Opinions
Why I support Muriel Bowser for mayor
From ethics to access, Democratic candidate is D.C.’s best bet
Muriel Bowser has said she is committed to hiring a cabinet that will function under strict ethics rules. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
As an out and proud gay man, the choice to support someone other than the gay man running for D.C. mayor was not a decision made lightly. It was, however, made easier because of the many values shared with his Democratic opponent.
Not since 1994 has there been a real contested mayoral election in the District of Columbia. At that time, my support went to Carol Schwartz and I helped write her platform. This time after looking closely at the candidates my vote will go to Muriel Bowser on Nov. 4. She is the right person to be mayor at this time in the District’s history.
Many friends ask what difference it makes. Isn’t politics just a dirty business? My response to that is a resounding no. Because of the work of good public servants, and many deeply committed activists in our community, the District has continued to move forward and improve. We are headed in the right direction since Anthony Williams was elected mayor in 1998. Williams upgraded city services, bringing agency operations into the technological age. Adrian Fenty built on what Williams did and moved education reform to the front burner.
Mayor Gray built on what Williams and Fenty began and rebuilt our reserve fund to record levels. His administration, with Chancellor Kaya Henderson, has made good progress in continuing education reform and our students have shown marked progress. Gray focused on rebuilding local education opportunities for students with disabilities. Today the District is in the best financial condition it has seen. Services are being delivered on time and efficiently. Our streets are clean and business is booming. People continue to move into the District at the rate of about 1,000 a month and we are on everyone’s top-10 list — from ‘hippest’ city to the best place for college grads to move to healthiest city to best sustainable energy plans, to name just a few.
So what we need in our next mayor is someone who will work to continue the progress we have made, provide stability, have a commitment to running an ethical government and ensure that all our neighbors can share in the District’s progress. What we don’t need is someone who castigates people in public hearings or grabs a quick headline, often without follow through. We need someone who understands how to work with all people, whether or not they agree with her; someone who after four years in the mayor’s office will be able to say, “We have continued to build our city and now it works better for everyone.” That candidate is Muriel Bowser.
Muriel understands our city as only a fifth generation Washingtonian can. She knows it still doesn’t work for everyone and grabbing headlines with a public hearing isn’t always the best way to help. Sometimes it’s working behind the scenes and getting government to work the way it is supposed to for the people. There are parts of our city that have been left out of the economic boom and many people still feel marginalized. In our booming metropolis there are people who are starving and homeless; many are illiterate. We need a mayor who will do the hard work and get government to focus on them — a mayor who has lived her entire life in the District supporting the principles of sharing and community involvement and who understands we can make a difference by bringing people together. That is Muriel Bowser.
The principles of community involvement and participation she lives were ingrained in Muriel by parents who believed in them and the principles of the Democratic Party. Her parents taught her to believe in equality for all; that working people deserve a chance to get ahead and earn their way into the middle class. That everyone should have a chance for the American dream and to reach their full potential, whatever that is. They taught her unions were there to help protect workers’ rights and that we all owe something to the community for what we are given.
She understood early that the principles espoused by the Republican Party weren’t hers, unlike her opponent, David Catania, who apparently only understood that when it became personal. As an adult and a Republican elected official he proudly called himself a ‘maverick’ and supported George W. Bush for president. The term didn’t describe someone being ‘independent,’ rather it meant he was in lock-step with the Republican Party raising more than $150,000 to help bring us the Bush/Cheney years.
I met Muriel when she first ran for Council and found out how smart, committed to public service and improving people’s lives she is. She has shown the depth of her understanding of government and our city. She knows how difficult it is to bring people together. She worked to pass the first real ethics bill in the Council when five of her colleagues introduced their own bills. It isn’t like passing a bill that most of your colleagues sign onto before hearings are even held as her opponent often did. She has the ability to work with communities across our city who don’t always agree on the right way to govern or even what they want from government. It means not working with developers on a plan and then bringing it to communities to endorse but rather doing what she is doing at the Walter Reed site in Ward 4 and setting up an advisory committee to see what neighbors want and then taking that to developers to see who could deliver it.
It is working from the bottom up, not the top down like David Catania likes to do. What he did with his recent education bills when he paid a law firm with money he raised from rich friends to write bills and then went to the community for comments. Chastising many in the process, including the chancellor, who suggested it would have been prudent to come to them before writing the legislation. But that wasn’t the way to grab a headline and not the way Catania likes to work.
When Muriel was elected to the Council she understood it was officially a part-time job but she took it as full time. Her achievements may not have had her author as many bills as her opponent but she achieved the goal of making government work more efficiently for her constituents and they rewarded her by re-electing her twice. Catania took the part-time part of his Council job seriously and has earned in the neighborhood of $2 million working for law firms and even a business that contracts with the District while serving as a Council member. He has always had more than one boss while working for the people of the District while Muriel’s only bosses are the people who elect her.
Recently, when workers from a local construction company, Baker D.C., approached the Council to ask it to sign a letter to their company asking them to meet and negotiate with workers, Catania was the only Council member who refused to sign. It was a stark reminder of where Catania really stands on issues. As reported in the Washington Post, “Catania has had a long relationship with the construction industry, most prominently by working as a vice president for non-union electrical contractor M.C. Dean until 2012. His political campaigns have enjoyed the support of firms active with Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group that has opposed ‘project labor agreements’ and other union-friendly measures.”
When questioned about not signing the letter Catania said, “I didn’t see the evidence of management frustrating the rights of workers.” So Catania took management’s side, which seems to be what his natural Republican tendencies dictate. He has also voted against sick leave for workers.
Many believe the two most important positions in the mayor’s cabinet are that of police chief and schools chancellor. Muriel has made a commitment to retain those currently in the jobs — Cathy Lanier at the MPD and Kaya Henderson at DCPS. She has spoken with them, asked them to stay and they have agreed to do so and work with her. If we are to continue to move forward on school reform, which is one of the main planks of Muriel’s platform, she understands that stability and continuity at DCPS are crucial. She also understands that people in different parts of the District view our police differently and is committed to working with Chief Lanier to have every resident in this city trust in the MPD. On the other hand, Catania has not said if he would reappoint either of them.
What we don’t need is a wholesale shake-up of government. The worst thing is leaving people and businesses with a feeling of instability. Whether it is the business community, parents, or those 1,000 people a month moving here, they want to know that the progress we have made will continue at a reliable and steady pace. Muriel has said she isn’t afraid to shake things up when that is the only way to make progress and in the case of Fire/EMS she is committed to doing that. But she has also spoken out about the progress we have made under Mayors Anthony Williams, Adrian Fenty and Vincent Gray and is committed to continuing that progress in an orderly and efficient way.
With Muriel we get a mayor who is ethically beyond reproach even though Catania will try anything to get you to believe otherwise. After 16 years on the Council, Catania is as tied to the power structure in the District as anyone else in office.
An example of Catania being comfortable with businesses being involved in local politics and making contributions to impact voting outcomes occurred during the time he worked for an M.C. Dean subsidiary — the same M.C. Dean that paid him $240,000 a year until he left that job when considering a run for mayor. A letter in the Loudoun Times and a column in the Washington Post outlined the following, “From 2005 to 2011 he worked as in-house Counsel for their subsidiary OpenBand, LLC, which operates broadband communications networks. At the time his Chief of staff also took a job with OpenBand, LLC. Both were there when M.C. Dean, of which OpenBand, LLC is a subsidiary, and its executives gave more than $35,000 in contributions to candidates vying for seats on the Loudoun Board of Supervisors according to Virginia Public Access Project (VPAP) records. Records show that tens of thousands more have gone to General Assembly candidates and political action committees, supporting candidates who could vote on contracts for either M.C. Dean or OpenBand, LLC.”
Then the Washington City Paper in 2008 reported that while Catania was on the D.C. Council and working quietly to help Patrick Mara defeat fellow Council member Carol Schwartz, (full disclosure: I supported Mara), “his employer was also raising money for Patrick Mara and was one of the prime funders of the Citizens for Empowerment PAC that sent out Schwartz attack mailers.”
When Catania doubled his salary at M.C. Dean in 2011 one of the first things he had to do after taking that job was to recuse himself from the vote on the Electrician’s Equality Act of 2011 passed by the D.C. Council when he should have been able to speak out on the bill and cast a vote to represent the constituents that elected him. This is a clear example of why having an outside job, especially with a company that has a contract with the District, is wrong.
Muriel is committed to hiring a cabinet that will function under strict ethics rules and will issue an executive order to see that all city workers understand their roles and pledge to serve the people ethically.
With Muriel we get a mayor who can work with the people in every ward and who respects everyone. She won’t denigrate or talk down to those who may disagree with her. We need a mayor who understands both the old and new Washington and has the ability to bring them together. Muriel Bowser will be that mayor.
Then there are both the tangibles and intangibles that come with electing a Democrat. While it isn’t my main reason for supporting Muriel it definitely went into my decision process. At a recent fundraiser for John Tierney (D-Mass.) my good friend, former Congressman Barney Frank said it best, “Being a Democrat means standing for something.” It means working for and with people. It means working toward immigration reform; LGBT civil and human rights; and the right for women to have equal pay, full equality and control of their own bodies. It means supporting workers and unions and building the middle class. It means demanding that all people have the right to vote. While clearly not all these issues are directly related to running the District government, having a Democrat as the mayor of our nation’s capital says to people in no uncertain terms, these are the things the people of the District stand for. It also calls into question which principles of the Democratic Party David Catania is so uncomfortable with. A recent Washington Post column reported that when asked why he became an independent and not a Democrat after leaving the Republican Party, he responded, “I have been in one bad marriage and I’m not about to jump into another.”
There is another way in which electing Bowser could benefit our city and the nation. Many believe in 2016 we will elect our first woman president, a Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton. To the District it could mean that our next mayor, Bowser, can play a direct role in making that happen. She will be a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention and can cast her vote for Hillary. As a young woman she will be able to speak out not only for equality in our city, but for making the nation a place where everyone has an equal chance to get ahead. Muriel Bowser will have access to power and the better ability to make the case for the people of the District for independence. She will work closely with our champion on the Hill, Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, to move the issues of the District forward. Muriel will have access that no Republican or independent could ever have.
For so many reasons I urge everyone to cast their ballot for Muriel Bowser for mayor on Nov. 4.
Opinions
University students have a right to protest
But they must not threaten Jewish students on campus
I support the right of students at Columbia University, and other colleges, to protest. They must understand they are protesting on private space. What I also find interesting is how many of them see their right to protest, and right to free speech.
The First Amendment gives us a right to free speech, but it doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law, has been left to the courts. Clearly free speech has its limits. Obscene material such as child pornography, plagiarism of copyrighted material, defamation, or threats, aren’t allowed. Also not protected under the First Amendment is speech inciting illegal actions, or soliciting others to commit crimes. Private employers, and universities, are allowed to set their own guidelines as to what speech is allowed for their employees, and on their campuses.
The debate over student protests at Columbia University is not a new one. I remember when the Student Afro Society (SAS) and the basically all-white Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), demonstrated and took over buildings at Columbia in 1968. Some were protesting the Vietnam War, others what they deemed would be a segregated gym in Morningside Heights, and Columbia’s infringement on a minority community. Both legitimate causes. Those demonstrations took a nasty turn when students took over buildings and cut off water and electricity to them. They held a sit-in, in the president’s office, and took a dean hostage. Police were called and in some cases it got violent. We are not at the 1968 stage yet in the current demonstrations, and if outside agitators don’t get involved, it may not get to that.
I agree with some of what the demonstrators are calling for, including having Israel rethink how it is conducting this war, protection for the Palestinian people, and immediately providing them with food and medicine. I don’t agree with their call to support BDS, which is the disinvestment in Israel. BDS is a Palestinian non-violent movement begun in 2005. I also see hypocrisy in what some of the protesters are saying. While they claim Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, which many disagree with, the same people are calling for genocide against Israel by supporting Hamas. It is Hamas’s stated goal to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, “from the river to the sea.”
Calling out Israel for its tactics, is not anti-Semitic. But attacking, and calling out Jewish students on campus, telling them to go back to Poland, which we have seen on video, and making them feel unsafe, is. Then there is the totally outrageous statement, “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” made by Khymani James, one of the student leaders of the Columbia, pro-Palestinian student protest encampment. He made the comments during and after a disciplinary hearing with Columbia administrators that he recorded and then posted on Instagram. I hope the president of Columbia University will be able to negotiate an agreement with the peaceful student demonstrators, including amnesty for some of those students who were arrested, if the students agree to certain parameters for continuing demonstrations. One being they cannot make other students feel unsafe on campus.
I find it abhorrent that House Speaker Mike Johnson has inserted himself at Columbia University, calling for President Shafik to quit. It is a totally inappropriate political stunt. The same goes for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) who called for the Biden administration to revoke the student visas of all foreign students who are demonstrating. Those students came to the United States for an education, because we are a free country. If they agree to the guidelines of the university, and what is recognized as acceptable free speech, we should continue to welcome them, and allow them to voice their feelings. Again, as long as they don’t threaten others while they do so.
I am Jewish, and a strong supporter of the State of Israel. That support has not stopped me from calling on the Israeli people to rid themselves of Netanyahu, and his right-wing government. I oppose the settlements, and support a real two-state solution. But for that to happen not only will the Netanyahu government have to go, but the Palestinian people will have to reject Hamas. I have not heard the call for Hamas to release the hostages they took, whether those hostages are alive or dead at this time.
I strongly believe in the right to protest, and for Americans, and those here legally, to speak out. In 1969, I came to D.C. to protest the Vietnam War in front of the Justice Department and was tear-gassed. I had a right to protest in a public space. Since that time, I have participated in many demonstrations. Some around the White House supporting rights for the disabled community, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, and in the ‘80s, demanding the government recognize, and do something about HIV/AIDS. The difference was in these demonstrations, those who disagreed were not threatened. The demonstrations I participated in, took place in public space, not the quad at Columbia University, or other university campuses, which is private space. Students who protest there must understand that.
My hope is none of the peaceful student demonstrators at Columbia, and other institutions, those who do not threaten fellow students, are thrown out, losing the chance to earn a degree. Those students chose to go to their schools because they thought they would get a good education, and believed graduating from those schools would be good for their futures.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
Opinions
Successful open relationships take effort
We have options as couples but they all require work
(Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part feature on open relationships. Click here for last week’s installment.)
Open relationships are often ridiculed as the easy way out of commitment. After speaking with Scott and Kelsey, however, it’s clear they’re anything but easy.
Kelsey reflected on the ups and downs of being open in the past. “Younger me definitely needed it,” Kelsey said. “At the same time, drama came with it as well.”
While Scott and their partner have been together for nine years, it took four before they decided to open their relationship. “It came from the desire for the two of us to meet boys together,” said Scott. “Then we had some really terrible threesomes.”
Drama. Bad threesomes. Yikes – these aren’t exactly selling points for being open. But their experiences underscore something important: open relationships, like all relationships, are actually quite hard. Couples considering openness shouldn’t trick themselves into thinking it will make things easier. In reality, they take a lot of work.
For Scott, those really terrible threesomes led them to opening up further, but with established boundaries. “We came up with ground rules. Use protection. No spending the night at somebody’s house, etc.”
Since Scott and their partner are happy in their relationship, these rules seem to work even if they’ve shifted over time. “Being in an open relationship comes down to being really good at communicating with your partner,” they added. “It’s about communicating and checking in to see where your partner is.”
Open relationships should be for the right reasons
As open relationships began taking off, observers were skeptical for good reason. “In the past, people were just cheating,” said Kelsey. Another comment from Scott echoed this. “I’ve seen open relationships and it felt like one partner was being taken advantage of by the other.”
It turns out there is a fine line between sexual exploration and free passes. While some open relationships walk that line well, others – not so much.
In all fairness, now more than ever it’s difficult to remain monogamous, and one culprit is the rise of accessible hookup culture via social media. Apps like Tinder, Grindr, and dare I say Instagram are facilitating secret sexual connections never seen before. They ushered in a new era of cheating into relationships, alongside a bit of excessive stalking as well.
So, to avoid an atmosphere of mistrust and pain, a natural evolution for couples is to change the rules altogether. Cheating can’t be cheating if it’s allowed, right?
However, once it is allowed, I wondered why these people don’t cut the strings altogether and be single. In response, Chad made an interesting point: people aren’t just afraid of being cheated on – they’re afraid of the appearance of being single as well. We live in flashy times where our online image means everything. The dream is not necessarily having a partner, but showing the world you have a partner. Without that, you otherwise appear lonely.
So, do open relationships ease the pain of cheating and perceived loneliness? As a proud lone wolf I’m not the best person to assess, but based on my observations I can say this: being open works for some couples, but by no means is it a fast pass to being happy. Understanding why you want one is just as important as discovering how to make one work.
With all this said, the undeniable risk – and perhaps downside – of a monogamous coupling is the higher chance of cheating outright. Unfortunately, that’s something Chad knows all too well.
Preferring monogamy is still OK
Chad had dated someone for two years before they married for five. Then, just over a year into the pandemic, his husband informed him he was dating someone else. They separated a few days later.
For Chad this was painful, as it is for anyone, gay or straight, who’s gone through something similar. But when I asked him if this experience shaped his outlook on what he’s looking for, his response came as a bit of a surprise:
“It has not changed my view for or against open relationships,” he said. “I learned a lot in my marriage. It takes a lot of love, trust, and communication, which at times can feel like work. It also takes two; one can’t carry the relationship. I want to date someone who wants to be in a relationship with me.”
My heart swells hearing that, for even after experiencing the deepest kind of hurt, Chad searches for his one and only. Why? Because for him, the love he’s looking for is worth the wait. It’s a beautiful sentiment that makes so-called hopeless romanticism the raddest feeling in the world sometimes.
More importantly, Chad doesn’t let fear alter his view on love, and to me that’s the most important lesson of this article. Love always comes with risks, and lowering your standards to reduce them never really pans out, does it? The best we can do is to be ourselves.
By the way, this is a lesson I should also apply. My main hesitation toward an open relationship is that I’m a jealous bitch, and I fear that jealousy will never go away. Yet this can be hard to admit when everyone around you is propping up a culture where open is supreme and jealousy is immature.
When I brought this up to Kelsey, she pushed back with a simple question: “Do you think jealousy is a bad thing?”
This caught me off guard. “I’m not sure,” I replied. “Do you?”
“Jealousy is a natural, human emotion,” she said. “It’s what you do with it that matters.”
So, maybe my goal is not to suppress my jealousy but rather be upfront about it. If it’s part of me, I should own it, then ideally find someone who loves me regardless.
Changing your mind is OK, too
In gay man speak, I was a top for my first seven years before I embraced bottoming. For some, they’d be shocked to hear it. Yet maybe no one should be surprised, for as we all know sexuality is fluid, and this applies to more than just your orientation. Your sexual preferences can shift over time, too, and this will inevitably affect your relationships.
This was the case for Scott and their partner. “When we first started dating, we did not want to be open,” they mentioned, “but as our relationship grew, we decided to reevaluate that.” Meanwhile, Kelsey went the opposite direction – she was open back in the day but chooses to be closed now.
Even Chad remains open to being open. “I’m not opposed to an open relationship, but I feel like it would take more work. I just don’t see myself starting a relationship open. The first few years there is a lot of learning about each other.”
In a world of shifting preferences, the best we can do is reflect on what we want and be honest about it. Life is a process of discovering who we are, and damn is it messy. So, perhaps I should cut some slack to the couple trying things out. And perhaps they can cut me slack for not understanding their rules.
For the couples: remember, a solid relationship is not only about meeting the needs of your partner, because your needs matter, too. The best relationships, open or closed, strive to find that balance.
For those still searching: remember that love is more than just that thing, that connection, that spark. In fact, love is so complex that the “spark” is just one of many factors, alongside timing and how you want to be loved, that come together and form an imprint as unique and special as the person you want to be with.
In this sense, open and closed relationships aren’t diametrically opposed but rather complimentary, a sort of yin and yang where both become better because the other option exists. Today, we have options as couples, and that’s significantly better than abiding by rules because we assume that’s how it must be.
And that feels right. Because regardless of whether you’re more a Chad or a Scott, the truth is: I feel lucky to have both.
(Writer’s note: A big thank you you to Chad, Scott, and Kelsey for allowing me to share their stories.)
Jake Stewart is a D.C.-based writer and barback.
Opinions
Fact: The next president will be Biden or Trump
One candidate is clearly better for the future of the world
Like it or not, the next president will be either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. In our system, third-party candidates are simply spoilers, they don’t win. The last time a third-party candidate won was 1856. It has been 36 years since a third-party candidate even got more than 5% of the vote. So, it’s time to face reality and choose; for your future, do you want Biden or Trump?
I was prompted to write this column because I see the media interviewing young people about who they want as their president. I have great respect for the young people of today. In many ways, they are smarter than my generation was. But it’s clear, some don’t fully understand the presidential election process. I hear many complain about Biden, and then follow that up and say they will never vote for Trump. Some then say they will vote for a third-party candidate. They need to understand their third-party candidate will not win, but their vote could help elect Trump. I hate to say it, but in 2024, voting for a third-party candidate is the equivalent to flushing your ballot down the toilet.
I am an unabashed Biden supporter. I see the great things he has done, including: getting us through the fallout from the pandemic, passing an infrastructure bill, forgiving billions in student loans, ensuring our economy is the best in the world with more than 13 million jobs created, and increasing wages. He supports unions, being the first president to walk a picket line with the UAW. His administration is working to deal with climate change. He is fighting for a woman’s right to control her own body and healthcare, and supports full equality for the LGBTQ community. In this dangerous world he has kept our troops out of war.
Then there is Trump. To be clear; I see him as a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, pig. OK, so maybe I don’t have strong feelings about him. Trump has been found liable for sexual assault and has been indicted on 91 counts. He proudly claims credit for having taken away control of their body and healthcare from women, when the justices he appointed ended Roe v. Wade. He supports states making decisions on abortion, and we see what recently happened in Arizona. He is a climate change denier and is opposed to wind and solar power. He wants to give more tax deductions to the rich and to corporations, while opposing any increase in the minimum wage. He opposes equality for the LGBTQ community, refusing to endorse the Equality Act. He opposes student debt relief.
You may see these candidates differently, and that is OK. But if you like one more than the other, fear one more than the other, or just aren’t enamored by either, you must still make a choice and vote for one of them. Staying home is abrogating your civic responsibility, and especially if you would never vote for Trump, understand your staying home helps him.
Young voters, like all voters, should take the time to do the research on both candidates. Then match what you find as close as possible to what you want to see as your future. If you want student loan relief, equality for the LGBTQ community, women having control of their body and healthcare, equal pay for women, efforts to ameliorate the impact of climate change, then clearly Trump is not your candidate.
I hear some young people say they won’t vote for Biden because of his positions on the Israel/Hamas war. I, too, have called for Israel to recalibrate how they fight this war. But I ask you to look again at Trump’s history of attachment to Netanyahu, even going so far as relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. If you want a chance for the Palestinian people to live in peace and prosperity, for Israel to remove their settlements from the West Bank, your chance of having that happen is clearly better with Biden than Trump. Don’t let your emotions today, cloud the reality of the future.
Yes, Biden is old, but so is Trump. He apparently can’t even stay awake at his own trial having nodded off two days in a row. So, since one of them will be president, with no third-party candidate having a chance, I urge you to look at them again, in a realistic way. Then make your choice. I think you may come to the same conclusion I have. Though not perfect, and no one is, Biden is the better candidate for your future, and for the future of the world.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
University students have a right to protest
Former CAMP Rehoboth official sentenced to nine months in prison
Christian Siriano to serve as grand marshal of Annapolis Pride Parade
Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
