Connect with us

Opinions

St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Capitol Hill: Faith in inclusion

‘Members strive to create a tolerant and open world’

Published

on

St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

St. Mark’s Episcopal Church (stmarks.net) is the Episcopal Church closest to the United States Capitol building. In the last decade, it is perhaps best known for hosting the annual National Vigil for All Victims of Gun Violence, the most recent of which President Joe Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on Dec. 7.  

The church is less well known as a “straight” faith community that has provided a home for LGBTQ people since the late 1980s, when “faith community” often meant “homophobia.”  LGBTQ people have always been a minority of members, but have never felt like a minority because being queer is just like being a lawyer: an interesting fact that does not define us. Perhaps the defining characteristic of St. Mark’s is that we live our faith by telling and listening to our stories. Here following are several that illustrate that point.

For example, Keith Krueger started coming to St. Mark’s in the mid-1980s and found a welcoming, mostly straight community. “During the start of the AIDS crisis, St. Mark’s immediately stepped up to support the Episcopal Caring Response to AIDS (ECRA), and the community particularly supported my late partner in me during difficult times…. I stay because it is a community that values questioning and living together as we journey through life. The best part of St. Mark’s are its members who strive to create a tolerant and open world,” Krueger said.

John Lineberger, a long-standing member who recently died, took adult confirmation in 1989 where everyone was invited to be “authentic,” and share their story. He asked the clergy how welcome gays were at the church and told they had held every office of authority, but gay issues were “not talked about.” So, he asked if that meant “you have a place here, but don’t make trouble.”  

That question sparked a loud, overheard discussion between the Rector and Associate Rector, and he was then told, “You are absolutely invited to be honest about your life here with us without exception. There is no disconnect between being a member of St. Mark’s and being gay.” John was relieved, and felt like he had been overhearing his parents having an argument. “I liked the people of St. Marks and didn’t want to have to go back to church shopping. I had found home. Maybe it was messy, but it was home,” Lineberger wrote.

Rob Hall’s first Sunday was in 1988 on the 100th anniversary of the church on the invitation of a straight work friend. He was closeted then because he came from a southern tradition and was involved in Democratic politics. He found that “St. Mark’s was the perfect place for me to find my path as a progressive Christian and to help guide me spiritually as I came out while serving on the Vestry (the Church’s governing board) “with the help of great friends, compassionate clergy, and a good therapist.”  

One of the clearest signs of queer acceptance came in 1997. Jim Adams had retired and we were in the search/discernment period for our next rector. Interestingly, our Priest-in-Charge during the search was Jim Steen, an openly gay man. The race for Senior Warden (lay leader of the Vestry and Parish) was probably the most consequential election in parish history. One candidate was a pillar of the community and former senior warden who advocated for continuity, including possibly installing as Rector the most recent Associate Rector Susan Gresinger (who had recently departed so she could be considered). Rob was the other and told the community that he favored an open process and wanted to see the work of the search committee. The questions parishioners asked him showed that they realized he represented change. Rob remembers that, “My sexuality was brought up in every single conversation. . . . I would be St. Mark’s first gay senior warden serving with a gay interim priest. Would the community think we were becoming a gay church? Would I take the parish in another direction before a new rector could be installed? At 36, was I too young to take the helm of the parish?”  

Rob won and led us through a period of change, including calling an African-American rector, Paul Abernathy, who would serve for the next 17 years (and sometimes included in his sermons that his gay brother had died of AIDS). In 1999, the parish, after a series of meetings, also decided to embrace same-sex unions. At the final meeting, about 80 of us were grouped in tables who talked and then reported to the rest of meeting. What was amazing was that virtually every comment was positive. One parishioner quipped during one of those meetings that “We already decided this issue when we elected Rob.”  

Lesbian Belle Elizabeth McCain came to St. Mark’s in 1989. She came at Rob Hall’s invitation and, though she identified as straight, she was naturally welcomed by the gay men in the choir. “We were preparing to go on a tour in England and I came out at the choir retreat. Actually, somebody sort of outed me by saying ‘We hear there is a lesbian soprano.’” She says she has always felt accepted as a lesbian at St. Mark’s. “Jim Adams defended me to my homophobic and fundamentalist brother” telling my brother that “I was a respected member of the church and that I was accepted as a lesbian.”

Years ago, she recalls, LGBTQ members formed the Lavender Lions (now the Lambda Lions). The group continues to meet on a sporadic basis. The parish now has several gay couples who are parenting children, at least two couples engaged and planning weddings.  

As for me, I came — and came out —- much later. I was a married “straight” man when my then-wife and I came to St. Mark’s. After a horrible divorce, I finally figured out I am gay in 2001. I don’t really think about being gay at St. Mark’s because there are so many of us in so many roles, including our Rector, Michele Morgan, a married lesbian, and our Seminarian, Joel Martinez, a married gay man. I’m now the church’s treasurer, continuing the tradition of LGBTQ people in church leadership roles.  

