Local
Rally pushes D.C. ballot measure on marriage
Counter protesters celebrate local rights for same-sex couples

On the matter of same-sex marriage, Bishop Harry Jackson chanted 'Let the people vote!' (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
About 150 same-sex marriage opponents rallied at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday, calling for the definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman.
National Organization for Marriage officials, who organized the event and billed it as the finale to a series of similar rallies held this summer in locations across the country, focused on the group’s efforts to overturn D.C.’s same-sex marriage law through a voter initiative.
“Let the people vote! Let the people vote!” chanted Bishop Harry Jackson, one of the speakers at the rally and the leader of a campaign to oppose D.C.’s same-sex marriage law. The D.C. City Council passed and Mayor Adrian Fenty signed that legislation in December.
The rally at the Capitol took place at the same time that a coalition of LGBT organizations staged an opposing event at Freedom Plaza, which is located about a mile away and next the John A. Wilson D.C. City Hall building, where the City Council passed the same-sex marriage law.
Organizers of the Freedom Plaza rally estimated that between 200 and 250 people attended that event. Among the speakers were D.C. Council member David Catania (I-At Large), author of the same-sex marriage bill, and Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who headed the committee that guided the measure through the Council.
The groups that helped organize the Freedom Plaza rally included Equality Across America, Full Equality Now! D.C., and Talk About Equality.
“We know what this fight is about,” said Brian Brown, the National Organization for Marriage president, at the Capitol gathering. “It is about a profound love and respect for an institution that the government did not create … that brings together the two great halves of humanity, male and female, so that they can know and be known by — love and be loved by — any children that they may bear.
“And this, my friends, is something worth fighting for.”
Brown denounced U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in California for overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. Brown said he was nearly certain that a higher court would overturn Walker’s ruling.
But Brown noted, as have other same-sex marriage opponents, that a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage will be pursued if Walker’s decision is allowed to stand.
“If the worst-case situation were to happen, that this decision goes all the way to the Supreme Court and somehow five justices define out of thin air a right to redefine marriage, we still have the power to vote,” he said. “It’s called amending the United States constitution to protect marriage as a union of a man and a woman.”
Brown added that “the consequences are clear and profound when our children are taught in the schools that it’s the same thing for Jimmy to grow up and marry Johnny as it is to marry Mary, and that you, the parents, are bigots for teaching them otherwise.”
Jackson called same-sex marriage advocates “out of control radicals” and compared the tactics that some have used to the tactics of “intimidation” used by white supremacists in the South to oppress blacks during the 1960s civil rights struggle.
“What we’re experiencing is injustice American style,” he said. “A privileged minority with a whole lot of money and a whole lot of sway is basically saying to the rest of you, ‘You sit down. You shut up. Your opinion doesn’t count.’
“They’re willing to threaten us. They’re willing to talk down to us. They’re trying to intimidate us,” he said. “I’m here to tell you: Do not be intimidated. Enough! Enough! Stand up!”
At one point during his remarks, Jackson held up the book “Heather Has Two Mommies” and warned that it would used to teach children about same-sex marriage in the nation’s schools if opponents don’t rise up in opposition.
Other speakers at the Capitol rally included former D.C. congressional Del. Walter Fauntroy and D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Robert King, who joined Jackson in calling on the city government to drop its opposition to a ballot measure that would allow voters to decide whether to keep or overturn same-sex marriage in Washington.
The city’s Board of Elections & Ethics has ruled that a ballot measure seeking to ban same-sex marriage cannot be held because it would violate a law disqualifying ballot measures that would lead to discrimination outlawed by the D.C. Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Two courts have upheld the board’s ruling. Jackson has said his side will appeal the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During the Capitol rally Sunday, about 40 counter protesters, including members of local and out-of-state LGBT groups, stood silently along the perimeter holding signs that called for same-sex marriage. At one point, a separate group of about 30 counter protesters marched briefly along the Capitol plaza near the steps of the U.S. Senate. One of that group’s members used a bull horn to express support for same-sex marriage. The group circled back twice before being escorted off of the Capitol grounds by U.S. Capitol police.
