Local
D.C. chief judge’s advice for couples planning to wed
Clerks can’t refuse to perform civil weddings on religious grounds
Couples lined up outside D.C. Superior Court on March 3 to obtain same-sex marriage licenses the first day they became available. (Photo by Joe Tresh)
D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Lee Satterfield, who oversees the court’s Marriage Bureau, offered advice for same-sex couples coming to the courthouse for the first time to apply for a marriage license or a court officiated civil wedding.
In an interview with DC Agenda on the day before the city’s same-sex marriage law took effect March 3, Satterfield acknowledged the occasion would be “exciting” for gay couples and promised to do all he could to make the license application process run smoothly.
He said that while he could not comment on internal court personnel matters, he made it clear that clerks and other court officials could not decline to perform same-sex wedding on religious or moral grounds, as is the case in other jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal.
“We expect to have anyone doing and officiating weddings to be officiating all weddings,” he said.
Following is a transcript of Satterfield’s interview with DC Agenda:
DC AGENDA: Leah Gurowitz, the court’s public information officer, said you might be able to talk about the procedures at the courthouse for accommodating the city’s new same-sex marriage law.
LEE SATTERFIELD: I thought it would be good to give some information to the public. I know it’s going to be an exciting day tomorrow for a lot of folk who have been waiting and a lot of residents here in D.C. and even elsewhere who may come to D.C. to apply for a marriage license. So I wanted to offer some tips or advice as to how to make this a good experience and a smooth one.
AGENDA: Thank you. What would you suggest people do as the process begins?
SATTERFIELD: We’re open every day during the weekday 8:30 to 5 p.m. We’re available on other days other than [Wednesday]. But for folk who want to come [Wednesday] during what we expect to be a huge rush and a significant increase in numbers, we’re asking people to, number one, come with a lot of patience because we normally get about 10 to 12 applications in a day. And while I’m going to add some staff to the Marriage Bureau so that we can process a significant amount more, and we’re going to work very hard to do so, I expect that there will be some time delays. But we will accommodate everybody. So we’re asking, number one, that people be patient, who decide to come [Wednesday] and the next couple of days soon after the law becomes effective.
And then there are a number of other things they can do. For instance, come with a completed application. We loaded the application on our web site — dccourts.gov, you can go into the Superior Court section — or actually, there’s a link on the front page for folk to go right to the Marriage Bureau section and get the application so they complete it. I think it’s important that folk — some of the things we see happen to folk that end up having to come back is that they don’t come down with their identification because the law requires that you have to be 18 years and older.
And so if there’s one party coming down they may come down with their own but not with their partner’s — so they have to make sure they have some identification, whether it’s a driver’s license, passport, birth certificate, not just for themselves but the person they’re marrying. So those are the kinds of things that trip people up and they end up having to come back again.
We want to try to avoid, particularly when we expect a significant increase. And then, of course, bring money — cash or money order with the amount. The fee is $35 for applying and then, of course, $10 for the marriage certificate, and that could be paid that day. We have a separate finance office for that, or any day up until you get your license. You have to have proof of payment before that — unless you are registered under the D.C. domestic partnership act. Then we’ll waive the fee. But please bring your certificate showing proof that you’re registered to show the clerks so that they can waive the fee.
AGENDA: What’s the procedure for a civil wedding at the courthouse? Isn’t there an additional waiting time for courthouse weddings?
SATTERFIELD: I’m being told now from one of my staff persons that knows all this that when they apply for the application they apply for a civil wedding at that time. So it will probably be 10 days from that time.
AGENDA: Ten days from when they apply for the license?
SATTERFIELD: Ten days or more. We use that as a reasonable period. Obviously, if they want to do it after 14 days or a specific date after the tenth day, we try to set it for that.
AGENDA: If someone does apply for a civil marriage, who exactly performs them? The web site says something about officials from the staff.
SATTERFIELD: Right. In terms of the civil marriages that are conducted at the courthouse, I designated as chief judge through the clerk of the court here a number of staff. Usually they’re supervisors or managers. And I’ve added some more — authorized some more individuals to do the civil marriage. The judges typically are not doing them during the day because they are involved in their dockets, the cases they have to hear each day, which are quite extensive. So very rarely are the judges involved. Sometimes the judges will go up to help out if we have an increased demand and so forth. And so if it’s done at the court it’s usually done by one of the duly sworn officiates that we designate to perform these weddings. And then individuals, judges do them outside of court for individuals who request — usually somebody that knows the judge. It’s that kind of connection. But we very rarely have judges go up there because at the time of the day they would go during the lunch hour and it’s hard to get them up there because of their other responsibilities.
AGENDA: But if a judge knows the couple…
SATTERFIELD: Oh, sure. If the couple arranges with a judge to perform their ceremony, they should bring the judge’s name and add it to the application so that it can be placed on the certificate. Or if it happens later, that’s fine, too. You don’t have to have it on the day that you apply. But judges often perform ceremonies — you just kind of get to them in a different way.
AGENDA: Could they do the ceremonies outside the courthouse, too?
SATTERFIELD: Oh, the judges? That’s where they mostly do them. That’s where the judges typically do them because they don’t do them here. Typically they will do them outside on the weekends or in the evenings, those kinds of things.
AGENDA: To the extent that you can comment, in other states officials are allowed to decline to perform a same-sex marriage if it is against their religious beliefs. Can the officials do that here?
SATTERFIELD: You know the law, as I understand it in the District of Columbia, does not allow that when it comes to employees of the court — it does for clergy and others. It allows them to decline. It doesn’t allow for our folk to do so. While I don’t discuss personnel matters, what I will say is this: We expect to have anyone doing and officiating weddings to be officiating all weddings.
AGENDA: Where is the Marriage Bureau in the courthouse?
SATTERFIELD: It’s on the fourth floor. Another point I want to make: We have three entrances to the courthouse. I only say this for a number of reasons. We expect a lot of activity for [Wednesday] — out front, including our main entrance. And we have construction going on out there. So if citizens come up and they see it’s quite crowded out there, we have another entrance in what we call the John Martial Plaza, which is the family court entrance, which is that plaza between the Municipal Building and our courthouse. And then we have an entrance on our C Street side of the court building. In terms of how busy they are, the main one on Indiana Avenue is the busiest. The family court one is the second busiest, and then C Street is the least busy. So we have three avenues of getting in and getting out. So I don’t know what all the activity is going to be like outside. But we have those three avenues of getting in and getting out. And the Marriage Bureau is on the fourth floor.
AGENDA: Leah Gurowitz said there’s an exception to the ban on cameras in the courthouse for weddings there?
SATTERFIELD: Right. Once we schedule your civil marriage, we give a permission slip so that the guards will allow you to bring a camera in. I’m glad you mentioned that because we don’t allow cameras for anyone coming in the courthouse. So if folk were coming in to apply, that would apply to them, but if you’re coming back to have a ceremony or guests of those who are having the ceremony, we will allow cameras in then. And that’s another reason for when we schedule it we make sure that the person gets permission in order to bring the camera past the guards.
AGENDA: In terms of the applications themselves, I noticed they had not changed as of a few weeks ago. They only had space for one bride and one groom.
SATTERFIELD: We modified them. We put the modified or our new standard form up over the weekend. So it’s there now.
AGENDA: Do the new forms use the term “spouse?”
SATTERFIELD: You can go up there and get it. We have taken out the bride and groom part and just put two spouse sections, and we’re going to use that from here on out for all applicants. We’re trying to keep it simple with one form.
AGENDA: Do you think some might object to that? Would more traditional heterosexual couples still want the terms bride and groom?
SATTERFIELD: But it’s just an application. So we’re willing to deal with that on the application part. That’s something that nobody sees but us. The certificate is what everybody wants out of this, because that’s the legal document joining you.
AGENDA: Would that legal document still say bride and groom if the parties want it?
SATTERFIELD: … We never had that on the form. What we do is we list the names of the parties. So we never had that on the certificate of license anyway.
AGENDA: Could you explain what the certificate of license is?
SATTERFIELD: It’s going to have our seal on it. It’s the certificate of marriage, the license number, and it’s going to duly authorize and celebrate the marriage between the named [parties] — both spouses. It will list their names. And then it’s signed by and stamped by the Clerk of the Court. And then whoever officiates it would have to sign it after the marriage is performed and then agree to send a copy back to us for our records. We keep a copy of it at the court. And they get a very nice copy of the certificate and the officiate is able to keep a copy as well.
AGENDA: Is that the one that goes to a church if the wedding will be held there?
SATTERFIELD: That’s right. This certificate goes to whether it is a civil marriage here in our court or signed by a judge or signed by a clergy. It’s one certificate for all.
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.”
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
The university that refuses to let go
