Opinions
Say no to Mara: Vote against hypocrisy
Reject Council candidate who backs anti-gay GOP
Republican Patrick Mara has announced another run for Council-at-Large in the District. I endorsed Mara in a 2008 race to elect a non-Democrat to the Council. During that race many overlooked his Republican views because he was running for a seat on the Council that had to go to a non-Democrat and supporters hoped if he won he would fight for the citizens of D.C. Mara is a very genial guy, great to have a meal or drink with. With that being said there is absolutely no reason for the people of the District to vote for him today and plenty of reasons not to.
Mara talks government reform and the need for honesty and ethics in government, but how can you trust what he says — or know what reforms he would actually support — given the hypocrisy of his support for ultra-conservative Republicans diametrically opposed to what he claims to believe.
Mara actively supports ultra-conservative Republican Party candidates who espouse policies that would harm women, minorities and the LGBT community in D.C. He actively supported Mitt Romney, who believed 47 percent of the American people were takers (including veterans, seniors and the unemployed). Further, Romney claimed that President Obama’s support of issues such as marriage equality, the Dream Act and healthcare for all Americans were simply gifts meant to win a campaign.
Mara was a delegate to the Republican National Convention and actively supported the Romney/Ryan ticket with their all-out war on women and the LGBT community. In fact, Mara was gleeful when blogging from the RNC Convention in Tampa, Fla., including such fun tidbits as, “If you didn’t see Ann Romney last night, you missed a great speech; One of those rare moments when the stage isn’t occupied by a seasoned politician.” Or this one, “The best event of the day was “Nuestra Noche” (sponsored by the American Conservative Union) in Ybor City. Sen. Marco Rubio, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Tagg Romney appeared; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was a no-show.”
Having fun at a convention is fine and part of what a convention is about. But blogging about being excited by Republican politicians and organizations, such as the American Conservative Union, which are incredibly out of touch with the needs of D.C. voters, is another thing.
Mara tells anyone who will listen that he doesn’t agree with the Republican Party platform and personally favors marriage equality and full civil rights for the LGBT community and that he is pro-choice. In doing so, he asks us to overlook his active support for candidates and a party that don’t believe those things. He asks us to overlook his support and work for a party that forced the District to stop spending its own money on needed and legal abortions for poor women; his work for a party whose candidates had as their stated mission to shut down Planned Parenthood; his work for a party whose candidates signed a pledge from the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage promising to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; and his work for the candidates who opposed a woman’s right to choose. And, truth be told, none of this is new for Mara.
In 2004, when even the Log Cabin Republicans took a principled position to not endorse George Bush for reelection because he opposed gay rights, Mara obviously felt that was not an issue important enough to him and he endorsed Bush. Neither did he consider it important enough that Bush was against D.C. voting rights and said if a D.C. voting rights bill reached his desk he would veto it.
Now Mara wants the support of the people of the District, including Latinos, the LGBT community and women. But why would anyone in those communities support him? Even if voters forgive him the Bush endorsement as old politics, what about this year’s endorsement and work for the Romney/Ryan ticket?
For years, Republican politicians in the District have suggested they should be supported because they will then influence the policies of their party. It is the height of hypocrisy to ask voters to continue to believe that nonsense. With their (and Mara’s) supposed influence over the years, the party has gotten even worse on issues related to women, the poor, minorities and the LGBT community. You can’t influence a party if you support and work for its candidates that have adopted a litany of positions you say you disagree with. And with the city in the best financial shape in years — and the envy of most states — you also can’t claim you are running to correct the economic policies of the city.
Many voters have not yet made up their mind on who to support for this at-large Council seat. I would suggest that one person not deserving of your vote or support for these and other reasons is Patrick Mara.
Mara owns a consulting firm; sits on the school board as a representative of Ward One; and has a stake in Meridian Pint, a popular neighborhood pub. It seems he has plenty to do without sitting on the D.C. Council. I wince when he claims he is a more moral and ethical politician than others on the Council or those running. Ethics must be a real consideration when voting, but there is a huge ethical issue when someone claims to have one set of positions yet actively supports candidates with positions diametrically opposed to them.
Voting for Mara would reward a D.C. Republican, who when the chips were down and the country’s and the District’s future was on the line, disregarded his claimed beliefs and fell in line to support Mitt Romney for president.
That is not only unethical behavior but the height of hypocrisy. There are a host of candidates running who have been much more consistent in standing up for what they say they believe and who haven’t waivered in their fight for all the people of the District.
Commentary
Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties
Inaccurate media reports create confusion but we stand with our colleagues
Last week, President Trump announced his unconstitutional ban of CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House. Coincidentally, on Monday, it was the Washington Blade’s turn to serve as the print pool reporter on duty covering the president’s actions that day. This important responsibility is shared and rotated among the print members with each serving roughly once per month. The Blade is the only LGBTQ outlet with a seat in the briefing room, a slot in the pool rotation, and membership in the White House Correspondents’ Association, something we fought for decades to secure after enduring years of discrimination, ridicule, and resistance to openly queer journalists working inside the White House. We take our responsibilities there seriously.
There are two pools that cover the president: broadcast and print. The other four members of the broadcast pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News — agreed to boycott their pool duties. There has been no boycott among the print pool, which is a separate entity. I called the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association on Monday to confirm that no outlets in the print pool were boycotting.
A boycott by the Blade would set us back and lead to our expulsion from the pool and briefing room and our replacement by a right-wing outlet sympathetic to President Trump’s approach to attacking the media. The LGBTQ community is far better served with the Blade in the room than a far-right blogger taking our seat.
Let’s be clear: the Blade stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion and we stand for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. In solidarity with the broadcast pool, we made two important decisions on Monday — the first day anyone had to think about any of this. First, we refused to take or share any videos or still photos of the president, which would have undermined the broadcast boycott. Second, when Politico’s turn comes up for pool duty in mid-October, the Blade will not fill in and cover for them while they are banned. Politico must be readmitted and allowed to do their job.
After a rough day navigating and reporting on all of this, the Advocate published a reckless and inaccurate story suggesting that the Blade had crossed a picket line. Not true, as there is no print pool boycott. They claimed that I wouldn’t talk to their reporter. Also not true. I called their reporter within 90 minutes of receiving his message and he didn’t take the call or call me back. Their story named me and our White House reporter, immediately exposing us to public criticism and worse. The environment in D.C. is so toxic and even violent these days that subjecting our staff to unfair and false accusations like this invites harassment, doxxing, and worse. To do that without even talking to us is next level irresponsible and the antithesis of journalism.
On Tuesday, I talked to two reporters and an editor at the Advocate but they refused to retract anything in their inaccurate story. If the reporter had returned my call, I could have explained all of this but they are more concerned with clickbait and sensational headlines, a dangerous practice in these troubled times.
Back to the pool. The Blade was in the briefing room in the Reagan era, when Press Secretary Larry Speakes made jokes about AIDS and the reporters in the room laughed out loud. We endured all of that abuse and worse for decades, always standing in the back of the room and never being called on. The Blade’s journalists persevered. When President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Blade’s White House credentials were revoked amid an earlier press crackdown. Notably, no one boycotted or stood up for us. When Barack Obama won election in 2008, I received an email from his communications director informing me that effective midnight on Jan. 20, 2009, the Blade’s credentials would be restored.
So we have had quite a ride navigating administrations and their changing requirements for gaining access but always playing the long game. As Barney Frank used to say, “If you’re not at the table, then you’re probably on the menu.” The Blade is at the table and we do our best to ensure the LGBTQ community’s issues are addressed by both parties.
Thanks for reading and supporting the Blade’s work. If you have questions about our approach, you can reach me at [email protected].
Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].
Opinions
Young people should know history of the fight for human rights
Trump is working to erase contributions of marginalized people
When talking with otherwise really smart young people, I am amazed how little knowledge many of them have about the fight for human rights in the United States. Our country was founded by white men, who didn’t think about giving full rights to Black Americans, women, the LGBTQ community (what they knew of it, or called it). They wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that referred to all white men, and intentionally didn’t mention women. For 250 years, the country has been trying to make up for that, and making progress in fits and starts. We have yet to fully succeed. Today the felon, and his fascist aides, in the White House, are working daily to take us backwards.
For that reason alone, it is important for younger generations to understand the fight for human rights, know who was fighting for those rights, and understand it is an ongoing fight. Often, when listening to some millennials speak, one would think the world began with them. They either forgot, or never learned, about all those who fought for the rights they now have. I realize this was true for previous generations as well. In 2016 I co-hosted a fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg during his run for president. He is an undeniably brilliant guy. Yet when he spoke of marriage equality, he just thanked Justice Kennedy for it. I reminded him after he spoke, while it’s nice to thank Kennedy for his vote, it shouldn’t be done without acknowledging the many activists who worked for decades, to get to the point that allowed Kennedy to cast that vote. In the same way it was clear to me during the Hillary Clinton campaign for president, many young women didn’t understand the work many of their own mothers had done, to fight for their right to control their own healthcare, and women’s rights in general. They took for granted the rights they had. Now, after losing some of them, many will realize the fight for their rights is never-ending.
When I speak to younger members of the LGBTQ community, I am amazed how many don’t know the history of the AIDS epidemic, many thinking it was always a disease you could deal with by taking medication. They don’t understand the work so many activists did to bring attention to this devastating disease, and get the healthcare so many needed. Those like Cleve Jones, Larry Kramer, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and so many others. Recently, I realized how many young women don’t know the names of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Bella Abzug — women who fought for their rights. And this is just recent history, no less knowing about the Suffragettes, the strong women who fought for their right to vote. I’ve met young women who don’t know what the ERA is, and others who think it passed. Many don’t know the nation couldn’t get 38 states to approve an amendment to include them in the Constitution. The same for young members of the LGBTQ community who don’t know what the Equality Act is. Others think it passed, and are shocked when told it didn’t and in 27 states, they can be married on Sunday, and kicked out of their home, and fired from their job, on Monday. They don’t know names like Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Barney Frank, or the history of the Mattachine Society, or the Stonewall Riots.
Our current president is trying to wipe out all this history, and reverse any progress that has been made. Knowing this, it makes it even more important for school systems across the nation to fight to educate our children. We should ensure no child can graduate high school, without taking a course called “The 250-year fight for human rights in the United States.” They need to understand the history, and learn about the people who fought for their rights. They need to know how far we have come in 250 years, and understand, as we begin the next 250, how far we still have to go, to ensure real, full equality, for all.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Commentary
What LGBTQ veterans are building after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
DADT repeal took effect on Sept. 20, 2011. Trans servicemember ban reinstated
Fifteen years ago this month, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” took effect. At the time, the importance of the change was obvious: gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans would no longer have to hide who they were to wear the uniform. What was harder to see was what would follow: a generation of LGBTQ veterans able to carry their service openly into American civic life.
Earlier this month, Alaska state Rep. Andrew Gray, an Army veteran, stood before the Anchorage Assembly and asked the city to recognize Sept. 20 as LGBTQ Veterans Day.
His former command sergeant major, Mike Grunst, followed him to the microphone. A 35-year veteran who had served in combat, Grunst called troops who had served while hiding who they were “the bravest I have ever served with.”
Then Denise Sudbeck stepped forward. A Vietnam-era Navy veteran, she thanked the country for the privilege of serving and asked that the next generation have the same chance.
The Assembly approved the recognition.
Nothing about the scene required a new vocabulary. A veteran made a request of his community. A commander vouched for those who served beside him. Another veteran asked that younger Americans inherit the opportunity she valued. They entered the civic record simply as veterans.
That identity can do more than win recognition.
When federal policy abruptly ended the careers of transgender servicemembers this year, veterans and servicemembers in California began asking a practical question: What happens when those Americans come home?
Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gonzalez, a Marine combat veteran, began one hearing with questions about transgender military service. He listened as veterans explained how the military handles medical care and deployment case by case.
Then the discussion turned to separation.
“I don’t wanna see any veteran homeless,” Gonzalez said. Before the hearing ended, he was asking: “How can I help? How can I understand? How can I be a good advocate?”
The legislation that followed would provide housing, employment and transition assistance to discharged servicemembers. Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove spoke for it. The Senate passed it 32 to 0.
Americans have plainly not settled their disagreements over transgender people. Nor should military service be a prerequisite for rights that belong to every citizen.
But military service creates relationships that are difficult to reduce to the abstractions of the culture war. Before a legislature, “the transgender issue” can become a veteran who deployed, an officer who led troops, or the person who once stood beside you.
The political question changes because the human relationship has already changed.
The pattern is beginning to appear across the country. Kansas is among the states recognizing LGBTQ Veterans Day for the first time this year. New York and Virginia are pursuing broader state-level programs for LGBTQ veterans.
Sept. 20 is deliberate. On that day in 2011, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ended.
We usually remember repeal for what LGBTQ Americans gained: the ability to serve openly. Fifteen years later, we can also see what the country gained.
A gay veteran can stand before his local government beside the commander who once led him. A transgender servicemember can sit before a legislator who begins with doubts and ends by asking how he can help. A veteran from an older generation can ask her neighbors to give those who follow her the same chance to serve.
This is citizenship in practice.
The enduring legacy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is not only that Americans were finally allowed to serve openly. It is also what they can now build after coming home.
