Living
The Maryland originals
Couples from the 2004 lawsuit rejoice at state’s marriage passing
Dave Kolesar, left, and his partner, Patrick Wojahn, in Annapolis for last week's Maryland marriage bill signing. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
There’s no questioning Charles Blackburn’s love for partner Glen Dehn: He met the now-retired government worker at a party, moved in immediately and is still with him 33 years later.
Yet the pair has never walked down the aisle — not because the men didn’t want to, but because the state of Maryland said they couldn’t.
“We could never understand how a committed relationship of two gays or two lesbians could possibly hurt a heterosexual marriage and we haven’t been told yet,” says Blackburn, who, urged by a friend, signed the couple up to join a 2004 lawsuit for same-sex marriage in Maryland.
Years later, the Blackburn-Dehn couple is among 19 original plaintiffs rejoicing in the wake of a newly signed measure legalizing gay marriages in Maryland. Gov. Martin O’Malley signed the bill into law on March 1; Maryland joins D.C. and six states in legalizing gay marriages. The Civil Marriage Protection Act is scheduled to take effect in January, though a voter referendum in November could kill the measure before then.
For now, the signing brings to a close a fight that’s meandered from the failed lawsuit, to legislative hearings and finally, to the governor’s desk.
As the fight for marriage has twisted and turned, so too have the lives of those original couples — through family changes, relationship endings and new beginnings.
Yet through it all, several of the original plaintiffs tell The Blade they’re glad to have played a role in securing the rights of same-sex couples and families in Maryland and beyond.
“Whatever obstacles you face, you want to make it better for yourself but you also want to leave a path that’s a little bit better for the people who come behind you,” says Gita Deane, who joined the suit with partner Lisa Polyak. “I don’t for a minute think that we shouldn’t have done it.”
‘We had to do it’
Polyak and Deane were living the life of the average family with two young daughters when a turn at the microphone during a town hall near their Baltimore home changed everything.
“(We) just spoke about the difficulties of our lives being parents and about things we wanted to do for our kids that we couldn’t,” says Polyak, who later got a call from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The civil liberties group was looking for couples to join a lawsuit to be filed in Baltimore with the cooperation of Equality Maryland. The groups would charge that a state law denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the Maryland Constitution.
Joining the case could mean helping pave the way for their family and similar families to enjoy the financial and emotional benefits of legal marriage. But it could also mean harassment.
“I had a great many worries about how this would impact my children,” Deane says. “When we had time to talk to the lawyer ACLU my first question was, ‘Is anybody going to send us hate mail or put up signs on our front yard?'”
Farther south in Riverdale, Md., Mikkole Mozelle was also apprehensive when her then partner Lisa Kebreau mentioned getting involved in the case she’d heard about through an email — but for different reasons.
“I guess I always thought something like this was extraordinary people fighting extraordinary struggles and we were just your everyday, average couple. It caught me off guard, but in a good way,” says Mozelle, a black woman who eventually embraced the idea of changing the largely white face of the gay marriage push.
The planned lawsuit would be one in a string filed by the ACLU, its partners and affiliates on behalf of same-sex couples seeking marriage equality in New York, Oregon, California and the state of Washington.
ACLU attorneys would eventually file suit in state court in Baltimore in July 2004 on behalf of nine couples and a widowed man. Among them were Kebreau and Mozelle, Polyak and Deane.
“It would never have been my choice to be public about my life,” Deane says. “(But) we had to do it because we had children and we have a responsibility to our children to make sure we’re able to take care of them.”
A matter of families and finance
From the beginning, the plaintiffs have argued the marriage question had less to do with certificates and ceremonies and more to do with tax breaks, health insurance and the other practical benefits that rise in importance as families grow and couples mature.
Dave Kolesar was just 18 years old when an infection led to brain surgery and a dim prognosis. Now 34, he’s in great condition, but worries along with his partner Patrick Wojahn about after effects.
They joined the case a year after Wojahn had proposed to Kolesar.
“In case something else were to happen to him, we wanted to be assured that I would be able to take care of him,” Wojahn says.
For plaintiff John Lestitian, that “what if” scenario became a reality in 2003, when his partner of more than a decade died suddenly. A subsequent battle over the home they shared and his final resting place encouraged him to join the suit.
“I’d gone through a situation of a contested will and dealing with the aftermath of the death,” he says. “My personal experience made me all the more willing to step forward.”
Yet for other plaintiffs, the choice to make their private lives personal stemmed in part from financial concerns. For instance, Charles Blackburn is blocked from sharing his partner’s federal health benefits, which he estimates could save the couple several thousand dollars each year.