Among the counter protesters holding a silent vigil at the Capitol were Rev. Mel White, founder of the LGBT advocacy group Soulforce, which has dispatched its members throughout the country to hold similar vigils at National Organization for Marriage rallies in other states.
Two of the rally’s scheduled speakers — National Organization for Marriage co-founder and board chair Maggie Gallagher and same-sex marriage opponent Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr. — did not attend the event.
Members of the LGBT media appeared to outnumber reporters from the mainstream press at the really, with several LGBT bloggers engaging Brown and Fauntroy in interviews that devolved into heated debates.
White said Soulforce, among other things, challenges same-sex marriage opponents like Jackson on religious grounds, arguing that same-sex unions are consistent with Christian beliefs and theology.
“They come in the name of Jesus,” White said. “And I think it would break Jesus’ heart to be here and see them. If Jesus were here, he would be on the side of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Jesus was always with the outcasts. Jesus was an outcast himself … and we must show them that, being here, we will no longer take second-class standing in our own country.”
Maryland
Salisbury, Md. rainbow crosswalk removed on Veterans Day
Mayor’s order denounced by LGBTQ activists as act of bigotry
Under the directive of its mayor and over strong objections from LGBTQ rights advocates and their supporters, the city of Salisbury, Md. on Nov. 11 removed a rainbow crosswalk from a prominent intersection across from the mayor’s office and the city’s public library.
Salisbury LGBTQ rights advocate Mark DeLancey, who witnessed the crosswalk removal, said instead of painting over it as other cities have done in removing rainbow crosswalks, a powerful grinding machine was used to rip apart the asphalt pavement under the crosswalk in what he believes was an effort by the mayor to “make a point.”
Like officials in other locations that have removed rainbow crosswalks, Salisbury Mayor Randy Taylor said the crosswalk removal was required under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations put in place by the Trump administration that do not allow “political” messages on streets and roadways.
“Since taking office, I’ve been transparent about my concerns regarding the Pride crosswalks installed in Downtown Salisbury,” Taylor said in a statement. “While I have made every effort to respect the decisions of previous administrations and the folks that supported them, it has become clear that a course of correction – as planned – is necessary to align with current Department of Transportation standards for roadway markings,” he said in his Nov. 7 statement that was posted on the city’s Facebook page.
DeLancey is among the activists and local public officials in many cities and states that dispute that the federal Department of Transportation has legal authority to ban the Pride crosswalks. D.C. and the Northern Virginia jurisdictions of Arlington and Alexandria are among the localities that have refused to remove rainbow crosswalks from their streets.
“He decided to take this on himself,” DeLancey said of Taylor’s action. “It’s not a law. It’s not a ruling of any kind. He just said that was something that should happen.”
DeLancey points out that Salisbury became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to install a rainbow crosswalk on a public street in September 2018.
“This is another blatant attempt by our Republican mayor to remove any references to groups that don’t fit with his agenda,” Salisbury LGBTQ advocate Megan Pomeroy told the local publication Watershed Observer. “The rainbow crosswalk represents acceptance for everyone. It tells them, ‘You matter. You are valued. You are welcome here,’” she was quoted as saying.
The publication Delmarva Now reports that a longtime Salisbury straight ally to the LGBTQ community named K.T. Tuminello staged a one-person protest on Nov. 10 by sitting on the sidewalk next to the rainbow crosswalk holding a sign opposing its removal.
“Tuminello said Nov. 10 he had been at the embattled crosswalk since 12 a.m. that morning, and only three things could make him leave: ‘I get arrested, I have to get into an ambulance because of my medical difficulties, or Randy Taylor says you can keep that one rainbow crosswalk,’” the Delaware Now article states.
DeLancey said he has known Tuminello for many years as an LGBTQ ally and saw him on the night he staged his sit-in at the site of the crosswalk.
“I actually went to him last night trying to give him some water,” DeLancey told the Washington Blade. “He was on a hunger strike as well. He was there for a total of 40 hours on strike, not eating, no sleeping in the freezing cold”
Added DeLancey, “He has been supporting our community for decades. And he is a very strong ally, and we love his contribution very much.”
Political observers have pointed out that Salisbury for many years has been a progressive small city surrounded by some of Maryland’s more conservative areas with mostly progressive elected officials.
They point out that Taylor, a Trump supporter, won election as mayor in November 2023 with 36.6 percent of the vote. Two progressive candidates split the vote among themselves, receiving a combined total of 70.8 percent of the vote.
Virginia
Ghazala Hashmi names Equality Virginia executive director to transition team
Narissa Rahaman will join Adam Ebbin, Mark Sickles on LG-elect’s committee.
Virginia Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi has named Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman to her transition team.
State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and state Del. Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) are among those who Hashmi also named to her Transition Committee.
“I am honored to have this diverse group of leaders join our transition,” said Hashmi in a statement. “Their experience, perspective, and commitment to public service will help build an Office of the Lieutenant Governor that is responsive, innovative, and relentlessly focused on improving the lives of every Virginia resident.”
“Together, we will develop a thoughtful roadmap for the work ahead — one that ensures we are engaging communities, strengthening partnerships across the state, and preparing this office to serve with purpose and conviction from Day One,” she added. “I am grateful to each member for bringing time, expertise, and passion to this effort.”
Hashmi, a Democrat, defeated Republican John Reid, who is openly gay, on Nov. 4.
Hashmi will succeed outgoing Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears on Jan. 17.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
Darren Pasha denies charge, claims action is linked to Ashley Smith’s resignation
Capital Pride Alliance, the D.C.-based LGBTQ group that organizes the city’s annual Pride events, filed a Civil Complaint on Oct. 27 against local LGBTQ activist and former volunteer Darren Pasha, accusing him of engaging in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk Capital Pride’s staff, board members, and volunteers.
The complaint, which was filed in D.C. Superior Court, was accompanied by a separate motion seeking a court restraining order, preliminary injunction and anti-stalking order prohibiting Pasha from “any further contact, harassment, intimidation, or interference with the Plaintiff, its staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates.”
According to online court records, on Oct. 28, a judge issued an “initial order” setting the date for a scheduling conference for the case on Feb. 6, 2026. As of the end of the business day on Friday, Nov. 7, the judge did not issue a ruling on Capital Pride’s request for an injunction and restraining order
The court records show that on Nov. 5 Pasha filed an answer to the complaint in which he denies all allegations that he targeted Capital Pride officials or volunteers for stalking or that he engaged in any other improper behavior.
“It is evident that the document is replete with false, misleading, and unsubstantiated assertions,” Pasha says in his response, adding that “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to meet the statutory requirements for an anti-stalking order.
The Capital Pride complaint includes an 18-page legal brief outlining its allegations against Pasha and an additional 167-page addendum of “supporting exhibits” that includes multiple statements by witnesses whose names are blacked out in the court filing documents.
“Over the past year, Defendant Darren Dolshad Pasha (“DSP”} has engaged in a sustained and escalating course of conduct directed at CPA, including repeated and unwanted contact, harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior targeting CPA staff, board members, volunteers, and affiliates,” the Capital Pride complaint states.
It continues, “This conduct included physical intimidation, unwanted physical contact, deception to gain unauthorized access to events, retaliatory threats, abusive digital communication, proxy-based harassment, and knowing defiance of organizational bans and protective orders.”
The sweeping anti-stalking order requested in Capital Pride’s court motion would prohibit Pasha from interacting in person or online or electronically with “all current and future staff, board members, and volunteers of Capital Pride Alliance, Inc.”
The proposed order adds, the “defendant shall stay at least 200 yards away from the principal offices of Capital Pride Alliance” and “shall stay at least 200 yards away from all Capital Pride Alliance events, event venues, associated activities, and affiliated gatherings.”
The reason for these restrictions, according to the complaint, is that Pasha’s actions toward Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers allegedly reached the level of causing them to fear for their safety, become “alarmed, disturbed, or frightened,” or suffer emotional distress as defined in D.C.’s anti-stalking law.
Among the Capital Pride officials who are identified by name and who have included statements in the complaint in support of its allegations against Pasha are Ashley Smith, the former Capital Pride Alliance board president, and June Crenshaw, the Capital Pride Alliance deputy director.
“I am making this declaration based on my personal knowledge to support CPA’s petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (ASO) against Daren Pasha,” Smith says in his court statement. “My concerns about the respondent are based on my personal interactions with him as well as reports I have received from other members of the CPA community,” Smith states.
The Capital Pride complaint against Pasha and its supporting documents were filed by D.C. attorney Nick Harrison of the local law firm Harrison-Stein PC.
In his 16-page response to the complaint that he says he wrote himself without the aid of an attorney, Pasha says the Capital Pride complaint against him appears to be a form of retaliation against him for a dispute he has had with the organization and its then president, Ashley Smith, over the past year.
His response states that the announcement last month by Capital Pride that Smith resigned from his position as board president on Oct. 18 after it became aware of a “claim” regarding Smith and it had opened an investigation into the claim supports his assertion that Smith’s resignation is linked to his year-long claim that Smith tarnished his reputation.
Among his allegations against Smith in his response to the Capital Pride complaint, Pasha accuses Smith of using his position as a member of the board of the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C.-based national LGBTQ advocacy organization, to persuade HRC to terminate his position as an HRC volunteer and to ban him from attending any future HRC events. He attributes HRC’s action against him to “defamatory” claims about him by Smith related to his ongoing dispute with Smith.
The Capital Pride complaint cites HRC officials as saying Pasha was ousted from his role as a volunteer after he allegedly engaged in abusive and inappropriate behavior toward HRC staff members and other volunteers.
Capital Pride has so far declined to disclose the reason for Smith’s resignation pending an internal investigation.
In its statement announcing Smith’s resignation, a copy of which it sent to the Washington Blade, Capital Pride Alliance says, “Recently, CPA was made aware of a claim made regarding him. The organization has retained an independent firm to initiate an investigation and has taken the necessary steps to make available partner service providers for the parties involved.”
The statement adds, “To protect the integrity of the process and the privacy of all involved, CPA will not be sharing further information at this time.”
Smith did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment, and Capital Pride has declined to disclose whether Smith’s resignation is linked in any way to Pasha’s allegations.
The Capital Pride complaint seeks to “characterize me as posing a threat sufficient to justify the issuance of a Civil Anti-Stalking Order (CAO), yet no credible or admissible evidence has been provided to satisfy the statutory elements required under D.C. Code 22-3133,” Pasha states in his response.
“CPA’s assertions fail to establish any such conduct on my part and instead appear calculated to discredit and retaliate against me for raising legitimate concerns regarding the conduct of its former Board President,” he states in his response.
In its complaint against Pasha and its legal memorandum supporting its request for an anti-stalking order, Capital Pride provides a list of D.C. Superior Court records that show Pasha has been hit with several anti-stalking orders in cases unrelated to Capital Pride in the past and has violated those orders, resulting in his arrest in at least two of those cases.
“A fundamental justification for granting the [Anti-Stalking Order] lies in the Respondent’s extensive and recent criminal history demonstrating a proven propensity for defying judicial protective measures,” the complaint states. “This history suggests that organizational bans alone are insufficient to deter his behavior, elevating the current situation to one requiring mandatory judicial enforcement,” it says.
“It is alleged that in or about June 2025, Defendant was convicted on multiple counts of violating existing Anti-Stalking Orders in matters unrelated to Capital Pride Alliance (“CPA”),with consecutive sentences imposed, purportedly establishing a pattern of contempt for judicial restraint,” Pasha states in his court response to the Capital Pride complaint.
“These allegations are irrelevant to the matter currently before the Court,” his response continues. “The events cited are entirely unrelated to CPA and the allegations underlying the petition for a Civil Anti-Stalking Order. Moreover, each of these prior matters has been fully adjudicated, resolved, and dismissed, and therefore cannot serve as a basis to justify the issuance of a permanent Civil Anti-Stalking Order in this unrelated proceeding.”
He adds in his response, “Any reliance on such prior matters is misleading, prejudicial, and legally insufficient.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
-
District of Columbia4 days agoCapital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
-
Politics1 day agoPro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
Dining4 days agoSpark Social House to start serving alcohol