For more information about St. Marks, visit stmarks.net; a timeline regarding its LGBTQ+ inclusion is at stmarks.net/lgbtq-and-st-marks-history.

Randy Marks is a longtime member of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Capitol Hill.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Keir Starmer has blood on his hands

British prime minister’s foreign assistance cuts will kill people with HIV

Published

on

Eight ACT UP members on April 8, 2025, disrupted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Liaison Committee in London. (Photo courtesy of Dan Glass)

My name is Mijan. I’m a born and bred East Londoner, a child of immigrants, an ACT UP London/UK activist, and I live with HIV. ACT UP UK and our kin across the pond, ACT UP US, was founded to fight and champion rights of people living with and affected by HIV/AIDS. We are a global coalition that believes in Fund Healthcare Not Warfare, a transatlantic movement that demands global health justice and an end to military prioritisation over the health and wellbeing of human life. The threats we face are the same from funding cuts, state suppression, and queer erasure. U.S. or the U.K. we sing from the same hymn sheet: We will not stand by while our lives are at risk.

On April 8, eight of us ACT UP Activists disrupted Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Liaison Committee. We were peaceful and determined to execute our die-in. Security was almost as determined to make sure we didn’t. They strong-armed us out of parliament like we were a threat. We tried to begin our die-in, to make a statement for the lives at stake, but instead we were rammed out the revolving doors as we were leaving, which they ended up jamming and dumped on the stairs of Portcullis House. We made the best of a bad situation and laid on the dirty grounds — because this is what democracy looks like in the U.K. when it’s under attack.

Why were we there? Because we are scared and angry. Because we are regressing. Because AIDS cuts means death.

Keir Starmer’s Labour government is enacting the most drastic reduction in U.K. AID cuts we have seen in many years, slashing it from 0.5 percent of gross national income to 0.3 percent by 2027. This is the lowest level of Official Development Assistance spending in years — and it’s being justified to increase defense spending. More missiles, fewer medicines. More tanks, fewer treatments. 

Starmer, you justify this under the guise of “security” — but whose security are you protecting? It’s not mine. I live with HIV, and I’m only alive today because of global health funding, funding that made treatment, programs, and vital research possible. Thanks to that support, HIV is no longer a death sentence for many of us. But that’s not the case for everyone.

Not everyone has the privilege of being born in countries like the U.K., where treatment is accessible and free. Many will die because of funding cuts. Many will lose loved ones. We will see HIV contraction rates rise. We will see preventable deaths increase.

Kier, what you are doing is wrong! What you are doing is horrible! What you are doing is deadly!

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to our world health experts. The World Health Organization’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has warned that these cuts could cause over 10 million additional HIV infections and three million HIV-related deaths. A new modeling study published in the Lancet HIV by the Burnet Institute backs this up — projecting a 24 percent reduction in international HIV funding by 2026 if current trends continue. Twenty years of progress in HIV treatment and prevention could be wiped out by a single budget.

Deplorable.

Is this what Labour stands for? I thought this party would fight for us. 

HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects queer people and people of color — already marginalized communities who are now being discarded. Labour was created by and for people who lived on the fringe of society, the little guy. Labour is meant to empower, support and protect the vulnerable, not sacrifice them. Labour is meant to listen to the people, not silence them and ram them out like cattle to slaughter. Labour should be ashamed. You are not for the people.

We were there for a reason. We were there  because lives depend on it. We showed up because diplomacy failed. When we chose peaceful protest, we were met with aggression and suppression. That’s what we need to talk about too. Because this isn’t just about foreign aid anymore — this is also about our right to protest being attacked.

When activists are forced out of parliament for daring to peacefully protest against inhumane policies, it truly puts into perspective a dying democracy.

Democracy is no longer open to the people. Our ability to protest is now treated as a threat to power. Our democracy is under threat. And it’s not just from Tory strongmen. It’s from the very party that’s supposed to be on our side.

This Labour government has abandoned its principles and has abused people’s trust. That it will turn its back on migrants, on the poor, on queer people, on disabled people, and now — on people living with and at risk of HIV/AIDS. It is morally bankrupt.

Bombing your way to justice will not achieve equality. Ignoring a global health crisis and is not progressive. Get your priorities straight: Fund health care, not warfare. Invest in life, not death. Restore the 0.5 percent foreign aid commitment, and stop treating the most vulnerable lives on the planet as expendable.

Keir Starmer, you have blood on your hands. 

You may have pushed us out of parliament, but we will not be silenced.  We will be louder. We will be bolder. We will not let this die. ACT UP has always believed in one simple truth: SILENCE = DEATH.