Polyak and Deane estimate they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars yearly on separate health insurance policies and the adoptions of each other’s biological children.
Despite the money spent, the couples remain financially at risk.
“We’ve done as much as we can through wills and legal things,” Deane says. “But we can only cover about eight of the 1,000 benefits that come with marriage on our own.”
Reaching the victory lap
On March 1, Patrick Wojahn and Dave Kolesar joined dozens of same-sex couples, gay lawmakers and advocates who stood behind O’Malley as he signed the historic bill in Annapolis.
“It was just electrifying,” Wojahn says. “There was so much excitement in the air.”
The bill-signing ceremony came just one week after the Maryland Senate voted 25 to 22 to approve the measure, and nearly five years after the Maryland Court of Appeals voted 4 to 3 to uphold state law barring same-sex marriage, ending the ACLU’s suit.
The ACLU and Equality Maryland immediately took the push to the General Assembly, and the plaintiffs largely went back to their normal lives.
Wojahn and Kolesar married in D.C last year, as did Polyak and Deane, who said they tired of waiting on legislators.
Lestitian found a new love and also married in D.C. in 2010, while Mozelle and partner Kebreau split in early 2009.
Still, Mozelle says she believes her partner is as pleasantly surprised as she is that the legislation went through.
“I feared that it wouldn’t,” she says, “but I prayed that it would.”
Some of the couples, like Wojahn and Kolesar, plan to re-marry in Maryland to ensure all of their rights.
For Blackburn and Dehn, both in their 70s, the ceremony they hope to have if the law holds would be their first.
But marriage or not, after 33 years, they know where they stand.
“I moved in a month after we met,” Blackburn says. “We just knew we had found something special in each other and it remained that way.”
Dear Michael,
I’ve been dating Mark for three years, living together for two, and I’m not sure he’s for me. We get along great but I’m questioning how attracted I am to him.
I was never crazy about him physically but he was such a sweet and smart guy that I wanted to date him.
Sex was never mind-blowing and the longer we’ve been together the more this is bothering me. I wonder if I could find someone who appeals to me more, physically.
On the plus side, I like him a lot. He has good values, shares my religious faith, which is hard to find in another gay guy, is responsible and has a good work ethic. Also, I just have fun with him and he’s always interested to hear what’s on my mind. He’s an all-around decent guy.
As I’m writing this, I’m thinking that he seems great and that I’m a fool for even questioning our relationship. But all my friends are always talking about the amazing sex they are having, and then I think I’m missing out on a key part of life because my sex life is comparatively lackluster.
I don’t want to settle. But how likely am I to find another guy who is as all-around a good catch as Mark, but with more sexual chemistry?
Michael replies:
I don’t think the right approach is to wonder about your chances for of finding someone better. Anyone you find will have things you aren’t crazy about.
For example, you might find someone whom you’re wildly attracted to sexually, but they’ll bore you or annoy you, or have values you don’t respect.
I understand that you aren’t wildly sexually attracted to Mark. The truth is that it’s extremely unlikely that you would remain wildly sexually attracted to anyone for that long. People tend to get used to each other over time. Sex can remain great, but more from closeness and love than heat and sizzle.
I work with people all the time who wonder if there is someone “better” out there. And I tell them, they’re never going to get through all the possibilities before they die. Instead, how about thinking if the guy you are with is someone you’d like to go with on this journey through life?
Mark’s attributes that you mention sound wonderful to me. After more than 30 years working with folks on relationships, and being in my own 30+ year relationship, I have learned a thing or two about what creates a relationship that is satisfying and good. A decent, kind guy with admirable values is an excellent start.
The question is, can you live with your sex life not being on an orgasmically hot mind-blowing level? I hope the answer is yes, because sex with anyone you pick is not likely to stay in that sort of realm for long.
Another point to consider: I don’t think you should get too caught up in what your friends are telling you. They may be having amazing sex, but are they all having it with the same long-term partner? As I mentioned, long-term sex can be great, but the excitement tends to be replaced by caring connection over time.
I’ll generalize here for a moment: Because so many gay men have many sexual partners, the kind of sex you have with someone new, whom you’re tremendously attracted to, tends to be glorified among gay men as the gold standard of sex. But it’s not realistic for sex with a long-term partner.
This glorification is a big problem: It leaves gay men who are not having torrid sex with lots of guys feeling like there is something wrong with the sex they are having, that they are missing out on something super fantastic. Just like you are feeling.
