’t lose. But we’ve got our eye on not letting that happen.
Blade: Do you know what the timing will be for the bill to come up this year?
Murphy: No, I don’t know the timing. My sense is they would rather do this sooner rather than later. It takes a lot of time and I appreciate that it gets a lot of attention. I also know that there is a lot of other business that needs to be done up here. We have a very heavy agenda for this session. And it all deserves attention. So for any one thing, no matter what it is, to take away the attention from the other things, then it doesn’t give the attention that the other things deserve. So I’m hoping we’ll get it started soon.
Blade: Does the LGBT caucus meet – the seven of you? Do you keep in touch?
Murphy: We keep in touch. Obviously any group that is like-minded, no matter what it is, you talk to each other. You get together and so forth. Before last year I didn’t even know that there was a caucus…So I’m relatively new to the caucus.
Blade: Have you decided to run for re-election in 2014?
Murphy: That really is a long way off. You know, anything can happen. So I really haven’t made any plans to be honest with you.
Rehoboth Beach
Suzanne Goode wants efficient spending, better infrastructure for Rehoboth
Mayoral candidate has clashed with colleagues over city finances
(Editor’s note: This is the second installment in a three-part series profiling the candidates for mayor of Rehoboth Beach, Del.: Commissioners Suzanne Goode, Susan Stewart, and Craig Thier; a fourth candidate, William Raak, filed to join the race but has not responded to Blade inquiries.)
Rehoboth Beach City Commissioner Suzanne Goode, a candidate for mayor, told the Blade she’s running on a platform prioritizing efficient spending, improving infrastructure, and increasing affordability.
A Maryland native, Goode became a full-time resident of Rehoboth Beach with her husband in 2016. The two have been homeowners in Rehoboth since 2006. Goode became involved with Rehoboth politics soon after moving to town full time.
“I started attending meetings back in 2018 right after we moved here full time. I feel that the city needs to change desperately. They really are in trouble.”
“I never expected to get involved, but once I saw how dysfunctional everything was, that’s what inspired me.”
Goode said that her background in economic consulting makes her qualified to oversee how the city spends taxpayer dollars.
“I’m an economist, that’s my background. I present data at some of these meetings, but no one is willing to analyze the data or even respond as to why we aren’t doing things differently,” said Goode.
“We have other commissioners who are so unwilling to make the hard decisions and cut spending,” said Goode.
“We have so much wrong with the way money is being spent to defend the bureaucracy and not to give back power to the voters, the taxpayers,” said Goode.
But the city’s budget numbers contradict Goode’s claims about financial mismanagement.
The city reported that it ended fiscal year 2025 with a $1.21 million surplus. The 2027 budget was adopted in March and projects an operating surplus of about $875,000.
Elected as a city commissioner in 2024, Goode says she has made an effort to limit spending. She has had multiple public disagreements with fellow commissioners, in particular, Susan Stewart, who is also running for mayor.
In a March 9th commissioner’s meeting, Stewart publicly disclosed a series of Goode’s emails, outlining allegations of misconduct and harassment, all of which Goode denied and claimed were false.
The emails alleged racially and sexually demeaning remarks from Goode about city staff and officials, including City Manager Taylour Tedder.
Goode has criticized the city’s decision to give Tedder a $750,000 forgivable home loan and a $250,000 salary, which is $90,000 more than the previous city manager.
“Under his stewardship, he has handed out excessive pay packages, including benefits to his immediate deputy administrators, all with taxpayer money,” Goode said.
The Blade has reached out to Tedder for comment.
Goode spoke against the decision to hire City Solicitor Lisa Borin Ogden and has made attempts to reduce her $200,000 annual salary.
Goode also disagrees with Tedder’s hiring of consultants for the city: “My goal is to cut the endless stream of consultancies that the city manager contracts, which do not seem to improve the quality of life for the average resident or visitor to Rehoboth Beach.”
“I don’t believe we need additional advice about how to run things,” said Goode. “We just need to improve infrastructure at this point, cut back on some of the excessive compensation packages, not to the working class among our employees, but to the executives and the administrators,” said Goode.
Goode also disapproves of Tedder’s ‘Reimagine Rehoboth’ master planning initiative and says that it “would come to an immediate halt” if she were elected mayor.
“You have to hope that we make better decisions going forward. It would be a benefit to everyone, to visitors, to homeowners, both second homeowners and full-time residents.”
Goode’s platform focuses on expanding and improving the infrastructure throughout Rehoboth. She says she would like to work to “improve infrastructure to include replacement of crumbling and uneven sidewalks.”
She shared that as a resident, she has experienced hazardous conditions when trying to walk or bicycle at night due to what she calls an insufficient amount of streetlights.
Goode also has her sights set on improving Rehoboth’s wastewater treatment system.
“We have complex issues with wastewater treatment. I will continue to advocate against Rehoboth Beach becoming the destination where treated wastewater is sent from areas outside Rehoboth.”
“I want to fully support the working class, the line people, the sanitation workers, the people on city staff who keep the city running and who are the most important workers in many ways,” said Goode.
Goode also addressed her approval of efforts to construct a venue for Clear Space Theatre Company in town, saying, “I think it’s a wonderful use of some city-owned land.”
However, she is cautious about talks to give Clear Space money toward construction of the theater, saying the decision should go to public referendum.
The Blade asked Goode if maintaining Rehoboth’s perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Equality Index would be a priority as mayor. She said that it would be a priority and that she is proud of Rehoboth’s relationship with the LGBTQ+ community. However, she bemoaned the lack of racial diversity among Rehoboth homeowners.
“While we have LGBTQ+ diversity, we have little racial diversity among the property owners with very few African Americans owning homes in Rehoboth. That is, in my view, a bad thing.”
“We want diversity of demographics and race. In order to do that, in order to make Rehoboth more affordable to everyone.”
Goode also responded to claims that she opposes the rainbow sidewalks in town by saying that she thinks they are “attractive” but is worried that they “necessitate more labor.”
“My priorities are safety and affordability,” said Goode. “Unfortunately, the rainbow crosswalks have potentially reduced the upkeep of the conventional crosswalks. But the rainbow crosswalks are attractive in and of themselves, and they do add to our recognition of Rehoboth’s longstanding status as a gay-friendly town.”
Goode said that she noticed recently at the intersection of First Street and Baltimore Avenue that the two rainbow crosswalks were freshly painted for the spring while the two white crosswalks were “faded and unsafe.”
The election will take place on Aug. 8, from 10 a.m.-6 p.m. at the Convention Center.
District of Columbia
Aparna Raj expected to become second LGBTQ member of D.C. Council
Winner of primary would also be first Asian American to serve on body
Ward 1 D.C. Council candidate Aparna Raj, who describes herself on her campaign website as a “renter, union member and queer woman of color,” emerged as the winner in the city’s June 16 Democratic primary.
She won in a five-candidate race with 52 percent of the vote in the fourth round of the vote count under the city’s newly implemented ranked choice voting system.
In a ward with an overwhelming majority of voters registered as Democrats, Raj, who identifies as bisexual, is expected to win in the November general election to become the Council’s second LGBTQ member.
She is running against two lesser-known candidates – Republican Jett James Jasper and Statehood Green Party candidate Jude Crannitch.
Her victory would mark the first time since 2015 that the Council has had two LGBTQ members. At 32, she would also become the Council’s youngest member and its first Asian-American member. She was born and raised in West Chester, Pa., in a family that came to the U.S. from India.
The current gay D.C. Council member, Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), won the June 16 Democratic primary against two lesser-known opponents with 77.5 percent of the vote and is expected to easily win re-election in the November general election.
Gay healthcare leader Jim Graham, who for many years served as executive director of D.C.’s Whitman-Walker Clinic, served as the Ward 1 Council member from 1999 to January 2015. Graham lost his re-election bid in 2014 to incumbent D.C. Council member Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1), who chose not to run for re-election this year. Graham passed away in June 2017.
Gay attorney David Catania served on the Council from 1997, when he won in a special election as a Republican, until 2015 after becoming an independent and giving up his Council seat to run for mayor in 2014. He lost his mayoral bid to incumbent D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Raj, who also identifies as a democratic socialist, is among D.C. Democratic mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George and Democratic At-Large D.C. Council candidate Oye Owolewa who are also democratic socialists and who won in the primary and are expected to win in November.
Political observers have said their primary victories and expected victories in the general election indicate many D.C. voters are seeking candidates with a perceived liberal, leftist perspective to address concerns, among other things, over the high cost of living, especially housing and rental costs.
Like nearly all candidates running for public office in D.C., those identifying as democratic socialists, especially Raj, have expressed strong support on LGBTQ issues.
Raj currently serves as communications manager for a progressive policy advocacy organization called Local Progress, which represents local elected officials throughout the country “fighting for racial and economic justice,” according to its website.
In an interview with the Washington Blade, Raj said she believes many LGBTQ D.C. residents are facing the same economic hardships as non-LGBTQ residents, and she plans to address those issues if elected.
“You know, we see it in D.C., in New York, in Philly, in Colorado, that it is getting very difficult for people to live and afford necessities like hosing and childcare,” she told the Blade. “And over the past two years, where it felt like establishment Democrats on a national level were unwilling to stand with immigrants or queer and trans people, democratic socialists have been constantly fighting for everybody – for immigrants, for people of color, for queer and trans people, for women, for people who need abortions – things like that,” she said.
“I think that D.C. has done a really important and good job of trying to protect LGBTQ+ residents across D.C. in the face of the Trump administration,” Raj added.
“But I think especially with the Supreme Court decision around trans people and with just always the ongoing threat that the Trump administration could start bearing down on, like transgender affirming care and things like that, the next Council is going to have a really important task behind it to make sure that we’re trying to protect queer and trans people across D.C. as much as possible – including by making sure the Office of Human Rights has the support that they need,” she said.
Raj said the economic policies she plans to push for will help small businesses, including LGBTQ-owned businesses such as bars.
“I support making sure that workers have the stability that they need with dignified wages and with benefits,” she said. “And at the same time finding ways to cut costs for small businesses – whether exploring commercial rent stabilization, pushing back on costs of utilities, helping raise revenue by bringing back Streeteries and things like that,” she said.
The following interview has been edited for length. For the full interview, visit washingtonblade.com.
BLADE: As you may know, the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which endorsed you and gay candidate Miguel Deramo in the June 16 primary, issued a statement after the primary saying they are pleased that you will likely become the first female LGBTQ member of the D.C. Council. But with that as a backdrop, are you aware of any other news media outlet aside from the Washington Blade that have identified you as an LGBTQ candidate as you self-identify on your campaign website as a queer woman of color? We are not aware of any other media reports on your LGBT identity.
RAJ: I think – I can’t list them off – but I think other publications have included the fact that I’m bi and I consider myself queer and their outreach about it.
BLADE: With that as a backdrop, where do you see things stand now going forward to the next D.C. Council session that you are expected to be on, where do you see things stand for LGBTQ residents of Ward 1 as well as citywide?
RAJ: I think that D.C. has done a really important and good job of trying to protect LGBTQ+ residents across D.C. in the face of the Trump administration. But I think especially with the recent Supreme Court decision around trans people and with just always the ongoing threat that the Trump administration could start bearing down on, like transgender affirming care and things like that, the next Council is going to have a really important task behind it to make sure that we’re trying to protect queer and trans people across D.C as much as possible – including by making sure the Office of Human Rights has the support that they need.
Trying to invest in and supporting housing vouchers, especially for LGBTQ+ youth, who are often more faced with homelessness than other youth. And that we are supporting schools and health clinics to make sure that LGBTQ+ students and patients are able to feel safe in good institutions.
BLADE: To go back to the D.C. primary election, a single Republican candidate named Jett Jasper ran unopposed for the Ward 1 Council seat. Do you know anything about him?
RAJ: Yeah, Jett and I have been in a debate back in March with all of the Democratic primary candidates … and he and I went around a little bit. So, I’ve met him.
BLADE: One of the interesting outcomes of the June 16 D.C. Democratic primary is the victories of candidates who like you and mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George — and at least two others — identify as democratic socialists. What message do you see that as providing the city?
RAJ: I think it is an important message that I think people see democratic socialist candidates as the candidates who will fight for them in the face of a cost-of-living crisis that is driving people out of D.C. and in the face of the Trump administration that’s threatening our community.
BLADE: What response do you have to those, including some in the business community, who have said the policies proposed by democratic socialist candidates would hurt the city’s economy and create budget problems that can harm a lot of people, including the LGBTQ community?
RAJ: I would say that the economic crisis that we’re seeing right now is a result of a combination of conservative, neoliberal economic policies at the local level and of the fascists in office at the federal level. You know, we are in tough economic times, not because of democratic socialism but because of rigid capitalism right now.
And I think we learned from the ‘80s and Reagan that trickle-down economics doesn’t work. And so, when people are suffering, when people are getting laid off, when people are getting health care funding cut, what we need to do at the local level is invest in people and make sure that our recovery is centered on making sure that people have housing, making sure that people have health care, making sure people have food assistance, instead of just giving money to the top and hoping that it tickles down.
BLADE: The city’s chief financial officer has said the city may be facing a significant budget deficit in the next fiscal year possibly because of congressional action in cutting the city’s budget. What are your thoughts on that?
RAJ: I think there are all these options ahead of us. I think what this past year has shown us is that D.C. needs to have a much more proactive relationship on the Hill. And especially next year we will likely be coming into a Democratic Congress. We need to be advocating for ourselves in building those relationships with Congress members, with senators. I think we took a very localized approach prior to the Trump administration.
And that put us on the defense with a lot of the budget cuts and things they were bringing to us. And now is the time when we need to proactively advocate for D.C. and advocate for eventually statehood so that we have totally the economy that we need. And in the meantime, there are a number of revenue raisers available to us that we have not been exploring. They are mainly trying to implement a business activity tax that would affect specifically large businesses that don’t pay franchise tax in D.C.
They are exploring a capital gains tax. Trying to put or institute a wealth tax, trying to put in a tax like in New York where people who have secondary residences here would be taxed on those secondary residences. And so, we have options available to us. And I think it’s a matter of if we have the political will or whether our Council is willing to explore those in the next year or two.
BLADE: One issue raised by the local LGBTQ group GLAA D.C. is whether candidates for the D.C. Council would support decriminalizing sex work among consenting adults. Did you address that in their candidate questionnaire?
RAJ: Yes, I do support decriminalizing sex work. I think there are a number of reasons. Sex work disproportionately impacts transgender women, especially trans women of color. And it leads to health and safety issues when we criminalize sex work. People can’t seek the healthcare that they need. People can’t report violence that they are facing. And so, I support decriminalizing sex work as part of a crime reduction in a way to allow people to be able to keep themselves safe.
BLADE: Regarding economic issues and local businesses, we now have at least 20 gay or LGBTQ bars or nightclubs in the city. Some have said they would be negatively impacted by the so-called tip wage issue that could require them to pay a full minimum wage. What are your thoughts on that?
RAJ: My perspective is like – Ward 1 has like seven or eight LGBTQ businesses and also there are also so many small businesses in general that I want to make sure that we support. And we can both support small businesses and workers at the same time. I support making sure that workers have the stability that they need with dignified wages and with benefits. And at the same time finding ways to cut costs for small businesses – whether exploring commercial rent stabilization, pushing back on costs of utilities, helping raise revenue by bringing back Streeteries and things like that.
BLADE: One of the Ward 1 LGBTQ business owners, David Perruzza, owner of the LGBTQ bars Pitchers and A League of Her Own, has said he has been negatively impacted by high rents.
RAJ: Yeah, exactly. So, I think rent is one of the biggest costs that small businesses face. And within D.C. there are a lot of vacant store fronts, and commercial rent stabilization is a very new idea. And landlords look at it differently. But I think it is a way we should look at supporting small businesses.
BLADE: Do you have any thoughts on how our new mayor should address and continue the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, which has been in place now for 20 years? The new mayor will have to decide whether to retain or appoint a new director of that office.
RAJ: I can’t speak to those specific decisions. But I’m really excited to work with our incoming mayor, because she has been a really strong advocate for the LGBTQ+ community over the years. And I trust that she will maintain and support the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs. I would also like to see the continued support of the expansion of a lot of the programs of that office. and especially supporting organizations and supporting a possible LGBTQ fund for services and organizations in D.C.
BLADE: Will the budget issue play a role in that?
RAJ: Yeah – but I think especially right now in the political moment we’re in with the Trump administration, to just make sure we’re celebrating the trans and queer communities and maintaining or expanding programs at that office will really be important.
BLADE: Do you have any thoughts on the criticism Mayor Bowser has received from some local activists who say she has not spoken out strongly enough against the Trump administration’s attempts to curtail D.C. home rule while her supporters argue that she has helped to discourage Trump from taking further action to curtail D.C. home rule?
RAJ: From my perspective in Ward 1, I have seen nearly a year of my neighbors getting disappeared and living in terror. And I don’t believe that that is worth any sort of hypothetical threat of what Trump might do in our trying to protect home rule. I understand wanting to be strategic. But our responsibility as elected officials is to stand up for our communities whenever they are under threat.
BLADE: Are the individuals you are referring to who disappeared and who are under threat immigrants?
RAJ: Yes.
BLADE: Is there anything else you might want to say regarding your constituents in Ward 1, particularly the LGBTQ constituents?
RAJ: I’ll just add maybe one last note. We talk about the affordability crisis and that again bears down on the queer and trans community especially. A lot of people are struggling with housing costs and utilities. A lot of queer and trans people specifically are more likely to live in poverty and not make enough in wages. And so, we are trying to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that I think impacts the LGBTQ+ community as well.
Maryland
Parents sue Anne Arundel schools, allege officials hid child’s gender transition
America First legal Foundation filed lawsuit on July 8
By CODY BOTELER | Two parents, backed by a conservative nonprofit group, are suing Anne Arundel County Public Schools over the school system’s policies related to transgender children.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Maryland’s U.S. District Court, accuses staff at an unidentified county high school of lying to the parents, identified as John Doe and Jane Doe, about their child, identified as Mary Doe.
The Does allege the school “socially transitioned” their child without notice or their consent by using a masculine name and masculine pronouns for Mary Doe.
The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