Mijan is a pseudonym for an HIV-positive activist who believes that SILENCE = DEATH.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Science must not be a weapon against trans people

HHS directive would fund studies on ‘detransition’ among children

Published

on

(Image by jpgon/Bigstock)

A concerning research directive is quietly circulating through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The directive, issued in response to presidential Executive Order 14187, calls for the National Institutes of Health to fund studies focused on “regret” and “detransition” among children who have accessed gender-affirming care. It explicitly demands that researchers avoid “subsidizing or incentivizing” such care – language that is both vague and deeply ideological.

President Trump’s executive order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” was signed in January 2025 and frames all gender-affirming care for minors as inherently dangerous. It calls for an investigation into the “long-term side effects” of such care and restricts federal funding to any institution providing it. In effect, it lays the groundwork for a federally sanctioned research agenda that aims not to understand transgender health but to discredit it.

Behind the recent HHS memo lies a dangerous truth: The federal government is attempting to repurpose science as a tool for political ideology. If this directive proceeds, it will not only erode the credibility of public health research, but it will also put transgender lives at risk.

This warning is not hyperbole. The memo uses inflammatory language like “chemical and surgical mutilation” to describe standard gender-affirming treatments such as hormone therapy and surgery. These terms are not neutral. They are the rhetorical weapons of anti-trans movements, now embedded in federal policy language. Their use signals a chilling shift: science is no longer being asked to explore, understand, or improve lives. It is being asked to justify harm.

Let’s be clear: Regret following gender-affirming care is exceedingly rare. Evidence suggests that the regret rate among individuals who have had gender-affirming surgery is less than 1%, compared to a surgical regret prevalence of about 14% among the general population. Moreover, studies have found that when transgender people report regret following gender-affirming surgery, it is often related to external factors like lack of support from family and peers. 

The evidence is consistent and overwhelming: gender-affirming care, including gender-affirming surgery, improves mental health, reduces suicidality, decreases substance use, and affirms a person’s identity and autonomy. That’s why the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and every major medical organization in the United States recognize the safety, efficacy, and medical necessity of gender-affirming care when provided in accordance with established guidelines.

And yet, this new directive demands the opposite. It explicitly instructs researchers to avoid using methods that “subsidize” or “incentivize” transition – a vague prohibition that could limit recruitment, constrain study design, and exclude institutions that provide care. It also bars federal funding to any site offering gender-affirming care to minors, ensuring that the very institutions with the clinical expertise and trust of transgender communities are excluded from the research altogether.

This is not how science works. It is how propaganda works.

There is no scientific integrity in a process that defines its conclusions in advance. There is no public benefit in research that singles out one of the most vulnerable populations – transgender youth – as the sole subject of scrutiny while erasing their overwhelmingly positive outcomes. There is no ethical justification for using federal funds to stigmatize identities and restrict medical freedom.

All aspects of transgender health – positive, negative, and complex – deserve rigorous scientific study. That is what good research does. It seeks truth through comprehensive, community-engaged inquiry. But this directive does not aim for understanding; it fixates exclusively on harm. By selectively funding studies on regret and detransition and explicitly discouraging research that might affirm or support transition, it transforms science from a tool of discovery into an instrument of ideological control. 

The consequences of this directive are real. It will erode trust in health research, particularly among transgender people who already face systemic discrimination in medicine. It will chill academic inquiry, pushing researchers away from transgender health for fear of political reprisal. And it will feed a wave of state-level legislation banning gender-affirming care – legislation that increasingly cites distorted or misrepresented science as justification.

This directive is not just an attack on trans rights. It is an attack on science itself.

We must respond with urgency.

First, institutions that receive NIH funding must speak out. Silence enables political interference to become normalized. Deans, department chairs, and ethics boards must draw a clear line: public health research cannot be allowed to serve discriminatory ends.

Second, scientific societies and journals must reaffirm their commitment to ethical, community-engaged, and evidence-based research on transgender health. This means actively promoting rigorous work that reflects the full complexity of transgender people’s lives. Not just those experiences that fit a political narrative.

Third, Congress must exercise its oversight powers. Lawmakers should demand transparency around how and why this directive was issued and ensure that federally funded research respects both scientific standards and human rights.

And finally, the research community must organize. Transgender health researchers, bioethicists, and community partners need to work together to defend the autonomy of science and the dignity of research participants. This is not a moment for neutrality. It is a moment for moral clarity.

We are living through a time when transgender people are being targeted by laws, banned from public life, and erased from textbooks. Now, the very tools of science are being turned against them. If we don’t stop this weaponization now, the damage won’t just fall on transgender communities; it will fall on all of us who believe in evidence, equity, and truth.


Harry Barbee, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Their work focuses on LGBTQ+ health equity and public policy.