If you want a lifetime of ongoing hot sex, I don’t think you should be looking for a relationship. If you are willing to accept sex being a not-always fantastic, but perhaps consistently loving, often good, and occasionally great part of life with a kind decent guy, then Mark might just be the right partner for you after all.
(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and all PSYPACT states. He can be found at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)
Real Estate
Does Pride decor resemble Trump’s design aesthetic?
Glitter, gold, and rejecting the idea that a home should be understated
Interior design is often a balancing act between taste, personality, and restraint. Sometimes, however, restraint leaves the building entirely. Such is the case when the colorful exuberance of gay Pride-inspired decorating collides with the famously excessive decorating style associated with the current occupant of the White House. The result can be a fascinating study in maximalism, spectacle, and unapologetic visual overload.
Donald Trump’s personal decorating style has long been a subject of debate among designers and critics. Admirers see luxury and grandeur. Critics see something else: a dizzying display of gold leaf, marble, mirrors, crystal, and oversized furnishings that often crosses the line from elegant into what many designers would call tacky. More is rarely enough. If one chandelier sparkles, three are better. If a room has gold accents, why not make every available surface gold? (See Oval Office and ballroom rendition for details.)
In many ways, this excess shares common ground with certain Pride celebrations. Pride has never been about blending into the background. It celebrates visibility, self-expression, individuality, and joy. Rainbow colors, dramatic costumes, glitter, flamboyant artwork, and bold statements have long been part of Pride culture. Yet there is an important difference. Pride’s extravagance is often playful, self-aware, and rooted in personal expression, while Trump’s aesthetic has frequently been criticized for equating luxury with sheer quantity and visual intensity.
Combining these influences creates an interior that could best be described as “glamorous chaos.”
Imagine entering a living room in which gold-trimmed mirrors stretch from floor to ceiling. Crystal chandeliers hang above a bright rainbow velvet sectional. Marble floors gleam beneath metallic furniture that appears determined to reflect every available light source. Pride flags become framed artwork surrounded by ornate gold moldings. A room designed this way doesn’t whisper. It shouts.
Color is central to the concept. Pride-inspired interiors often embrace the full spectrum of colors. Trump’s style, meanwhile, traditionally favors cream, gold, black, and glossy finishes. Combining them means introducing vivid jewel tones against a backdrop of faux-palatial luxury. Emerald green chairs, ruby-red draperies, sapphire-blue accent walls, and gold-trimmed furniture can coexist in a way that feels deliberately theatrical.
The key word is theatrical.
Many professional designers spend years learning how to create visual balance. A Pride-meets-Trump interior intentionally ignores many of those rules. Pattern competes with pattern. Shine competes with shine. Artwork competes with furniture. The eye rarely gets a chance to rest. For some homeowners, that sounds exhausting. For others, it sounds like the perfect party.
Lighting offers another opportunity to embrace excess. Crystal chandeliers, mirrored lamps, illuminated shelves, and color-changing LED lighting can transform a room into something resembling a cross between a luxury hotel lobby and a Pride festival. The goal is not subtlety. The goal is spectacle.
A dining room inspired by this combination might feature a massive glass table, gold dining chairs, rainbow floral arrangements, mirrored walls, and enough crystal accessories to keep a polishing cloth busy year-round. Critics would call it gaudy. Fans would call it fabulous.
Artwork becomes particularly important. Pride-themed pieces featuring LGBTQ+ history, activism, and culture can provide meaning beneath the decorative excess. Without these personal and cultural elements, the room risks becoming little more than a collection of expensive looking, but not necessarily expensive, objects. Pride design can work best when it reflects identity and community rather than simply displaying color for color’s sake.
While normally a haven for restful sleep, bedrooms can take a similar approach. Plush velvet fabrics, oversized tufted headboards, metallic and mirrored finishes, colorful accent lighting, and dramatic artwork create a space that feels more like a boutique hotel suite than a traditional bedroom. Again, the challenge is avoiding the temptation to add one more decorative element to an already crowded visual landscape.
What makes this design combination interesting is that both aesthetics reject the idea that a home should be understated. Both embrace visibility. Both invite attention. Both encourage occupants to take up space unapologetically. Yet where Pride design often celebrates authenticity and self-expression, Trump’s decorating style is frequently criticized for prioritizing conspicuous luxury over cohesion and refinement.
The result is an interior style that many people would consider delightfully outrageous and others would consider a decorating nightmare. Either way, nobody is likely to forget it.
In the end, a Pride-inspired interpretation of Donald Trump’s famously over-the-top aesthetic would be colorful, glittering, excessive, and impossible to ignore. It would break nearly every rule of minimalist design while embracing the philosophy that if something is worth doing, it is worth overdoing. Whether one sees that as fabulous or tacky may depend entirely on how much gold leaf and rainbow velvet one can tolerate in a single room.
Valerie M. Blake is a licensed associate broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.
Ragtops rock! For drivers looking to carve their own lane, the world already has enough sensible crossovers, minivans, and pickups. These three convertibles trade practicality for sunshine, wind, and the occasional wild-hair day.
BMW Z4
$58,000
MPG: 25 city/33 highway
0 to 60 mph: 5.2 seconds
Trunk space: 10.0 cu. ft.
PROS: Strong engines. Uber comfy. Stylish.
CONS: Expensive. Final year of production.
Act fast, Bimmer fans, this is the last year the BMW Z4 roadster will be produced. Along with the entry-level xDrive30i and high-performing M40i, there is a Final Edition model.
Since 2002, the Z4 has expertly balanced performance, comfort, and style. The long hood and short rear deck still look fantastic. The stance is athletic. And with the top down, this car gains an extra dose of drama.
Under the hood, BMW offers turbo power that feels eager rather than overwhelming. Acceleration is brisk. The steering precise. The chassis composed.
Upgrading to the premium models lets you scoot from 0 to 60 mph in just 3.9 seconds. But—ka-ching!—the MSRP soars to $79,000.
Available in manual or automatic transmissions, this convertible can sprint through mountain roads on Saturday and soothingly devour highway miles on Sunday.
As for the interior, it blends luxury and functionality. Materials feel expensive. Controls are easy to use. And the seats are supportive.
For me, other ragtops may be more party hearty, but the Z4 is low-key, impeccably tailored and still the center of attention. Think suave James Bond versus sparkling RuPaul.
MAZDA MX-5 MIATA
$32,000
MPG: 26 city/35 highway
0 to 60 mph: 5.5 seconds
Trunk space: 5.0 cu. ft.
PROS: Nimble. Lightweight. Affordable.
CONS: So-so power. Wind noise. Limited space
For decades, the Mazda MX-5 Miata has followed a simple formula: Keep it light, keep it balanced and make every drive feel special. The result: Automotive comfort food that never gets old.
Many vehicles grow larger every year, but the Miata has remained Lilliputian in a way that feels rebellious. You sit low. The controls are user-friendly. Visibility is excellent.
No, the engine power won’t blow you away. But this beachcomber isn’t about brute force. It’s about how the Miata makes you feel wonderfully alive, whether tootling along city streets or a winding road.
Inside, the dashboard is sparse but echoes a traditional sports car. Large analog tachometer and analog speedometer. And while the 8.8-inch infotainment display is dinky, it works nicely.
Alas, storage is limited. The cabin is snug. And taller drivers may wish for a bit more room.
Yet somehow even those compromises feel almost charming. This ride knows exactly what it is and refuses to apologize. Sort of like showing up to Pride wearing what makes you happy rather than chasing trends.
MINI COOPER
$27,000
MPG: 28 city/39 highway
0 to 60 mph: 7.9 seconds
Trunk space: 5.2 cu. ft.
PROS: Playful styling. Fun handling. Extra stowage.
CONS: Ride can be firm. Not a speed demon.
Mini Coopers approach life with a wink and a grin. Rounded headlights. Compact dimensions. Cheerful styling. It all works to create a vehicle that looks like it’s having fun before you’ve even started the engine.
Driving this ragtop is equally entertaining. The steering is quick, and the chassis feels eager to please. Overall performance is lively rather than blistering.
The cabin leans heavily into Mini’s playful design language. Circular elements appear throughout. Details feel intentionally quirky. Many modern interiors seem created by committees that fear excitement. This cabin feels designed by someone who enjoys color, personality and perhaps spontaneous dance breaks.
Unlike the BMW Z4 and Mazda Miata, the Mini offers a small rear seat. “Small” is doing some heavy lifting there, but the extra space adds flexibility. It may not be enough room to comfortably squeeze in friends, but you can easily stow a few bags here.
To me, driving this convertible feels like attending the world’s friendliest block party. People notice it. People smile. Sometimes people even wave.
Buttigieg says false report temporarily separated him from his children
11 years after Obergefell, marriage equality remains under scrutiny
Federal officials launch Title IX probe into Md. schools over trans athletes
Comings & Goings
‘Leviticus’ demonizes homophobia for gripping queer horror yarn
Abelardo de la Espriella elected Colombia’s next president
Capital Pride draws tens of thousands to D.C.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Festival and Concert