Continue Reading

Opinions

D.C. leaders must show up for LGBTQ+ communities

Silence is not an option amid relentless attacks

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

At a time when D.C. and the LGBTQ+ community are under relentless attack, we cannot afford silence — or inaction. The DC LGBTQ+ Budget Coalition, a grassroots alliance of more than 20 LGBTQ-led and LGBTQ-serving organizations and individuals, is calling on Mayor Bowser, the D.C. Council, and every level of D.C. government to act with urgency and purpose in this year’s budget process to invest in our community. Our lives, our futures, and our rights are on the line — not just nationally, but here at home in the District. How D.C. as a city responds in the face of hate sends a powerful message to the rest of the country. 

We formed this coalition because LGBTQ+ people in the District — especially Black, Brown, trans, disabled, and low-income residents — deserve more than token inclusion. We deserve policies, investments, and leadership that center our lived realities and deliver on equity. While Congress tries to strip D.C. of home rule and holds our budget hostage, our local government has the power — and responsibility — to lead.

We are not a performative alliance. We are a community-driven movement. From housing to healthcare to workforce development, we believe budgets are moral documents — and D.C.’s budget must reflect the values of equity, justice, and liberation.

National Context Demands Local Action

Just this year, members of Congress introduced damaging legislation to reverse D.C.’s home rule, stripping District residents of the fundamental rights of self-governance enjoyed by their own constituents. Additionally, the White House seeks to rule over us by executive order, issuing edicts to overturn our laws. Adding further insult to injury, extremists in the House of Representatives are holding $1.1 billion of D.C.’s own tax revenue hostage to their radical anti-democratic agenda.

Moreover, this administration continues its assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, undermining civil rights protections across the country. We are not simply witnessing bureaucratic shifts; we are standing at the edge of a cliff, staring down a coordinated rollback of the very protections our communities have bled to secure.

Veterans of past queer liberation fights remind us that we’ve been here before. From the Lavender Scare to Stonewall to ACT UP, from the fight for marriage equality to the ongoing battle for trans rights, queer warriors have long known what it means to survive government neglect, societal backlash, and moral panic. Their testimonies warn us: This moment is severe. This moment is familiar. And this moment requires us to act.

These are not theoretical attacks. They are strategic, structural, and escalating. In this context, D.C. must serve as a model for sanctuary, resilience, and resistance. That means investing in communities — not abandoning them.

We know that our local leadership has, at times, moved preemptively to comply with federal executive orders — even when those directives run counter to our values. And while the mayor has publicly affirmed equity, housing, and inclusivity as core priorities, this moment demands more than words. We call on the mayor and District leaders to stand firm in those stated commitments and meet this moment with the clarity in the District’s budget. D.C. must not be a conduit for federal overreach, but a bulwark against it.

Our FY26 Priorities

In this year’s budget, we’re calling for the D.C. government to protect targeted investments in:

• Public Health: Restore and expand local funding to fill the dangerous gaps left by federal cuts to HIV prevention and mental health services. Ensure culturally competent care for LGBTQ+ residents, especially those with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

Employment and Economic Equity: Sustain and grow workforce development programs for trans and gender-diverse (TGD) residents. Expand partnerships with employers and support entrepreneurial training by and for the TGD community.

Housing: Invest in long-term housing solutions, including for LGBTQ+ youth and seniors, and protect programs like Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) that keep people residents housed.

• Safety and Community Support: Fund LGBTQ+ survivor shelters and IPV/SA services, ensure disability and language access, and streamline government grant processes for community-based organizations.

We’ve outlined these and other priorities in our full FY26 Budget and Policy Platform, recently delivered to the Mayor and D.C. Council. But we know that a letter alone isn’t enough—we must take action.

We’re Organizing — and We’re Not Alone

In this past week, we launched a letter-writing campaign to mobilize D.C. residents to urge their Council members to prioritize LGBTQ+ budget needs. We are also releasing a citywide sign-on letter for partner coalitions and ally organizations to demand the same.

Our members are showing up at budget hearings, meeting with agencies, and organizing communities across all eight wards. And while we’re proud of the momentum, we need our community to join us. We need every resident, organization, and elected leader to get in this fight.

How You Can Get Involved

Here’s how you can join the movement:

Individuals: Sign our Action Network letter to Council members and the Mayor.

Testify or submit written testimony at budget hearings to uplift our priorities.

• Call and email your Council members — demand full inclusion of LGBTQ+ needs in the FY26 budget.

Together, we can ensure that D.C.’s budget reflects the lived realities and urgent needs of LGBTQ+ communities across all eight wards.

The question before D.C.’s leaders is clear: Will you choose to look the other way or will you join us in taking action?


Heidi Ellis is coordinator of the DC LGBTQ+ Budget Coalition. Erin Whelan is executive director of SMYAL (coalition member). 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular